|
|
#1271
09-23-2014, 04:31 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
It has you just ignore the evidence. "Is not observable" It has you just ignore the evidence. "You're a dumb motherfucker" It's pretty obvious I am about 40-60 IQ points above you. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1272
09-23-2014, 04:33 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
When has a change of kinds ever been observed in the field? When has entirely new and never before seen functioning genetic code ever spontaneously come into existence? Let me help you. Never Darwinism isn't true Science. It's a religion | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1273
09-23-2014, 04:35 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Still no response about Robot's copy/paste asshattery. Just gonna stick your head in the sand and act like it didnt happen, eh? Classic... | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1275
09-23-2014, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
Well, let’s examine one of the patron saints of our modern epistemological cartel, Charles Darwin. Technocrats, elitists, racists, and Freemasons surrounded Darwin. Such men shaped Darwin’s thinking and, in turn, his theories. As Miguel De Cervantes put it in Don Quixote, “Tell me what company thou keepest, and I’ll tell thee what thou art.” Proffering a form of elitism that was now premised upon biology, Darwinism affirmed this maxim.
Darwinism represented an attempt to scientifically dignify a Weltanschauung that was politically and socially expedient to the elite. Darwin sculpted his theory along the contours of his own Weltanschauung, which was strongly influenced by several questionable ideologues like T.H. Huxley (a racist, a Freemason, a fellow of the Masonic Royal Society, a member of an oligarchical dynasty, and one of the individuals responsible for the formation of the Rhodes Round Table Groups), Erasmus Darwin (Charles’ grandfather, a Freemason, a member of the technocratic Lunar Society, and a supporter of the radical, Illuminist-bred Jacobins), Harriet Martineau (a Comtean sociocrat, Positivist, an apologist for the corporate interests of the Whigs, and an advocate of eugenical regimentation), and Herbert Spencer (a theoretician of the technocratic social sciences and an advocate of Britain’s genocidal colonial warfare). All of these individuals acted as hosts for ideational contagions that were endemic to the ruling class. They, in large measure, shaped Darwin’s thinking. I guess you could characterize it as a memetic transmission belt of sorts. Adrian Desmond and James Moore most eloquently synopsized the results of this hideous ideational amalgam: “Social Darwinism is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start–“Darwinism” was always intended to explain human society.” Darwinism was always meant to be a social theory, not a scientific one. The type of society that it was designed to explain was that type of society that Darwin saw continually advocated by the dominant sociopolitical interests of the time, which were purely oligarchical in character. Of course, the historical tide of Darwinism did not rise in a completely organic fashion. There was a conspiratorial element behind the dissemination and popularization of Darwinism. The Masonic Royal Society would bestow Darwinism with institutional accreditation, which is the secular equivalent of a religious blessing. Now, one could consider the Royal Society a collection of naïve Baconians who believed in an oversimplified epistemology of empirical science devoid of intention, devoid of hypotheses (Newton’s hypothesis non fingo). However, there was an inner circle within the Royal Society, which Adrian Desmond and James Moore characterize as “a sort of masonic Darwinian lodge, invisible to outsiders.” This inner circle was the X Club. Its members wielded a substantial amount of influence over every famous scientist at the time. All of its members except Herbert Spencer were secretaries or presidents of “learned societies.” T.H. Huxley presided over the group, which would manipulate the scientific press. One of the most prevalent examples of the X Club’s media manipulation was its obfuscation of the Bathybius haeckelii. When it was discovered that Bathybius haeckelii was gypsum and not the missing Monera in Ernst Haeckel’s phylogenetic tree, the X Club suppressed almost every revelation of the debacle. Remember, the X Club was presided over by T.H. Huxley, a Freemason and a participant in the formation of the Rhodes Round Table Groups. The Round Table Groups were devoted to the formation of a British-ruled socialist totalitarian world government. Out of the Round Table Groups would come the Royal Institute for International Affairs. The RIIA would establish a stateside branch here in the United States known as the Council on Foreign Relations. This organization has acted as America’s premiere foreign policy cartel and a major catalyst for globalization. Globalism, in the words of the late Malachi Martin, qualifies as “sociopolitical Darwinism.” It is premised upon the belief that global governance is the natural corollary of man’s alleged political evolution. Mind you, T.H. Huxley was instrumental in establishing the organizational infrastructure that would lead to the modern network of institutions devoted to the promulgation of sociopolitical Darwinism. Given his Freemasonic heritage, Huxley probably embraced many of the technocratic Utopian ideas of the Enlightenment. He and many others probably viewed Darwinism as the scientific foundation for the oligarchical vision that they were hoping to tangibly enact. The crusade for a New World Order is neo-Gnostic in character. All modern sociopolitical Utopians seek to realize the Gnostic vision of an immanentized Eschaton. Communists, fascists, socialists, Transnationalists, Internationalists, and the like constitute secular Gnostics who envision an Eschaton (‘end of days”) within the ontological plane of the physical universe. Darwinism promised to edify the adherents of this vision. Darwinism functions as a Gnostic myth, affirming the Gnostic claim of “self-salvation” with the metaphysical claim of “self-creation.” By the way, metaphysical claims have always been the province of religion. The theme of “self-creation,” which is encapsulated within the Darwinian thesis of abiogenesis, can be found in other older occult belief systems. For instance, the Kabalistic legend of the golem presents a living man that arises from dead matter. As Albert Pike pointed out in Morals and Dogma, Kabbalism was one of the occult belief systems that formed the core of Masonry. Given the considerable number of Masonic personages surrounding Darwin, it is very possible that occult concepts like the golem found its way into Darwin’s thinking and his theory. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#1276
09-23-2014, 04:43 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
You mean species not kinds. You mean a chicken giving birth to a rabbit. Doesnt happen. Already explained it 5-10 times in previous posts. What makes you think explaining it again will do for you? My post history is there for you to dig through if you missed the answer to this question. "When has entirely new and never before seen functioning genetic code ever spontaneously come into existence?" That's not how it works, fella. I cant help it if you cannot grasp the concept of gradual change over time. Completely new genetic code spontaneously appearing wouldnt be gradual would it? See the problem with your question? "Darwinism isn't true Science." No, darwinism is a term used by dipshit creationists. The study of evolution encompasses many fields from geology to DNA analysis. Your ignorance gives me a headache. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1278
09-23-2014, 04:47 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#1279
09-23-2014, 04:48 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
