Religion+Politics=Bad for students

**heftysmokes** · 05-20-2007, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by nhcigarfan

Religion + Politics = Bad for Cigarsmokers.com

Hey bgmark, and DPB...I don't know if you noticed the above quote the first time it was posted or the 2 times it was quoted in ensuing posts, but if you want to argue/discuss/debate/whatever, this topic, why don't you find the appropriate forum. This thread was dead for 2 years. Let's bury it again.

**DPB** · 05-20-2007, 09:33 PM

And buried it shall be. I agree .
Time and place for everything, this is not the time nor the place.
Peace
Doug

**HersheyWalker** · 05-20-2007, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

The theories Darwin produced in his book The Origin of Species are still valid in that the general ideas of Evolution have been proven true. In fact, evolution happens at differing rates. There is always a slow gradual change taking place within a species from generation to generation.

First off, the complete title to Darwin's book was "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". Darwin was a racist who wrote his book in counteraction to the public need for a justification for racisim. The point of Darwin's book, one that we can't appreciate today, was that different races are different steps on the ladder of evolution, with blacks being the closest to apes. After the book's introduction, it was embraced by the world, and what did we see? We saw WWII with Hitler exterminating the Jews because from his perspective THEY were the closest to apes, blacks being second. If Germany had won the war, there would only be proper Germans and the descendants of Germans populating the world. He would have had all other races slaughtered because he deduced from Darwin's theories that the blonde haired blue eyed aryan was the highest level of evolution.

But Hitler wasn't the only one at fault, EVERYONE took Darwin's explanation for the existance of life to heart. Theodore Roosevelt was quoted as saying that certain species (blacks) should be kept from procreating as they are diluting the human race. He is one example of countless others. Just look at the talk of the time, negros were classified as having the same intelligence as an 11 year old child. By experts!

Racism was common place and internalized by ALL at the time, Darwin's book made sense in the context of the popular point of view. So the world embraced it. But Darwin's ideas aren't new. They were around for at least 2000 years. Early church fathers preached against the idea. Early Greek thought had themes of life originating in the oceans and evolving from fish. This was far before geologists uncovered the fossil record.

Erasthmus Darwin, Darwin's father laid down all the theory behind evolution to his son, who ran with it and wrote his book. And with it came the deconstruction of mankind. Look at the figures for crime before evolution was taught in schools, compared to afterward. You see spiking jumps in all areas: rape, assault, theft, etc. And why shouldn't you? If we are all glorified apes, why does anything we do matter? The pursuit of our own pleasure should be the god we worship. I saw an interview with Jeffery Dalhmer on dateline NBC, and when asked why he did what he did he answered: because I believed evolution, we call came from an ape and there was no God. He goes on to describe how and why that shaped his decisions to ignore his instinct of restraint and proceed to kill and eat humans. Just before his death, he was taught the principles of creationism and had accepted Jesus as his savior. But that is such a clear illustration to why the world is so out of control today.

But back to your quote, evolution has NOT been proven true. There are only a few examples of cross species fossils available, I'm talking less than ten, out of millions of tons of bones we have dug out of the ground. And EVERY SINGLE ONE of them are questioned by academics. How is that proven true? If the basic idea behind evolution is true, we should see an abundance of cross species in the fossil record. We see none. After Darwin wrote his book and his idea became popular, archeology became the fashionable area of study, everyone wanted to prove his theory to be correct. After 100 years of digging, we have 5 questionable samples. This is the embarrassing pink elephant that most evolutionists choose to ignore. My argument can rest on that fact alone. Evolution is wrong. Abrupt change is the answer to the absence of a fossil recording evolutionary change. Abrupt change is the ONLY answer to the silence of the fossil record. And I'm sure you would agree with me that it makes for good science fiction (read beginning of X-Men), but good science it does not make. Almost as believable as the idea that God created everything, huh?

Natural selection not a theory, it is an obserable fact. Species can and do change within their kind to adapt to their environment. Look at all the different kinds of dogs we have, they all came from a dog. From Great Danes to Chihuahuas. They did not come from a rock. Kinds of animals do not naturally select into different kinds of animals.

I want you to look up the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Micheal Behe. It takes a conjecture found in Darwin's book and exposes the theory as being false. In a nutshell Darwin states that all components of living systems evolved from simpler systems and if there was found a system that couldn't subscribe to this, then the house of cards would fall. Behe writes about 3 such "irreducibly complex" systems in the human body, thus answering Darwin and putting to rest the argument.

I am surrounded by blind evolutionist who refuse to let go of their belief system because they were told it was truth since they were CHILDREN. Honestly SmokingDVM, I understand that you were brought up to believe evolution, as I was, but can you for just a second put aside your biases and "try" to view it from a creationist standpoint? It will open your eyes.

**heftysmokes** · 05-20-2007, 10:54 PM

Holy shit, LET IT DIE!

**chefchris** · 05-20-2007, 11:08 PM

geez louise.

**rsanz** · 05-21-2007, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by chefchris

geez louise.

Ditto.

bgmark2, Junior Member, Major Tool, Total Phuck Knuckle.

I do enjoy Hershey's essays though.

**cigarsarge** · 05-21-2007, 06:11 AM

Take it to pm guys...This place has gone through enough lately.

**DPB** · 05-21-2007, 07:18 AM

If poeple want this disscussion to die then let it .
Hersey your comments are so wrong its almost sad but humorous. It is very obvious that you have not read the books that are out there that argue against your position. You should try to read them first before posting such comments on a public site. I have read alot on the creationist hypothisis, and it has all been debunked over and over. You attack the theory of evolution but yet you have not given your scientific evidence to prove what you are trying to claim. Funny that you say that evolution is taught as a belief system that is taught as a child. What is religon then? when do we start learning that? Is that after or before we start doing the supertitious rituals?
I dont know how many time one has to say that evolution is not a belief system like religon but it is a understanding of facts that is given with enough supportive evidence to prove that this has happened. To talk about Hitler,Dahmer etc. is a beaten old drum.
Good people to good things bad people to bad things evil people do evil things in the name of religon. What about all the abortion clinics that were blown up and good Dr's trying to help people killed because someone belived they were doing gods work. Look at history and you can see the death done by religon. The Hate crimes ,gay bashing because on feels that god wants them to punish them. (yawn) this is a tired drawn out debate. By the way Hilter was roman catholic and belived he was doing the lords work and has been visted by bishops from rome to keep up what he was doing. To say darwin was a rascist is because this was the language of the times 150 years ago they did not have the scientific tools or means to examine and test his thories but only by observation.But because of his observation, today science has taken it so much further that we do have the means and tools to observe correctly.So much so it is now observed at the genetic level.
Anyway let this thread die.
If you want to discuss this futher you may PM me anytime.
Plenty of great books to read against your position let me know if your interested.
Peace
Doug

**bgmark2** · 05-21-2007, 09:04 AM

Yes very interesting...there are a lot of flaws in alot of creatinalists arguements, such as Adam being created in one day...when this can be a period of time in the Hebrew translation, and there were people other than adam...as his children got married, and no not to his mother.

There is no doubt that evolution occurs on a small scale, but to say the source of life came from a single cell, which mutated into fish, birds, dinosaurs, plants, bacteria ect is strtching this a bit far.

if you look at how animals and plants interlate....then this is not done at random...for instance 1 of the first so called evoulved species, or beginning of life species is a bacteria which can convert elementry sulfur into sulfuric acid...which then goes on to dissolve phosphates, into soluble phosphates, which are literally the same as super phosphate fertilizer....which then can grow your tobbacco...even before fertilizers were invented, which was not that long ago. Why would a bacteria mutate to feed on elementry sulphur to convert it into fertlizer for plants....this bacteria can survive also at extreme ph acid concerntrations...then other cells mutate into plants...and the animals that feed off plants. This is not done unintellgently/ randomly as evolutionalists propose.

As far as Hilter and catholics were concerned...there are also an uncountable multidue of demons cast to the earth...cruise missiles and ballistic missiles came from hiltler, here is 666 interpreted
666 could be chi xi stigma in Greek which means:

The 22d, 14th and an obsolete letter (4742 as a cross) of the Greek alphabet (intermediate between the 5th and 6th), used as numbers; ; number representation

AV-six hundred threescore and six 1; 1

1) six hundred and sixty six, the meaning of which is the basis of much vain speculation

4742 stigma stigma stig-mah

from a primary stizo (to "stick," i.e. prick); TDNT-7:657,1086; n n

AV-mark 1; 1

1) a mark pricked in or branded upon the body. To ancient oriental usage, slaves and soldiers bore the name or the stamp of their master or commander branded or pricked (cut) into their bodies to indicate what master or general they belonged to, and there were even some devotees who stamped themselves in this way with the token of their gods

So it means the cross, the image of the cross is made by Catholics making this image with their right hand.