Acceptance of Evolution and Wealth – Interesting Correlation…

I awoke Easter Sunday to all kinds of friends, family and neighbors updating their Facebook pages with scripture and proclamations that “he has risen“.  Once I got past the initial “seriously?” phase, it reminded me that I had to do a post on religion and money, so what better time than after Easter?

If you follow my tweets, you know I’m a pretty analytical guy that looks at the world through the eyes of science and nature (rather than “faith), the random and chaotic nature of the universe (rather than believing that there’s a God that gives a crap if Tebow wins the superbowl, decides if a cancer patient lives or dies, or that somehow he’s working in mysterious ways when he inures the world with such horrors, pain and suffering on a daily basis – the world is cruel, random and chaotic) and that while I won’t even bother trying to change your mind if you’re a believer (because you’ve obviously already refused to accept evidence to the contrary), I do find it interesting to consider the role of religion in today’s world.  Sometimes, it’s a question of what kids should be taught in school, the economic consequences of millenia of wars over religion, the positive contributions of religious charitable contributions and institutions over the years, or simply how people weave religion into their personal finances, there’s often something to think about.

With a name like Darwin, how could I not publish this?  Evidently, the more the inhabitants of a country deny the realities of evolution, the less likely that country is to have a high GDP – except – for the ole’ US of A – because as we all know, we’re just about the richest country on earth – and the most analytically backwards…

Continue Reading Acceptance of Evolution and Wealth – Interesting Correlation…

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
58 Comments
flash
flash
April 17, 2012 3:37 pm

Stucky says:

As for this thread, it’s gottem silly, so I’m done with it.

Stucky says:

flash

Why the vitriol? Religious debate sure brings out the emotion, eh?

no it’s asshole who want to force their particular brand of religion down others throats that brings out the vitriol.
Seriously, there are bloggers like Vox -he even wrote a well received book on the subject-that thrive on busting self-righteous atheist ass.
If the Darwin want to argue that shit then why not seek out those who feel the same.

I could care less. Live and let live is my rule.
I don’t believe in Dantes’ hell , but if Darwin wants to go there , so be it.

Stucky
Stucky
April 17, 2012 3:41 pm

When the thread gets unsilly, I re-participate.

For the life of me, I see no one trying to force anything down other’s throats. I see a spirited discussion, nothing more.

BTW, here is another transitional form. How crocs evolved into ducks.

[imgcomment image[/img]

flash
flash
April 17, 2012 3:42 pm

Stuck , I thought you had somewhere to go?I was ready to mourn your loss , but now I’ll just have to be satisfied with janking on Darwin.

And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.

flash
flash
April 17, 2012 3:47 pm

A stuck..
Well OK ‘den.
Finally some real evidence.

To make amends to Darwin , I suggest he and I get together this Sunday and burn down a Catholic church at mass.
Damn stupid Catholics…don’t know shit.

Stucky
Stucky
April 17, 2012 3:50 pm

” And the salient fact is this: … macroevolution …. is totally bereft of scientific sanction.” — flash

Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place? That stance pretty much negates the need for debate.

flash
flash
April 17, 2012 4:00 pm

Dawin don’t know shit…

Shoulda’ read Sir Isaac Newton , A real scientist.
Darwin the dabbler wouldn’t have made a pimple on Newtons ass.
You hear the soothsayers proclaiming the wisdom of Darwin ffrom cradle to grave , but you never hear the bitchez mention one word about the owner greatest mind who ever lived.

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance. The motions of the planets require a Divine arm to impress them.” Sir Isaac Newton, Inventor, Scientist and teacher Isaac Newton,

Evolution: Sir Arthur Keith (evolution and ethics) wrote “The conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution, nay, the two laws are at war with each other. He also wrote; “Evolution is unproved and improvable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research stated: “Evolution is a fairy tail for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”

Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous British journalist and philosopher said, “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future.”

Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission said, “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great conmen and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”

“Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record.” (Time, November 7, 1977).

“There are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how Homo sapiens emerged.” (Takahata, molecular anthropology, annual review of ecology & systamatics 1995, p 355).

“All those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.” (Mary Leakey, Associated Press, December 10, 1996).

“The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University. “Evolution’s Erratic Pace”, Natural History Vol. 5, May 1977).

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution.” (Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now, p. 140, Professor at Harvard University in Boston).

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found – yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into the textbooks.” (David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record”, Science, Vol. 213, July 17, 1981, p. 289).

Luther Sunderland asked evolutionists what evidence they had for their theory. The British Museum of Natural History has the largest fossil collection in the world. When the senior paleontologist (Colin Paterson) was asked why he did not show the missing links in his book he said: “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil.” (Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma 1988, p. 89).

“The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is still missing.” (G.K.Chesterton).

“Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible…the necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe’s whole machinery and design.” (John Wheeler, Princeton University processor of physics, Reader’s Digest, September 1986).

“The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or the wouldn’t combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn’t form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on…” (Stephen Hawking, Austin American Statesman, October 19, 1997).

“Researchers suggest that virtually all modern men – 99% of them, says one scientist – are closely related genetically and share genes with one male ancestor, subbed ‘Y-chromosome Adam’. We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor…That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe, and then it spread out from there.” (US News and World Report, December 4, 1995).

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10 to the power of 40,000…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fredrick Hoyle, professor of astronomy, Cambridge University).

“Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links’, transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by change mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exists if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.” (Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God).

Evolutionists think that we have evolved from apes. It is interesting to note that pig heart valves have been used as replacements for human heart valves. Pigskin has even been grafted in humans to deal with severe burns. In fact, pig tissues are the nearest in chemical composition to those of humans. Perhaps evolutionists should spend more time studying pigs than apes.

“I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them!” (Charles Darwin on this Theory of Evolution).

“To suppose that the eye…could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. 1859, p. 217).

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” their observations to fit in with it.” (H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK).

“Natural section can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.” (Parasitology, 6th ed. Lea & Febiger, p. 516).

flash
flash
April 17, 2012 4:08 pm

You got a lot of micro-evolution taking place in your own body, which will inevitable result in death.,unless you evolve into a Ocean Quahog , then you”ll get an extra 300 hundred or so years on the clock.

Evolving into humans is soooo passes’ .Hardly any organism does it anymore.