THE EVOLUTIONARY MYTH, FROM ANCIENT GREECE TO MODERN EUROPE
The essence of Darwin's theory of evolution is the claim that, under purely natural conditions, lifeless matter spontaneously brought forth the first living things, and that from them, again under these same conditions, all other species developed merely by chance. In other words, the theory of evolution proposes the existence of a self-contained system, that has organized itself without a creator, and spontaneously brings living things into being. This idea, that nature organizes itself without a creator, is called "naturalism."
The theory of naturalism is as absurd as the idea that a library could create itself without writers. But, since the earliest ages of history, this idea has been defended by numerous thinkers based merely on their philosophical and ideological whims, and been adopted by a number of civilizations.
Naturalism was born and flourished in pagan societies such as Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece. But, with the spread of Christianity, this pagan philosophy was largely abandoned, and the idea that God created the whole of nature and the universe came to dominate. In a similar manner, as Islam spread throughout the East, naturalist ideas, and pagan beliefs, such as Zoroastrianism and Shamanism, were eradicated, and the fact of creation was accepted.
Nevertheless, the naturalist philosophy persisted underground. It was preserved by secret societies and emerged again under more suitable circumstances. In the Christian world, as we mentioned at the beginning of this book, naturalism was preserved by the Masons, and other secret societies who followed their lead. A Turkish magazine, named Mason, published for distribution to members of the order, provides the following interesting information:
Those who arrived at new discoveries in the world of natural phenomena and events without taking God into account were forced to keep their discoveries to themselves. Research was done secretly and even those who were engaged in similar research had to keep their relationship hidden. This secrecy required the use of several signs and symbols in the course of projects which were undertaken.94
The first to promote the theory of evolution in modern Europe were members of the Masonic society known as the Rosicrucians. Right: the symbol of the Rosicrucians.
What is meant here by "new discoveries" is an understanding of science aligned to naturalism, a theory that does not accept the existence of God. This distorted approach to scientific study was developed secretly in esoteric societies that needed to use signs and symbols for this purpose, and so the roots of Masonry were established. - Adnan Oktar
Monday, September 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
quite right.
Margulis should replace Darwin as soon as possible....,
And who created God, DV?
Fisher,
Creation is an attribute, characteristic, aspect of God. God is not an attribute, characteristic or aspect of Creation.
Meaning, something can't create the God that created everything...
""Testimony of Lyndon LaRouche
Dr. Sergei Glazyev
Testimony of Helga Zepp LaRouche
Testimony of Dr. Tatyana Koryagina,
Academician Dmitri Lvov
Dr. Jonathan Tennenbaum
Sen. Ivo Tarolli
H.E. Datuk Yahya Baba.."
Dv, note the above names. Me, I always consider the SOURCES!
Darwin's... point...."introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection, and presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose through a branching pattern of evolution and common descent." Simple enough. Now tell them to refute it, the theory, and don't call names.
Wolfgang Smith--Intelligent Design-Catholic = I CAN'T SAY IT HERE. HAHA
.."Smith's understanding of the relationship between corporeal and physical objects extend to his interpretation of biology, where be has become an opponent of Darwinian evolution, as the fundamental element in a species would be its form, not its causal history, which evolutionists favor. This leads him to be a supporter of the intelligent design movement, even though the hylomorphic approach itself isn't widely adopted by the mainstream intelligent designers, who also favor causal history, even though differently from evolutionists
Wolfgang Smith--Intelligent Design-Catholic = I CAN'T SAY IT HERE. HAHA
.."Smith's understanding of the relationship between corporeal and physical objects extend to his interpretation of biology, where be has become an opponent of Darwinian evolution, as the fundamental element in a species would be its form, not its causal history, which evolutionists favor. This leads him to be a supporter of the intelligent design movement, even though the hylomorphic approach itself isn't widely adopted by the mainstream intelligent designers, who also favor causal history, even though differently from evolutionists
Evolution doesn't explain how life began, but how life evolved.
@thordady.
Where is your proof that God cannot be created? Or are we supposed to believe you because you say so?
Peace!!
GDAWG. I read your posts 3 times. And I am still confused about both your point and your position. Instead of just cutting an pasting random quotes followed by "Haha" ... lay your cards flat.
"And who created God, DV?" MF
I don't know Mike.
I agree with CNu ... and Thordaddy.
(Picture that)
My point is that anyone affiliated with the likes of Larouche or Intelligent Design are not credible.
As such, what they hAve to say is taken with a grain of salt, IF AT ALL.
I hope this is clear enough for you.
GDAWG,
That's weak.
You my boy, but that's borderline punk.
LaRouche has been chipping away at the Plantation for years.
The Plantation's response has been to cast him as "looney" or "fringe" in an effort to discredit him in the eyes of Plantation Negros and Plantation Crackas.
Apparently it works.
Fact is he is no more "looney" than is Barack Hussein Obama.
Now ... The Darwinian cult has managed to sucker liberals like you into believing their Conspiracy Theory of Evolution is fact, endorsed by science when it is nothing of the sort.
It is far more deserving of your little ... "Haha" than is Intelligent Design.
But fuck all this arguing.
You put up 5 reasons why Darwin's Theory of Evolution should be taken seriously and I'll put up 5 reasons why Intelligent Design should be taken seriously.
No. Fuck that too.
You put up 1 reason why Darwin's Evolution cult should be taken seriously and I'll take it from there.
Cool?
From what I've read about Darwin, he believed in God and the idea that God created the world.
For starters, from the human perspective, sociological/cultural included, compared the evolutionary impact on sub-Saharan Africans compared to Europeans.(many layers here to compare)
How is it that Bacteria, simply, can evolve resistance to all antibiotics, eventually?
Phuck Larouche and Intelligent design. All BS!
Lookout!
Gdawg just now warming up to his subject.
dangerous questions ahead...,
bacteria and cognition?
In Sub-Saharan Africa, why did some African develope reistance to the malarian parasite, and some did not? What happened to those who did not develope this biolgical/genetical distinction?
Are there more "Sicklers" in the USA now in the decendants of enslaved Africans?
If not, why so? Hmm.... Evolutionary change?
GDawg ...
Examples of adaptation are abundant.
You show me an example of a monkey giving birth to a man.
Or an amoeba giving birth to a frog.
Michael Fisher said...
And who created God, DV?
Men have been creating God since the beginning of human community, it was most likely one of his earliest creations. From before Ausar to after Jesus men are constantly creating God. There will be more... presuming humanity doesn't come to a sudden end.
For those of you who argue on the side of intelligent design, would you put your belief into some religious context for me, are we talking allah or the Christian God, by chance?
DV, first
Scientific classification Frogs and amoebas.
Frogs=Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Amphibia
Order: Anura
amoeba=Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Amoebozoa
Phylum: Tubulinea
Order: Tubulinida
Family: Amoebidae
Genus: Amoeba
Primates..............
Man and Ape=+++++
Superfamily Hominoidea: apes
Family Hylobatidae: gibbons ("lesser apes") (13 species)
Family Hominidae: great apes including humans (7 species)
If you say the blackman is god I can roll with that, but if you say god is an uncreated mystery spook then I can't fuck with ya!!
Evolution is truth and that mystery god is on some fairy, leprechan, santa claus shit!!
Peace!!
Yeah. GDawg ... science does classify animals.
... ok.
Has an ape ever given birth to a human?
DV,you asked:
Has an ape ever given birth to a human?
Yeah, about 60,000 years ago.
Humans are a type of chimpanzee. Our dna is identical for the most part.
Gdawg,
What allowed the product of
evolution to modify it mechanics?
Keith,
It's a logical necessity that the Entity that created everything CAN'T be created by something else.
@thordaddy.
Why is it a logical necessity?
Because you say so?
What book of logic are you using?
Is the concept of that mystery god logical?
Where is the evidence for this mystery god?
Peace!!
keith,
If a Singularity creates EVERYTHING then NOTHING is left to create the Singularity and NOTHING doesn't need to anyway as the Singularity already exists.
Or, we could say...?
@thordaddy.
Why do you keep saying that everything was created. Science doesn't say such a thing.
Reguardless the singularity had to be created before it could create.
Where did it come from and how was it created?
where is your evidence of such a thing?
Science may not have all the evidence, but it has some.
Religion has none.
Peace!!
keith,
The Big Bang was a hypothesized singularity. By definition, it is a unique one time cause/effect thing that has no other creator than the Singularity. This Singularity being the Prime Mover of the Big Bang singularity. So when you ask who created the Creator then you imply that such is a requirement. Why is that?
Farst...
"So when you ask who created the Creator then you imply that such is a requirement. Why is that?"
and DV...
"I agree with CNu ... and Thordaddy."
You easily postulate that there is a requirement that someone/something who ALWAYS EXISTED created organic life. How do you know organic life has not ALWAYS EXISTED in one form or another throughout existence?
"How do you know organic life has not ALWAYS EXISTED in one form or another throughout existence?" MF
I don't know organic life has not ALWAYS EXISTED in one form or another throughout existence.
How do you know a monkey ever gave birth to a man or a lizard ever gave birth to a bird?
Does the fossil record support such leaps?
DV, a monkey never gave birth to a human being. However, a monkey can give birh to a mutated monkey and that mutated monkey can give birth to an even more mutated monkey.... until the monkey isn't a monkey anymore, but something else.
But that's not the issue. The issue is that you are postulating that there has to be an always-having-existed creator who created organic life. That is an unsupported and unsupportable ASSUMPTION. An assumption that life always has existed is just as valid an assumption. In fact, even more so. Because we KNOW that life exists, but we do not know whether this "creator" exists.
@Thordaddy.
The big bang is not a fact and there are other theories like the multiverse theory that are gaining more and more evidence.
See how science works? It constantly changes as more EVIDENCE comes in.
Unlike religion that has to cling to bullshit because it supposedly "CAME" from God and therefore "CANNOT" be wrong or revised.
Science is a candle light in the dark; not perfect, but better than believing in a mystery spook.
Peace!!
Post a Comment