"Expelled" Off-Shoot #3: The propaganda aspect

[foolishmortal]

But yet, some do understand it and they say “baloney!” to the natural selection people. Some say there’s priests who believe it and there are many other scientists who believe in macroevolution. So what? The whole world, including high clerics in The Church, believed the Earth was flat, and that was when there wdere accurate star patterns being made. The few to deny it would go through ridicule and get kicked off any occupation of influence over others. If most clergy are living like the world, like it seemed to be in St. Francis’s time, then does that make their personal beliefs credible? Reliability only matters when truth and integrity are used. I don’t know the Pope’s scientists’ souls, but it’s obvious massive holes are being missed and they are being exposed by other clerics and non-Catholics, as well. I don’t think the dissenting opinion clerics were invited to the discussion they had. Interesting.

Two of the Pharisees had to be secret followers or sympathizers of Jesus. BTW You ever notice they say you can’t mix religion and science, but theistic evolutionists are not booed off–just tolerated. It’s ok, because they are helping them debunk the literal interpretation of the Bible for another religiously-held worldview that is full of holes. Why? It’s propaganda for the Masonics. It’s a turf war declared against the Catholic Church by its ancient counterculture opponents, who will probably consider theistic evolutionists, unnecessary at some point as “feeble-minded” for believing in God.

People like Dawkins (we come from alien seed…i.e., from any being, but God) and Myers (the ringleader for Eucharistic sacrileges) in “Expelled” need to be the ones kicked out of academia and censored in any serious field of science by sincere believers in macroevolution. They clearly show a conflict of interest and so do those who don’t shut them up. It won’t happen that they’ll be shut up, though. Those macroevolutionists in charge are running things in academia and science and so they have dropped their pretensions. Have you ever heard of scientific-communism? Think of people as just the highest animals, without a soul, and you have vulnerable specimens to experiment upon. Those who are not productive or useful can be singled-out for extermination. Have we not learned, just because the ones exterminated cannot be seen walking about the streets? Are we going to let these bullies use their religion (which has made icons, like the Darwin fish and the ape handing a skeleton a stick) to go from the most defenseless to those they dislike over a farce of a theory? Do we need to repeat history for a theory full of holes? Ben Stein thinks not. Neither do I.

 

[foolishmortal]

Sorry. I thought somebody had replied to my last reply. This is to another, so as not to post it on the wrong thread.

They lied about what the movie was about?
That is some of the most convoluted logic, I’ve heard. Either the movie tells the truth or it doesn’t. Why, by the way, do you get accused of not knowimng anything about science, if you back the status quo, but, if you back the macroevolution scientists, you’re free to talk, as if an expert. That kind of thinking never would have allowed Galileo’s understanding to go anywhere. After all, the Church’s scientists believed what was believed before. They had astronomy. They were wrong (though I’m pretty sure Galileo was about the orbits being elliptical; not circlular). Why can’t they be wrong now? Science is supposed to allow for discourse. Not all about scientific understanding is without a doubt. The belief that the book is closed about macroevolution is arrogant and hampers science. There are no counter-arguments against stuff like gravity, by the way, so quit using that old argument.

Creationism doesn’t have to be the alternative to macroevolution, but a history of the roots of macroevolution and an objective understanding, free of academic persecution and other forms of insecurity-borne scorn, of real biology clearly shows how Darwin came from people who think other people should be able to exist or not and he was of like mind with his cousin, Galton, who gave the term, “eugenic” to his elite, hateful NWO ancestors. There is a conflict of interest and the punishment of natural selection dissenters makes it clear as day. Ben Stein points it out. If priests support it, so what? They’re not scientists, right? Oh, but they agree with “the experts”, so they become honorary scientists to you, right? If one priest, actually trained in the science, dissents, he is a fringe right-wing wacko.

Think for yourself. You can do that, when it doesn’t involve our dogma. If macroevolution is your dogma and Big Science scientists are your priests (who also use environmentalism to get rid of those darn “useless eaters”, who’d be better off dead or lab experiments). you’ll hear nothing else as anything but nonsense. It’s a turf war waged against the Church. Unfortunately, as it was wrong about Hitler, the Church is wrong about Big Science. Maybe it’s because it does not rightly know them as a branch of Freemasons or other Gnostic secret societies. I’m sure some will say, “but Pope Benedict says it’s plausible” and I’ll say with a wicked grin, “yeah, but is he a scientist?”.