Log in

View Full Version : Evolution was invented by Satan



Dimentio
6th July 2007, 23:08
Evolution an invention by Satan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI&mode=related&search=)

Creationism must be the - objectively speaking - most crazy doctrine within Evangelical Fundamentalism. They misinterpret religion and science as the same. Just listen to this speech.

RedCommieBear
7th July 2007, 04:44
Well, at least it's a little bit better than the "God changed the position of the rock layers to trick humans into believing in evolution."

This guy's a theocrat. And really lacks any sense of logic. He tries to link evolution with Columbine?


Originally posted by Youtube YEC+--> (Youtube YEC)Years ago, you could find the ten commandments at any school. Why is that? I'll tell you why. That is because people do not want to be held accountable to their creator and would rather believe they came from monkeys and can act like animals. And that's why you have kids shooting up schools, and kids using drugs.[/b]

He also tries to throw in poetry in there.


Originally posted by Youtube YEC+--> (Youtube YEC)Do you believe that you came from goo
Then to the zoo
Then to you?
That's simply not true
And I'm going to prove that to you that's not true[/b]


Originally posted by Youtube YEC
If you believe that you were un-intelligently designed. That there was no intelligent hand in your creation. That means you are a biological machine and a slave to chemical reactions in your brain. Which means, you can't trust your thoughts. So, if you can't trust your thoughts, how in the world can you claim what you know is true.


Originally posted by Youtube YEC
Some people say that maybe God used evolution to create. That's not the God in the Bible. The God of the Bible says death came my man's sin; however, evolution says man came by death. Quite opposites, there's a stark contrast between the two. And only one is right because they are diametrically opposites. In fact, that's proof in the Bible's favor because if you take it at face value, it is the literal opposite of evolution in every way. In fact, you could come to the theory of evolution by simply looking at what the Bible says, and then flipping it on its head. \

The guy brings up conspiracy theories at the end! He blames it on the liberal media treating Young Earth Creationism unfairly, etc, etc., etc.


Originally posted by Crazy Youtube YEC
I'm going to go on Google Earth and search for the white house.

He then zooms in, and shows the "pentagram" in the city streets of Washington, D.C. Of course, with those crooked streets, I could probably make a hammer and sickle.


Now if that (the pentragram) doesn't convince, or you believe it's a coincidence, tell me, how is it the most important building in the entire world is at the bottom of a giant Satan pentragram.

I've been wanting to advertise this essay for a while, and this gave me a chance. Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml). It attacks YECs with both theological criticism and scientific criticism.


Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of [email protected]
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.


Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
Probably everybody knows the sedentary barnacles which seem to have no similarity to free-swimming crustaceans, such as the copepods. How remarkable that barnacles pass through a free-swimming larval stage, the nauplius! At that stage of its development a barnacle and a Cyclops look unmistakably similar. They are evidently relatives. The presence of gill slits in human embryos and in embryos of other terrestrial vertebrates is another famous example. Of course, at no stage of its development is a human embryo a fish, nor does it ever have functioning gills. But why should it have unmistakable gill slits unless its remote ancestors did respire with the aid of gills? It is the Creator again playing practical jokes?

Also, the guy needs to start shaving. When you're his age, it's very difficult growing a good a moustache, and you just get this ugly scruffle.

Kropotkin Has a Posse
7th July 2007, 05:01
Also, the guy needs to start shaving. When you're his age, it's very difficult growing a good a moustache, and you just get this ugly scruffle.
Kinda like what Lenin had. Anyways, the comments bothered me so I made one of my own.

Dimentio
7th July 2007, 14:00
I think that one of the main problems is that creationists look upon evolutionary theory as some sort of "religion" which it's adherents see as "truth". Most scientists are rather looking to facts than to any "truth".

The Advent of Anarchy
7th July 2007, 15:44
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Satan made evolution?!
WE MUST REPENT! :D

Dimentio
7th July 2007, 15:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDpnAqxYeGU...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDpnAqxYeGU&mode=related&search=)

More from VFX

Publius
7th July 2007, 16:57
What's funny is how he cribs arguments from Kirk Cameron. Blatently. Like, the exact same examples to a 'T'. It's really quite hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c

For example, this classic one.

First of all, Bertrand Russel demolished this nonsense nearly 100 years ago by simply making an obvious point: there are an infinite amount of negative integers, of course. But the series of negative integers has a starting point, that is, an end point, -1. What's so funny about this obvious point is that it COMPLETELY destroys the argument they put forth about infinity. Nothing could be more obvious.

There could very easily have been an 'infinite amount of time' before now, just as there are very clearly an infinite amount of integers before (to the left of) "-1" on the number line. So the idea that if you have an infinite set of numbers, you can't reach an endpoint is just ridiculously wrong. The set of negative integers is infinite, and yet it begins and ends on -1, meaning there are an infinitude of negative integers before negative 1.

Easy as pie.

So this destroys the idea that you can determine that "time started a finite time ago." That would be like saying, from our vantage point at -1, or at -10, or -100 or wherever, that the set of negative integers started a finite time ago. But that's obviously wrong and it cannot be right. So I can't regard this argument as anything more than ignorance and equivocation over what 'infinite' means, from a mathematical standpoint.

But that's actually not relevant, because I agree with him, time did start some time ago, around 13.7 billion years ago, according to the current science.

Oh, we've hit our next snag, and, yet again, he is oblivious to it. Think about this for a second: matter cannot be created or destroyed. Cannot. Can not. So his premises go something like this: since matter cannot be created, it was created by God. Since matter cannot be created, it was created. I don't need to tell you that this is a bad argument. And yet, it sails it right past him. So we have to abandon something here. Ooh, but we're ensnared! If we get rid of the premise that matter cannot be created or destroyed, which is necessary to allow a God, we obviate the need FOR a God, since then we can just postulate matter coming existence at random, since there's nothing stopping it from doing so. Ouch.

He then runs into his own trap, and tries to avoid it by using some sketchy phyiscs. Be then he fucks up his physics, because, as far as I understand it, time and space are consequences of matter; are effects of matter. They don't have separate ontologies, nor can they. In fact, there is no 'time' and no 'space' only 'spacetime' which is itself caused by matter. So the idea that you could have 'matter' without 'space' and 'time' (an idea he tries to put forth) is contradictory. It's impossible.

And after that it's just weak theology that could very easily be destroyed, if I had the inclination to do so. So have no fear, fellow heathens, this is nonsense, even compared to most apologetics, this is bad.

Eleftherios
7th July 2007, 17:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:00 pm
I think that one of the main problems is that creationists look upon evolutionary theory as some sort of "religion" which it's adherents see as "truth". Most scientists are rather looking to facts than to any "truth".
I think that's because religious people have never believed in anything but a higher deity and don't know what to make of people using real science to understand the universe. They even think that communism is a religion :P

Dimentio
7th July 2007, 17:16
Well, fission has proved it is possible to turn matter into energy (which is also a form of matter, but still).

Dimentio
7th July 2007, 17:17
Originally posted by Alcaeos+July 07, 2007 04:03 pm--> (Alcaeos @ July 07, 2007 04:03 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 01:00 pm
I think that one of the main problems is that creationists look upon evolutionary theory as some sort of "religion" which it's adherents see as "truth". Most scientists are rather looking to facts than to any "truth".
I think that's because religious people have never believed in anything but a higher deity and don't know what to make of people using real science to understand the universe. They even think that communism is a religion :P [/b]
Some communists are actually enough dogmatic and eager to not use rational arguments but rather the words of Marx, making them treat communism more as a religion than an approach.