This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby wmfinck » Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:27 am

aleajactaest wrote:Here is the given scientific definition of Evolution...

It is not my purpose to address the "given scientific definition of Evolution" because that is bullshit which means nothing to people of average education and intelligence.

Rather, it is my purpose to address the folly of the idea of evolution which exists in the minds of most people of average education and intelligence.

For that purpose, "evolution" is what they think it is, and your fancy definition is meaningless.

So even if you are technically correct, I suggest you heed the advice of EzraLB and Gaius.
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby bahr » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:12 pm

Pretty good piece of research by ICfreely, for the most part (slightly reformatted for this forum):


by ICfreely on July 12th, 2015, 7:33 pm

Edward Bernays:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

That sobering explication of democracy comes from the man whose “Make the World Safe for Democracy” war slogan helped draw America into WWI. The man whose ‘Torches of Freedom’ publicity stunt helped ‘liberate’ women from ‘man’s inhumanity to women by a taboo against smoking.’ The man who helped Chiquita United Fruit expand its plantation-style domination of South America by means of ‘Banana Republic Wars’ which brutally suppressed genuine movements for freedom under the guise of containment of communist expansion in order to 'guard the free world.' The Soviets, of course, pillaged their fair share of nations under the guise of ‘defending freedom’ from capitalist expansion.

The ‘father of public relations,’ was Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels’ top mentor. He was also the nephew of Tavistock’s Sigmund ‘father of psychoanalysis’ Freud. Freud’s pseudoscientific pile of manure (which was based on Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man) fertilized the seed that sprouted into the wholly monstrous & pseudoscientific discipline of Psychiatry (state sanctioned chemical lobotomization). Darwin’s ideology also influenced John Maynard Keynes’ brand of capitalism as well as Karl ‘the father of international socialism’ Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Marx in turn influenced Adolph Hitler’s brand of secular fascism.
Dear Sir:
I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.

I remain, Dear Sir
Yours faithfully,
Charles Darwin
Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx
October, 1873

Add to the happiness of Mankind? That’s rich!

Chapter 9, page 134 'Evolutionism and the Birth of Comparative Psychology':
The influence of Darwinism upon psychology during the last quarter of the nineteenth century probably did as much as any single factor to shape the science as it exists today. Psychology was to become consistently more biological; even the description of mental processes tended to be more and more in terms of the underlying brain mechanisms, the functions served and the tasks accomplished in adjusting to the environment. The comparative viewpoint, although present here and there in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, could come into its own only when evolutionism had become the groundwork of psychological thinking. As a natural consequence, interest in animal psychology rapidly increased....

Psychiatrists now admit ‘chemical imbalance’ is a meaningless pseudoscientific term invented by Bernysian PR manipulators to sell poisons for big pharma. They also admit they cannot define what ‘mental illness’ actually is. They used to attribute their fabricated ‘psychological diseases’ to ‘biological’ and ‘psychological’ ‘conditions.’ They now attribute ‘mental disorders’ to ‘neurological’ and ‘genetic’ ‘co-factors.’ Practically every conceivable human emotion is classified as a mental disorder which can be ‘treated’ with a wide range of ‘medications.’ If you study the history of psychiatry you will have a renewed appreciation for the term ‘chemical warfare.’ I’m not trying to fear monger. If you take these words lightly, then may your chains rest lightly upon you dear reader.

Malcolm Muggeridge, Philosopher:
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 the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.

When people say we should not mix religion and science when it comes to the evolution vs. creation debate they, in essence, are propagating the myth that evolution is a legitimate science. In actuality, evolution is a religion and it should not be mistaken for science.

I think a few excerpts from the Protocols may shed light on all this theoretical nonsense. I know it’s a lightning rod for scapegoaters and apologists. Whether it’s real or fake is inconsequential. Even as a fictional literary work it’s compelling and bone-chillingly accurate. Frankly, it leaves The Art of War and The Prince in the dust. I think it’s important for everyone (especially Jewish people) to read it from a neutral stance. We’re all being played for fools. How can we be truth seekers and honest with one another if we can’t be honest with ourselves?
10. …Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, traditions and sentimental theorems, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument.

23. Our countersign is - Force and Make-believe. Only force conquers in political affairs, especially if it be concealed in the talents essential to statesmen. Violence must be the principle, and cunning and make-believe the rule for governments which do not want to lay down their crowns at the feet of agents of some new power.

2. …The GOYIM are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed. For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.

3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism.

4. Moreover, the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbitage, by regulations of life in common and all sorts of other quirks, in all which the GOYIM understand nothing, belongs likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain.


Martin Lubenow, (Bones of Contention, 1992):
The undiscerning public ...considers scientists to be some sort of high priest of our society, paragons of objectivity who have no philosophical axes to grind. Hence, the public is often fed a diet of philosophy under the guise of science.

T.C. Chamberlain 1899:
The fascinating impressiveness of rigorous mathematical analyses, within its atmosphere of precision and elegance, should not blind us to the defects of the premises that condition the whole process. There is perhaps no beguilement more insidious and dangerous than an elaborate and elegant mathematical process built upon unfortified premises.

Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984.:
It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).
1. relating to or concerned with metaphysics
2. (of a statement or theory) having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) literally meaningless
3. (popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical
4. incorporeal; supernatural

Bertrand Russell, D. W. Sciama, "The Unity of the Universe", 1961:
Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation.

Why is Newtonian mystery G heliocentricity a metaphysical assumption? Because the amount of matter in a planet is not measurable. It doesn’t take a genius to figure it out. Heliocentricity – the bedrock of modern science – is literally meaningless, unduly theoretical and SUPERNATURAL! Ironically, those who rightly reject it are accused of being scientifically illiterate people who must be blinded by religious (SUPERNATURAL) beliefs.

George Ellis, Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995:
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.

Bernard Russell & George Ellis are as establishment as it gets. If you can’t read between the lines (still trying to reconcile your cherished ziontific theories), then good luck dear reader.

Jaron Lanier:
There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.

Richard Dawkins (‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.):
All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.

If you actually believe Dawkins, then luck will do you no good!
User avatar
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:44 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Joe » Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:29 am

After reading Bill's comment I now realize that aleajactaest's comment can be read in a another way which does seem to support the evolution doctrine. I thought it was convicting them by their own mouths. I do not think evolution is a valid notion.

I have heard Ezra's arguments on Second Law of Thermodynamics and Irreducible Complexity before; but Ezra's articulate explanation certainly had an impact on me.

I should not make one sentence comments in the future, I just wish there was a thumbs-up emoticon to let a brother know they have helped me learn something. :)
...and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
User avatar
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:23 pm

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby EzraLB » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:42 am

One of the most common comments I get from people after they hear that I reject evolution on a basis of science and logic is "But if you don't believe in evolution, what do you believe?"

This is just another intellectual trap that people all too frequently fall into. Since they are the ones promoting evolution, they have the burden of proof, not me. Because I can demonstrably show evolution to be a fraud, I am under no obligation to come up with a viable alternative theory. If they can't live without an alternative, that's their problem, not mine.

Like Bill, I rejected evolution as a science long before I ever read the Bible. I was never motivated to defeat evolution in defense of my faith. I dismissed it using pure logic and reason. And that's what bothered people. They are always relieved to find out you reject evolution because of your belief in the Bible--because that's what they are told--that there is only evolution and only creationism. There's no possible third or fourth way.

If, say, someone wants to believe that man can somehow fly through the Van Allen Belt in a glorified aluminum can and get to the moon without being fried like a raisin from the intense radiation, that's their problem not mine. I'm under no obligation to come up with an alternative explanation of how it allegedly was done or how it could be done.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Joe » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:31 am

A nigger in a suit. These arguments are a joke, from one of the most celebrated nigger scientist I am familiar with, one of the only nigger scientist I know of lol. And look at it, look at this garbage it thinks somehow amounts to an argument for evolution.

It is basically a whinge-fest akin to that given by the jew sodomite stephen fry or that joker atheist from British comedies. Basically "why do people get sick and suffer ...therefore no benevolent God."

A physicist ...we have been talking about higher education, what a waste it was on this ape. Why would you waste the resources on this damned ape!?

Here is the disgusting kike I mentioned, stephen fry, making a similar argument. You only have to watch 10 seconds.
...and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
User avatar
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:23 pm

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Nayto » Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:01 pm

It said "aborted feces" instead of "fetuses" LOL! If niggers are born or aborted, either way it is feces. He is definitely feeling self conscious about his own kind.

The arguments are so incredibly stupid because he argues against intelligent design by stating how hostile the universe is and yet... Here we are.

As for the jew, as you say his argument is just as stupid. Basic misunderstanding of fundamental Christian concepts. He asks "what kind of God is He?" Well He is the kind that doesn't actually care about your moronic musings and will throw you into the lake of fire whether you grovel on your knees or not.
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Creationism and Evolution from the Christogenea Overview

Postby Joe » Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:28 pm

Nayto wrote:
The arguments are so incredibly stupid because he argues against intelligent design by stating how hostile the universe is and yet... Here we are.

Hey thanks Nayto, you articulated the argument much better than I, and it is a joke of an argument.
...and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
User avatar
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:23 pm


Return to Creationism vs Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest