On the religion of Darwinism
http://www.religionofdarwinism.com/origins.html
The study of comparative religion shows that a large number of superstitious religions have been influenced by one another, and many similarities can be detected in their beliefs and doctrines. The ancient pagan religions of Greece and Mesopotamia formed the basis of many modern religions which adopted their beliefs and doctrines. One superstitious religion that grew out of them is the religion of Darwinism.
There are many similarities between Darwinism and other superstitious religions regarding their understanding of the formation of the universe and of living things and in their general beliefs and doctrines. Contrary to what a large number of people believe, Darwinism is not an established scientific theory based on facts, observation and experiment but merely a rationalistic attempt, based on a non-scientific foundation, to explain the universe. In the course of this book Darwinism will be compared with other manmade religions with regard to its origins, its founder, its scripture, its understanding of the world, and its missionary activities.
Darwinism did not begin with the theory established by the amateur observations and investigations of Charles Darwin and other scientists in the 19th century. Its origins go back to much earlier materialist philosophies. Darwinist beliefs were first encountered a few thousand years ago in the polytheistic and materialistic religions of Greece and Sumeria. Therefore, Charles Darwin was not the first person to put forward the idea of evolution; he was an amateur researcher who traced the main outlines of this basic belief, gave form to its doctrines, and later established a theory.
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV.
There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn’t prove evolution is false.
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV. There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn't prove evolution is false.This entertaining lecture by Neil Tyson may be of interest in context of old, but persistent beliefs. I was impressed with his conclusion that the way the Universe functions, rather than exhibiting "Intelligent Design", points to a non-intelligent "Stupid Design" which threatens our existence every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo
Darwinism did not begin with the theory established by the amateur observations and investigations of Charles Darwin and other scientists in the 19th century. Its origins go back to much earlier materialist philosophies. Darwinist beliefs were first encountered a few thousand years ago in the polytheistic and materialistic religions of Greece and Sumeria. Therefore, Charles Darwin was not the first person to put forward the idea of evolution; he was an amateur researcher who traced the main outlines of this basic belief, gave form to its doctrines, and later established a theory.In reality you're the amateur here. Cobbling together bits and pieces of general observations of historical events and bending them to fit a preconceived notion of Darwin's scientific findings re Natural Selection as an unproven philosophy is nothing more than a weak strawman argument. First of all you seem to know absolutely nothing about the man, the methods he used throughout his lifetime and how he was influenced by his contemporaries. Darwin gave little thought to the classical concepts such as "spontaneous generation" after he had seen all of them disproven by the previous generation, namely his grandfather Erasmus. And the only time in his life he gave ANY thought to religious philosophy was at the beginning of his University studies. He later rejected all of it, despite the pleading of his wife and became a non-believer. As an accomplished scientist he dedicated his entire adult life to the study of Evolution by Natural Selection and openly presented his findings for peer review acknowledging that his theory would collapse if he found one scintilla of evidence to the contrary. As of the printing of his book, 1859 no counter evidence has been found. Darwin was vilified in the popular press and hounded by detractors for the rest of his life. He had absolutely NO interest in founding any cult of science with himself as some sort of Guru as you seem to want to paint him. Clearly you have done no research and your conclusions are completely flawed and muddled. Cap't Jack
The amazing thing about these Fundies is how extensive their attempts are to rewrite history, twist things to try to convert others, etc. and YET in the same breath they’ll denounce Nazism, which went to great lengths for similar purposes to whitewash history. I mean it’s right out of Orwell’s 1984, and yet I guarantee they wouldn’t think so. Amazing the ignorance.
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV. There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn't prove evolution is false.This entertaining lecture by Neil Tyson may be of interest in context of old, but persistent beliefs. I was impressed with his conclusion that the way the Universe functions, rather than exhibiting "Intelligent Design", points to a non-intelligent "Stupid Design" which threatens our existence every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo Indeed, that's an excellent point. Nobody posits a stupid designer--or a sadistic one. Lois
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV. There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn't prove evolution is false.This entertaining lecture by Neil Tyson may be of interest in context of old, but persistent beliefs. I was impressed with his conclusion that the way the Universe functions, rather than exhibiting "Intelligent Design", points to a non-intelligent "Stupid Design" which threatens our existence every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo Indeed, that's an excellent point. Nobody posits a stupid designer--or a sadistic one. Lois The amazing part to me is that this nut actually thinks he is scoring points with outrageous claims he can not support and doesn't even try to support with any credible source. He is clueless that this forum community only cares about well supported, logical, and reasoned arguments. He probably thinks there is an audience reading this forum awarding style points for his blustering self righteous mental masturbations.
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV. There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn't prove evolution is false.This entertaining lecture by Neil Tyson may be of interest in context of old, but persistent beliefs. I was impressed with his conclusion that the way the Universe functions, rather than exhibiting "Intelligent Design", points to a non-intelligent "Stupid Design" which threatens our existence every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo Indeed, that's an excellent point. Nobody posits a stupid designer--or a sadistic one. Lois The amazing part to me is that this nut actually thinks he is scoring points with outrageous claims he can not support and doesn't even try to support with any credible source. He is clueless that this forum community only cares about well supported, logical, and reasoned arguments. He probably thinks there is an audience reading this forum awarding style points for his blustering self righteous mental masturbations.See my post a couple up. He DOES have an audience, in his mind, and it's his god and Jesus. Unfortunately for him, I'm sure they frown upon such selfishness as his.
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV. There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn't prove evolution is false.This entertaining lecture by Neil Tyson may be of interest in context of old, but persistent beliefs. I was impressed with his conclusion that the way the Universe functions, rather than exhibiting "Intelligent Design", points to a non-intelligent "Stupid Design" which threatens our existence every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo Indeed, that's an excellent point. Nobody posits a stupid designer--or a sadistic one. Lois The amazing part to me is that this nut actually thinks he is scoring points with outrageous claims he can not support and doesn't even try to support with any credible source. He is clueless that this forum community only cares about well supported, logical, and reasoned arguments. He probably thinks there is an audience reading this forum awarding style points for his blustering self righteous mental masturbations. Wow.. are you forgetting that his audience consisted of "learned fellows" and not a classroom of high-schoolers.
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV. There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn't prove evolution is false.This entertaining lecture by Neil Tyson may be of interest in context of old, but persistent beliefs. I was impressed with his conclusion that the way the Universe functions, rather than exhibiting "Intelligent Design", points to a non-intelligent "Stupid Design" which threatens our existence every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo Indeed, that's an excellent point. Nobody posits a stupid designer--or a sadistic one. Lois The amazing part to me is that this nut actually thinks he is scoring points with outrageous claims he can not support and doesn't even try to support with any credible source. He is clueless that this forum community only cares about well supported, logical, and reasoned arguments. He probably thinks there is an audience reading this forum awarding style points for his blustering self righteous mental masturbations. There is not one credible source on the Earth, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a lemur that turns into a kangaroo that turns into a redwood tree, which becomes a mushroom that becomes a camel or any other change of species. Feel free to present one now...... Darwin never did this, and neither has any believer in Darwinism that came after him. DNA consist of billions and billions of lines of biological computer code, that are contained in every cell in every body. They are almost like some sort of recording devise, which is why DNA is now being used as a computer storage hard drive...... really
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV. There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn't prove evolution is false.This entertaining lecture by Neil Tyson may be of interest in context of old, but persistent beliefs. I was impressed with his conclusion that the way the Universe functions, rather than exhibiting "Intelligent Design", points to a non-intelligent "Stupid Design" which threatens our existence every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo Indeed, that's an excellent point. Nobody posits a stupid designer--or a sadistic one. Lois The amazing part to me is that this nut actually thinks he is scoring points with outrageous claims he can not support and doesn't even try to support with any credible source. He is clueless that this forum community only cares about well supported, logical, and reasoned arguments. He probably thinks there is an audience reading this forum awarding style points for his blustering self righteous mental masturbations. There is not one credible source on the Earth, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a lemur that turns into a kangaroo that turns into a redwood tree, which becomes a mushroom that becomes a camel or any other change of species. Feel free to present one now...... Darwin never did this, and neither has any believer in Darwinism that came after him. YES there is. You just don't bother to look. And the sequence of evolution you present is purposely illogical. For shame.
DNA consist of billions and billions of lines of biological computer code, that are contained in every cell in every body. They are almost like some sort of recording devise, which is why DNA is now being used as a computer storage hard drive...... reallyYes, DNA is an organic (chemical) recording device which stores "instructions" on how the duplication of shape and size of the cell is to take place. There is a "on" switch to start growth and and "off switch to stop growth. There are instructions for the composition of sets of cells combine to form all the parts of a living organism. btw, we have decoded the DNA of several species and find that they all contain DNA from related older species, some of which are now extinct.
Going back to the assertion of “useless DNA”, which IMO, already is proof of genetic change, below is the result of our knowledge of evolution, not from fantasy of even brilliant analytical thinking, but from irrefutable (provable) evidence.
Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent There are your useless pseudogenes, those useless genes which once were useful, they are remnants (leftovers) of the evolutionary history of the gradual change in older DNA gradually changing to DNA of modern organisms. Western civilizations have been hearing about a 6000 year old earth and humans for so long that they cannot understand the concept of humans being the evolutionary result of exponentially increasing and spreading small changesl over billions of years. Some of these small changes are from purely chemical actions and interactions, some from random mutation, some from being necessary for commonly shared functions of all living things, some from becoming useless. The occasional change that improves survivability leading to all currently living organisms on earth is a process we call Evolution (gradual change by natural selection). There is nothing controversial or illogical about this concept, and Science has proved Evolution by abundant physical evidence. Unfortunately, it seems to contradict the concept of an Intelligent Creator in recent cosmic history, but that is understandable considering our increasing ability to test theory. Natural Order is not synoymous with Intelligent Design. Intelligence is not required.
There is not one credible source on the Earth, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a lemur that turns into a kangaroo that turns into a redwood tree, which becomes a mushroom that becomes a camel or any other change of species. Feel free to present one now...... Darwin never did this, and neither has any believer in Darwinism that came after him.You are absolutely right. There is not credible source that has demonstrated that. What you have done is created a Strawman - "That would be "exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Coral, if I said "Wallace" would that ring a bell? just curious.
Nonsense. It seems to be a dismissal of evolution from a kind of mystical Islamic POV. There may well be a vague similarity between ancient pagan beliefs and some Darwinian concepts, but that doesn't prove evolution is false.This entertaining lecture by Neil Tyson may be of interest in context of old, but persistent beliefs. I was impressed with his conclusion that the way the Universe functions, rather than exhibiting "Intelligent Design", points to a non-intelligent "Stupid Design" which threatens our existence every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo Indeed, that's an excellent point. Nobody posits a stupid designer--or a sadistic one. Lois The amazing part to me is that this nut actually thinks he is scoring points with outrageous claims he can not support and doesn't even try to support with any credible source. He is clueless that this forum community only cares about well supported, logical, and reasoned arguments. He probably thinks there is an audience reading this forum awarding style points for his blustering self righteous mental masturbations. There is not one credible source on the Earth, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a lemur that turns into a kangaroo that turns into a redwood tree, which becomes a mushroom that becomes a camel or any other change of species. Feel free to present one now...... Darwin never did this, and neither has any believer in Darwinism that came after him. YES there is. You just don't bother to look. And the sequence of evolution you present is purposely illogical. For shame.
DNA consist of billions and billions of lines of biological computer code, that are contained in every cell in every body. They are almost like some sort of recording devise, which is why DNA is now being used as a computer storage hard drive...... reallyYes, DNA is an organic (chemical) recording device which stores "instructions" on how the duplication of shape and size of the cell is to take place. There is a "on" switch to start growth and and "off switch to stop growth. There are instructions for the composition of sets of cells combine to form all the parts of a living organism. btw, we have decoded the DNA of several species and find that they all contain DNA from related older species, some of which are now extinct. But are you aware the DNA is now being used to store artificially created binary human coding, or that modern books are being archived on DNA? You will not know this if you exist inside Darwin's antiquated bird watching chronicles.
Going back to the assertion of "useless DNA", which IMO, already is proof of genetic change, below is the result of our knowledge of evolution, not from fantasy of even brilliant analytical thinking, but from irrefutable (provable) evidence.Junk DNA is just a name given by those who discovered it, because they see no use for it. Junk DNA could well be parts, the parts needed for mutation and change. The law of conservation of mass says that only nothing can come from nothing, thus chemical change to DNA has to have a material source. Seriously, a junk yard of cars is a gold mine, if you know how to use it. Cars contain Silver, Platinum, Copper, not to mention brass, iron, steel, aluminum, titanium, magnesium and a whole bunch of other stuff, that is all very important to new creation. Yet people routinely pay other people to take them away, when they should be sold for at least a small price in any condition. There is no junk, just those without vision.Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent There are your useless pseudogenes, those useless genes which once were useful, they are remnants (leftovers) of the evolutionary history of the gradual change in older DNA gradually changing to DNA of modern organisms. Western civilizations have been hearing about a 6000 year old earth and humans for so long that they cannot understand the concept of humans being the evolutionary result of exponentially increasing and spreading small changesl over billions of years. Some of these small changes are from purely chemical actions and interactions, some from random mutation, some from being necessary for commonly shared functions of all living things, some from becoming useless. The occasional change that improves survivability leading to all currently living organisms on earth is a process we call Evolution (gradual change by natural selection). There is nothing controversial or illogical about this concept, and Science has proved Evolution by abundant physical evidence. Unfortunately, it seems to contradict the concept of an Intelligent Creator in recent cosmic history, but that is understandable considering our increasing ability to test theory. Natural Order is not synoymous with Intelligent Design. Intelligence is not required.
There is not one credible source on the Earth, that can demonstrate how a rat turns into a lemur that turns into a kangaroo that turns into a redwood tree, which becomes a mushroom that becomes a camel or any other change of species. Feel free to present one now...... Darwin never did this, and neither has any believer in Darwinism that came after him.You are absolutely right. There is not credible source that has demonstrated that. What you have done is created a Strawman - "That would be "exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Coral, if I said "Wallace" would that ring a bell? just curious. There has never been an argument made that shows how evolution could have created the DNA that is now known to be the driving force of evolution. Seriously, evolution without DNA, is like writing without either a language to write, and a species to do the writing. Even the thought is scientifically illiterate.
OK, let us begin with reading and correctly understanding of the real the general definition of the word “evolution”.
Full Definition of EVOLUTION 1: one of a set of prescribed movements 2a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved 3: the process of working out or developing 4a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory 5: the extraction of a mathematical root 6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomenahttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution Evidence has shown that evolution of started long ago with the formation and evolution of the universe. Somewhere along the evolutionary line came the formation of RNA, a self-replicating non-living structure, proving that self replication is possible without the use of DNA. OK? The theory of self replication IS proven fact. Darwinian evolution is called "phylogeny"
Definition of PHYLOGENY 1: the evolutionary history of a kind of organism 2: the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism 3: the history or course of the development of something (as a word or custom)http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phylogeny Before I start insisting that you must provide an alternative theory to "evolution", I will allow you to read (actually read and mentally process) the information from the above links. But the question stands. There is no shame in admitting that you do not have one, but in tghat case, before you start criticizing what we do know, you will need to inform yourself at a much deeper level than you have displayed so far. Understanding comes from recorded scientific "knowledge", not from recorded theist scripture.
OK, let us begin with reading and correctly understanding of the real the general definition of the word "evolution".Full Definition of EVOLUTION 1: one of a set of prescribed movements 2a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved 3: the process of working out or developing 4a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory 5: the extraction of a mathematical root 6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution Evidence has shown that evolution of started long ago with the formation and evolution of the universe. Somewhere along the evolutionary line came the formation of RNA, a self-replicating non-living structure, proving that self replication is possible without the use of DNA. OK? The theory of self replication IS proven fact. Darwinian evolution is called "phylogeny"Definition of PHYLOGENY 1: the evolutionary history of a kind of organism 2: the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism 3: the history or course of the development of something (as a word or custom) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phylogeny Before I start insisting that you must provide an alternative theory to "evolution", I will allow you to read (actually read and mentally process the information from the above links. But the question stands. There is no shame in admitting that you do not have one, but in tghat case, before you start criticizing what we do know, you will need to inform yourself at a much deeper level than you have displayed so far. Understanding comes from recorded scientific "knowledge", not from recorded theist scripture.Seriously I hate to be like this, but a three year old can copy and paste others ideas. As for useless DNA, until DNA is fully understood, which it is not, labeling it's parts as useless, when the function of the entire biological computer operating system, which is what DNA is, is silly. Case in point, the spleen in humans was once considered useless and vestigial. Well the spleen is now believed to be used in healing damaged hearts. The appendix, is a storehouse of food digesting bacteria, a probiotic factory of sorts. Whoever claims to know everything about the structure and function of DNA, is just plain goofy, remembering that only the intelligent man can admit his ignorance, in the never ending quest for knowledge. Seriously, if you are 5 years old you are a genius, 10 and you are average, 20 or more and you draw your DNA diagrams with crayons.
CS, with that last post from you, I’ll leave you in your blissful ignorance. Bye, bye, be well.
OK, let us begin with reading and correctly understanding of the real the general definition of the word "evolution".Full Definition of EVOLUTION 1: one of a set of prescribed movements 2a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved 3: the process of working out or developing 4a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory 5: the extraction of a mathematical root 6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution Evidence has shown that evolution of started long ago with the formation and evolution of the universe. Somewhere along the evolutionary line came the formation of RNA, a self-replicating non-living structure, proving that self replication is possible without the use of DNA. OK? The theory of self replication IS proven fact. Darwinian evolution is called "phylogeny"[] What a poor looser you really are. InfantileDefinition of PHYLOGENY 1: the evolutionary history of a kind of organism 2: the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism 3: the history or course of the development of something (as a word or custom) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phylogeny Before I start insisting that you must provide an alternative theory to "evolution", I will allow you to read (actually read and mentally process the information from the above links. But the question stands. There is no shame in admitting that you do not have one, but in tghat case, before you start criticizing what we do know, you will need to inform yourself at a much deeper level than you have displayed so far. Understanding comes from recorded scientific "knowledge", not from recorded theist scripture.Seriously I hate to be like this, but a three year old can copy and paste others ideas. As for useless DNA, until DNA is fully understood, which it is not, labeling it's parts as useless, when the function of the entire biological computer operating system, which is what DNA is, is silly. Case in point, the spleen in humans was once considered useless and vestigial. Well the spleen is now believed to be used in healing damaged hearts. The appendix, is a storehouse of food digesting bacteria, a probiotic factory of sorts. Whoever claims to know everything about the structure and function of DNA, is just plain goofy, remembering that only the intelligent man can admit his ignorance, in the never ending quest for knowledge. Seriously, if you are 5 years old you are a genius, 10 and you are average, 20 or more and you draw your DNA diagrams with crayons.