No2Atheism:

, thank God at least these Atheist keep proving to the public that they are now coming out of the closet , by making public their Hero Worship,

Good to know that the Cult of Atheism, Evolution and Environmentalism, is in full swing, at least right now we know they now have 200 years of organised Atheistic religion,

Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free, (from what), lies of evolution, missing missing-links and organised religion known as Atheism.

Thank God for Christ, at least each man is now gradually going to his own tent, those for God should stand for Him , while those for Atheism have being doing so even in the face of contradictory scientific evidence.

Horus:

Charles Darwin was himself a racist, referring to native Africans and Australians, for example, as savages.

No2Atheism:

@Horus, by the way, off course history shows that Atheism and Evolution were at the foundation of the genocides committed against the black race, the number and extent of genocide committed against the black man in the name of evolution is ming-bungling, the German/Jewish Holocaust pales into insignificance when compared to what has  been done to the black man and what is still being done. One simply has to question the sanity of the kind of mind that can look at someone and then just declare based on skin color that one is a beast , while another is a beauty in evolutionary terms.
it even becomes more ridiculous when one considers that White men are even scientifically genetically inferior to the black man (their attributes are recessive when compared to the genes of the black man) hence why they are plagued with a myriad of medical and ageing problems that sound ridiculous when compared to how healthy your average black man is genetically.

Evolutions (most of whom were all White men in the beginning by the way) claimed that Blacks (Native Australians, Africans and some Native Americans (yes there we blacks native to America even before columbus dreamt of making the journey)).

Before i used to question why did God Almighty say that even future generations get punished for the sins of their fathers, I came to understand that statement recently, because I realised that:

1. Present day Whites are actually actively benefitting from the fruits of the genocides and robbery committed by the fore fathers on Native Americans, Native Australians and Africans, hence it does not really matter whether or not they pretend not to support what happened in the past and neither does it really matter that they pretend not to benefit, the truth still remains that they are benefiting from the bloodshed against Blacks (Native Australians, Africans and some Native Americans) on the basis of Evolution and Greed.

2. People who support and believe in Evolution are invariably and indirectly saying that they believe in the foundation evolution, simply because if the foundation of evolution is not true (i.e. man developed from beast, hence blacks are closer to beast) then it means everything evolution stands for crumbles to the ground. Hence invariably also it means that those people who beleive that foundation also end up being qualified for the wrath of God as spoken about punishing future generations for the sins of the father.

3. History of Ancient Black civilisations (Egypt, Olmecs, Nubia etc) shows that their contact with "Caucus mountain cave dwelling white men, were usually not destructive to the race of white men ,despite that the opportunity was there, yet current history shows that hundreds of millions of people (mostly black men) were either wiped out or completely robbed and subjucated whenever they come in contact with White men, (goes to show that the colours of the skin is completely different from the colour of the heart) (Some Native American people and Native Australian people were completely wiped out upon contact with White men ,  who simply wanted to take over their land and resources while at the same time using evolution as a excuse).

It is funny that a long time ago ,  when people were still deceived and ignorant, the bible was used to justify genocide and robbery of blacks , however once people stated realising that the bible was against it, some white men obvious had to find refuge in the development of evolution so that any inhibition brought about by the bible can simply be overcome via the use of the "survival of the fitest theory of evolution",

All that can be said is that its unfortunate that so many people are being condemned to eternal suffering in the lake of fire,  and are also being subjected to present day deception and delusion by the theories (conflicting versions) of evolution which says "A Frog can indeed turn into a Man" (so long as you give it millions of years to evolve into different missing links which themselves have remained missing   )

No2Atheism:

@Horus, by the way, off course history shows that Atheism and Evolution were at the foundation of the genocides committed against the black race, the number and extent of genocide committed against the black man in the name of evolution is ming-bungling, the German/Jewish Holocaust pales into insignificance when compared to what has  been done to the black man and what is still being done. One simply has to question the sanity of the kind of mind that can look at someone and then just declare based on skin color that one is a beast , while another is a beauty in evolutionary terms.
it even becomes more ridiculous when one considers that White men are even scientifically genetically inferior to the black man (their attributes are recessive when compared to the genes of the black man) hence why they are plagued with a myriad of medical and ageing problems that sound ridiculous when compared to how healthy your average black man is genetically.

Evolutions (most of whom were all White men in the beginning by the way) claimed that Blacks (Native Australians, Africans and some Native Americans (yes there we blacks native to America even before columbus dreamt of making the journey)).

Before i used to question why did God Almighty say that even future generations get punished for the sins of their fathers, I came to understand that statement recently, because I realised that:

1. Present day Whites are actually actively benefitting from the fruits of the genocides and robbery committed by the fore fathers on Native Americans, Native Australians and Africans, hence it does not really matter whether or not they pretend not to support what happened in the past and neither does it really matter that they pretend not to benefit, the truth still remains that they are benefiting from the bloodshed against Blacks (Native Australians, Africans and some Native Americans) on the basis of Evolution and Greed.

2. People who support and believe in Evolution are invariably and indirectly saying that they believe in the foundation evolution, simply because if the foundation of evolution is not true (i.e. man developed from beast, hence blacks are closer to beast) then it means everything evolution stands for crumbles to the ground. Hence invariably also it means that those people who beleive that foundation also end up being qualified for the wrath of God as spoken about punishing future generations for the sins of the father.

3. History of Ancient Black civilisations (Egypt, Olmecs, Nubia etc) shows that their contact with "Caucus mountain cave dwelling white men, were usually not destructive to the race of white men ,despite that the opportunity was there, yet current history shows that hundreds of millions of people (mostly black men) were either wiped out or completely robbed and subjucated whenever they come in contact with White men, (goes to show that the colours of the skin is completely different from the colour of the heart) (Some Native American people and Native Australian people were completely wiped out upon contact with White men , who simply wanted to take over their land and resources while at the same time using evolution as a excuse).

It is funny that a long time ago , when people were still deceived and ignorant, the bible was used to justify genocide and robbery of blacks , however once people stated realising that the bible was against it, some white men obvious had to find refuge in the development of evolution so that any inhibition brought about by the bible can simply be overcome via the use of the "survival of the fitest theory of evolution",

All that can be said is that its unfortunate that so many people are being condemned to eternal suffering in the lake of fire, and are also being subjected to present day deception and delusion by the theories (conflicting versions) of evolution which says "A Frog can indeed turn into a Man" (so long as you give it millions of years to evolve into different missing links which themselves have remained missing   )

Horus:

It seems a little ironic, that Charles Darwin and most of the white people deem themselves genetically superior with the oxymoron of white supremacy. There is nothing supreme about a genetic defect. White people are merely mutated inbred albinos. This alone adds credence to them being an inferior stock. To feel better about themselves they develop totally senseless propaganda to flatter them and to make they feel better about their genetic condition at the expense of people of color.

huxley:

There are two levels of illogicality and inanity here and am not surprised in the least. This is exactly what to expect from superstitious irrationalist like yourself. Let's address them:

Firstly, a scientific theory does not make any metaphysical statements. It simply deals with facts and theories. The Theory of Evolutions makes no claims at all about racial inferiority or superiority. For your claim to have any weight, you MUST show how TTE implies racisms.

Secondly, where on earth did Darwin's personal view imply he was racist? Where is the evidence for this?

huxley:

The Theory of Evolution will be 150 years old later this years. When the bible narrates the killing of thousands (maybe millions) of Ethiopians was this barbaric massacre inspired by TTE?

Horus:


[size=18pt]Charles Darwin's Racism[/size]

One of the most important yet least-known aspects of Darwin is his racism: Darwin regarded white Europeans as more "advanced" than other human races. While Darwin presumed that man evolved from ape-like creatures, he surmised that some races developed more than others and that the latter still bore simian features. In his book, The Descent of Man, which he published after The Origin of Species, he boldly commented on "the greater differences between men of distinct races".1 In his book, Darwin held blacks and Australian Aborigines to be equal to gorillas and then inferred that these would be "done away with" by the "civilised races" in time. He said:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,  will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.2 
Darwin's nonsensical ideas were not only theorised, but also brought into a position where they provided the most important "scientific ground" for racism. Supposing that living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called "Social Darwinism.
Supposing that living beings evolved in the struggle for life, Darwinism was even adapted to the social sciences, and turned into a conception that came to be called "Social Darwinism".
Social Darwinism contends that existing human races are located at different rungs of the "evolutionary ladder", that the European races were the most "advanced" of all, and that many other races still bear "simian" features.

Source: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter3.php

No2Atheism:


@toneyb
     

No2Atheism:

@huxley,
1. , unfortunately your comments show that you have ignored the context of my post concerning how Atheism and Evolution have contributed to worst possible genocides known to man ,  yet probably not spoken about in the media (yes i mean the nausating genocide against Native Americans, Africans, Native Australians just to mention a few), hence the time frame context is actually related to recent memory and not to biblical history.

2. , notice that the time frame how Atheism and Evolution contributed to the issue of sufferings of black race was made within the context of the sadistic genocide of the things that Europeans did to Blacks (Native Australians, Native Americans, Africans) during the recent history. I have not referred to other cases of immorality or bad behaviour,

3. The context of the number of black people(Native Australians, Native Americans, Africans) that died  and perished at the hands of the European (under the pride and deception of White Supremacy) can be quantified in 100 millions, comparing that number to what happened during the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide et al makes what was done to black even look more mind bunglingly scandalous and barbaric,

4. I cannot say for 100% certainty whether or not Darwin was a racist or not ,  how recorded history shows that his "hypothesis" obviously contributed to racist policies and actions. Even True Christians are not christians because they have a perfect character, but rather because of the saving grace of Christ.

5.
   a. The scientist in me tells me that Mutation causes loss of information, yet for evolution to even start there must be a gain in information.
   b. How did "something" come from "nothing" we considering the evolution of the universe, yes I know about the Big Bang, still exactly where did the material that "big banged" come from, unless of course evolution now says there was never a beginning to start with.  
   c. At the beginning of evolution of life (whether you choose to start on planet earth or planet Krypton), however exactly did non-living material become a living material,   considering that we have a little problem known as "irreducible complexity"

6. I would henceforth stop responding to you ,  since i have noticed that you have resorted to name calling, cheap shots and insults ,  (something common with anybody who can no longer communicate a point in a civil and logical manner)

@toneyb
     

huxley:

Well, I am holding you up to a charge which you have made but yet cannot defend.  You have attributed some of the worse crimes of humanity to TTE and I am asking you to justify that charge.  You further charge Darwin to have been a racist and am asking you to justify it as well.   Have you been able to?

TTE saw the light of day 150 years ago.   But consider the following crimes that humans routinely inflicted on their fellow humans:

1)   Burning at the stake (usually carried out by Christians).
2)   Inquisition in Europe responsible for about 10 million deaths in Europe and carried out by Christians
3)   Witch hunts was a sole Christian inspired act
4)   Slavery, in which many of the participants were Christians and the Church.
5)   The many religious wars such as the Crusades which killed millions

All of these happen many centuries before Darwin was born, killing millions and holding humanity in perpertual servitude.  Can you also put these at the doors of TTE?  If not, why not?


You are the one jumping about.  I have pulled you up about making unsupported claims of racism against Darwin.  Yet,  you have no leg to stand and defend your charge.   What an intellectually dishonest and immoral wimp you are.   Is this what Christianity teaches you?

huxley:

The depths of Christian Creationists delusion and inanity is bottomless as evidenced by the post from No2Atheism .

Finally:

Darwinism cant even boast to be any better. Matter of fact , there are lot of loopholes in the theory of evolution than the creationist version.

Darwin is a clever and ingenious man. He tried to explain the diversity of species without the luxury of genetics , molecular biology and biochemistry available to the modern day scientist. He based his conclusions just by merely observing. Observation can only get U to a certain point. At some point , U would want to put those observations to the test and Darwinism have not particularly stood up to scientific probe , not to talk of a religious one.

huxley:



1)   Burning at the stake (usually carried out by Christians).
2)   Inquisition in Europe responsible for about 10 million deaths in Europe and carried out by Christians
3)   Witch hunts was a sole Christian inspired act
4)   Slavery, in which many of the participants were Christians and the Church.
5)   The many religious wars such as the Crusades which killed millions

Finally:

I dont know what is the relevance of these questions U have posed to the discourse at hand?  Man to man inhumanity has been around for ages even before Darwin but I think that Horus point is that Man to man inhumanity based solely on race was enhanced by Darwin. That might or might not be true but u pointing out religious strife does nothing to the argument.

huxley:

Are you talking out of your arse or do you know what you are talking about?     Prove that you know by naming a single scientific test  that The Theory of Evolution has failed.   Just one.   Or else I would be justified in calling you an ignoramus deluded Christian creationist.  

Finally:

U can justify whatever u deem fit. Dont bug me one bit.


[b]Darwin's theory relied heavily on fossil records. His theory would be true if there were found transitional (or what Darwin called intermediate forms) littered all  over the history. His theory would hold more credence if there was also a time differential in the appearance of these life forms on earth. Darwin stated that life forms started from the simple to the complex , meaning that there has to be a progressive gradation (from simple to complex) during evolution.

Well, recent fossil discoveries are not compatible with these claims.  Transitional life forms is now a mirage. A 250 million yr old fossilized dragon fly looks exactly the same like ur modern day dragon fly. Recently , an ant found in fossils over 100 million yr old looks exactly the same when compared with an ant living on modern day earth. If Darwin was right, a dragon fly would have morphed into something else or at least made some striking morphological and phenotypical changes over a period of a million years.

The shark is particularly interesting. Not only does  the fossil records bear a striking resemblance to the sharks that we have now but they have an uncanny ability to renew their teeth. In the tree of life, no ancestors of the shark were found to have that attribute. It just suddenly appeared. That is so contrary to Darwin's theory where there has to be a transitional state. Even Jean Lamarck's theory of use and disuse cant be used to explain that.[/b]

Finally, about the time differential thingy. If Darwin was right, U would predict that most simple life forms and complex life forms would not co-exist in the same time frame or at least, fossil records would show that unicellular life forms were on this earth millions of years before multicellular life forms. Well, research from the deep sea have  already come up with fossil records of some star fish whose C12 dating puts its age at about 400 million year old. These starfish have been shown to have all the complexity of a modern star fish and co-existed also with some very simple life forms.

Finally:

U can justify whatever u deem fit. Dont bug me one bit.


Darwin's theory relied heavily on fossil records. His theory would be true if there were found transitional (or what Darwin called intermediate forms) littered all  over the history. His theory would hold more credence if there was also a time differential in the appearance of these life forms on earth. Darwin stated that life forms started from the simple to the complex , meaning that there has to be a progressive gradation (from simple to complex) during evolution.

Well, recent fossil discoveries are not compatible with these claims.  Transitional life forms is now a mirage. A 250 million yr old fossilized dragon fly looks exactly the same like ur modern day dragon fly. Recently , an ant found in fossils over 100 million yr old looks exactly the same when compared with an ant living on modern day earth. If Darwin was right, a dragon fly would have morphed into something else or at least made some striking morphological and phenotypical changes over a period of a million years.

The shark is particularly interesting. Not only does  the fossil records bear a striking resemblance to the sharks that we have now but they have an uncanny ability to renew their teeth. In the tree of life, no ancestors of the shark were found to have that attribute. It just suddenly appeared. That is so contrary to Darwin's theory where there has to be a transitional state. Even Jean Lamarck's theory of use and disuse cant be used to explain that.

Finally, about the time differential thingy. If Darwin was right, U would predict that most simple life forms and complex life forms would not co-exist in the same time frame or at least, fossil records would show that unicellular life forms were on this earth millions of years before multicellular life forms. Well, research from the deep sea have  already come up with fossil records of some star fish whose C12 dating puts its age at about 400 million year old. These starfish have been shown to have all the complexity of a modern star fish and co-existed also with some very simple life forms.

davidylan:

Do not bug Huxley down with facts . . . he doesnt care. Allow him to spew his anti-christianity jargon . . . listening to him you'd be tempted to think he is truly a scientist . . . that he doesnt know such elementary facts is testament to his illiteracy. they just copy paste what they see from atheist webpages.

Below are fossilized amber remains of a fly and mite found in northern Peru . . . they are estimated to be about 12-15 million yrs old. Why did they fail to evolve?

huxley:


How does this falsify The Theory of Evolution? Can you show me where the TTE states that these could NOT be found?

davidylan:

Do not bug Huxley down with facts . . . he doesnt care. Allow him to spew his anti-christianity jargon . . . listening to him you'd be tempted to think he is truly a scientist . . . that he doesnt know such elementary facts is testament to his illiteracy. they just copy paste what they see from atheist webpages.

Below are fossilized amber remains of a fly and mite found in northern Peru . . . they are estimated to be about 12-15 million yrs old. Why did they fail to evolve?