We Homo sapiens often like to champion ourselves as the most intelligent species. In fact by all known metrics of intelligence, we are. However as whole, our species doesn't act intelligent. Take Creationism for example. It is a sad indictment of the intelligence of our species when educated people who in other aspects of life are 'smart', yet still manage to accept something so vapid, so devoid of truth of which all evidence points to the contrary as true. This phenomena itself is clearly evidence of evolution. No intelligent creator would craft a brain that so easily deludes itself into believing things as stupid as creationism.
This doesn't mean I think all creationists are stupid though, they simply have a faulty brain. We all do. I once was a creationist because I was led to believe it as a child by adults who didn't know any better. When I learned more about it I rejected it, but for a number of years, I looked at the evidence and rejected it, opting instead for a position of faith. Some people may never end up giving up cretinous beliefs and it is sad to realise this. Humanity is not as smart as we delude ourselves to believe. Sometimes, some people are smart at some things, but in general, we are not so smart.
Showing posts with label shit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shit. Show all posts
Friday, April 13, 2012
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
False Analogies
It generally annoys me when I hear people making comparisons between Jesus and other mythical deities, because most of the time, they make false analogies. The most common ones are what people learned from movies like Zeitgeist (which is horrible), and they make bold claims like "The Jesus story was copied directly from pagan religions!" and "All of these gods (10s or 100s of them) were born on December 25th of a virgin and when they died rose 3 days later!"
My biggest gripe with these faux arguments is that there ARE legitimate comparisons to be made. There are quite a number of dying and rising gods in ancient religions. There are a number of mythical man-god figures who were said to have been fathered by gods. There are also other figures who are ascribed many of the same kinds of miracles that Jesus did. These are the comparisons that should be made, and are made by people who know what's what. It isn't a black and white issue and the stories are not identical. I really wish people would stop speaking out their ass and treating movies like Zeitgeist and Religious as scholarly sources.
My biggest gripe with these faux arguments is that there ARE legitimate comparisons to be made. There are quite a number of dying and rising gods in ancient religions. There are a number of mythical man-god figures who were said to have been fathered by gods. There are also other figures who are ascribed many of the same kinds of miracles that Jesus did. These are the comparisons that should be made, and are made by people who know what's what. It isn't a black and white issue and the stories are not identical. I really wish people would stop speaking out their ass and treating movies like Zeitgeist and Religious as scholarly sources.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Fear-Mongering, Propaganda and Poor Journalism in the New Zealand Herald
An article in the New Zealand Herald today was brought to my attention via Facebook, and to say the least I was quite shocked. The title of the article was "Sex at 14 - I learned all about it in class" by Elizabeth Binning. It (kind of) tells the story of a teenager from the Hibiscus Coast (North of Auckland) who is pregnant at the age of 17. 'Big deal' so far right? My gripes with the piece started right from the title, and continued through just about every single sentence all the way to the end.
The "Journalist" Elizabeth Binning is pushing for an anti-Sex-Ed angle throughout the whole story, which already shows her colours. Comprehensive sex education is demonstrably the best way of reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Abstinence-only education has proven to be a complete failure in the United States (Guardian) and has been ineffective in general (Wikipedia). People who push propaganda against teaching teenagers sexual and reproductive health are not only counter-productive but they are chewing away at the progress that has been made in many places.
Beyond the anti-sex-ed angle of the piece, it is very poorly written, and seems to indicate at one point in the article that the girl in question was raped. "I didn't wind up pregnant because I didn't attend a class. I know all about contraceptives and safe sex. It was purely the fact that I was drunk, it was New Year's, and some older male thought it would be fabulous to take advantage of me." But after emailing the editor expressing concern that the journalist didn't seem to care about the rape, an acquaintance of mine through my University feminist group received a reply that the girl was not raped, but rather that she was drunk and was deceived by the older male that 'pulling out' was an effective contraceptive method. Either way, it doesn't paint a very good picture of the man in question, and it would in my opinion have been much better to focus on that aspect of her story. I have heard it said that the general attitude towards rape in New Zealand is rather blasé, which I find extremely appalling. I believe our rape laws are in dire need of revision, but that is a discussion for another day.
Binning also quotes from this ignorant child as if she was an authority on the matter. No references to studies to back up what the girl is saying? No checking her story to see whether the health teacher at the school was actually getting kids to taste flavoured condoms? I don't know about you, but I'm simply not going to take the word of a 17 year old who got pregnant because she was lead to believed that 'pulling out' was an effective contraceptive method, when "She said teaching young teenagers about contraception won't help reduce New Zealand's high rate of teenage pregnancy rates." I'm sorry, but all the data goes the other way.
Here are some quotes from the article
"A pregnant teenager says sex education in schools does not prevent young people from having sex - if anything, it encourages it."
Really? Data please?
"Amber-Leigh has spoken out in the hope it may help other young teenagers to learn about the importance of having protected sex - or preferably waiting until they are older."
So how about educating them about contraception? I distinctly remember being told when I was 14 years old that "just pulling out doesn't work". Either she wasn't paying attention or her teacher was crap.
This article was not a one-off event either, recently Elizabeth Binning has written 4 "articles" with the same propaganda against sexual health education. Some of the others display even poorer journalistic integrity than the most recent one. Quoting from anonymous sources with no apparent fact-checking is indicative of at the very least an incompetent journalist, at worst someone pushing a dangerous agenda.
The titles of her other 3 articles are:
The "Journalist" Elizabeth Binning is pushing for an anti-Sex-Ed angle throughout the whole story, which already shows her colours. Comprehensive sex education is demonstrably the best way of reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Abstinence-only education has proven to be a complete failure in the United States (Guardian) and has been ineffective in general (Wikipedia). People who push propaganda against teaching teenagers sexual and reproductive health are not only counter-productive but they are chewing away at the progress that has been made in many places.
Beyond the anti-sex-ed angle of the piece, it is very poorly written, and seems to indicate at one point in the article that the girl in question was raped. "I didn't wind up pregnant because I didn't attend a class. I know all about contraceptives and safe sex. It was purely the fact that I was drunk, it was New Year's, and some older male thought it would be fabulous to take advantage of me." But after emailing the editor expressing concern that the journalist didn't seem to care about the rape, an acquaintance of mine through my University feminist group received a reply that the girl was not raped, but rather that she was drunk and was deceived by the older male that 'pulling out' was an effective contraceptive method. Either way, it doesn't paint a very good picture of the man in question, and it would in my opinion have been much better to focus on that aspect of her story. I have heard it said that the general attitude towards rape in New Zealand is rather blasé, which I find extremely appalling. I believe our rape laws are in dire need of revision, but that is a discussion for another day.
Binning also quotes from this ignorant child as if she was an authority on the matter. No references to studies to back up what the girl is saying? No checking her story to see whether the health teacher at the school was actually getting kids to taste flavoured condoms? I don't know about you, but I'm simply not going to take the word of a 17 year old who got pregnant because she was lead to believed that 'pulling out' was an effective contraceptive method, when "She said teaching young teenagers about contraception won't help reduce New Zealand's high rate of teenage pregnancy rates." I'm sorry, but all the data goes the other way.
Here are some quotes from the article
"A pregnant teenager says sex education in schools does not prevent young people from having sex - if anything, it encourages it."
Really? Data please?
"Amber-Leigh has spoken out in the hope it may help other young teenagers to learn about the importance of having protected sex - or preferably waiting until they are older."
So how about educating them about contraception? I distinctly remember being told when I was 14 years old that "just pulling out doesn't work". Either she wasn't paying attention or her teacher was crap.
This article was not a one-off event either, recently Elizabeth Binning has written 4 "articles" with the same propaganda against sexual health education. Some of the others display even poorer journalistic integrity than the most recent one. Quoting from anonymous sources with no apparent fact-checking is indicative of at the very least an incompetent journalist, at worst someone pushing a dangerous agenda.
The titles of her other 3 articles are:
- Too much 'grubby stuff', so dad steps in - No sources mentioned, story is about a father whose 12 year old son was supposedly recommended to engage oral sex by his sex-ed teacher. I call absolute bull shit.
- Sex ed shock for angry parents - "Children as young as 12 are being taught about oral sex and told it's acceptable to play with a girl's private parts as long as "she's okay with it"." I call Bull Shit!
- Readers up in arms over sex education - "children as young as 12 are being taught about anal and oral sex and ...Children as young as 11 are being taught how to put condoms on cucumbers, and in some schools 14-year-old girls are practising on black plastic penises. In one, a female teacher went as far as to give her class of 15-year-olds a rendition of the noises she makes during orgasm." I call BULL SHIT!
More Evidence That Creationists Are Lying Sacks of Shit
Since I'm subscribed to CMI's newsletter I regularly get infuriating items in my inbox. This particular example from today is no exception. Some time ago, Creation Ministries International started a "Question Evolution" campaign to encourage Christians to reject science. They produced a small document with 15 questions for evolutionists to answer. Understandably, the questions were stupid, unbelievably so.
Here are the first 3
In their newsletter, they claimed that "atheists have attempted to answer the points we raised ... But the answers fall short as we show in our rebuttal."
Here are the so-called-objections to their 15 questions.
Question 1:
Answer 1: Abiogenesis is not relevant to the discussion of evolution—it is a separate topic (this has been a very common claim).
Answer 2: Life/non-life isn’t a dichotomy. Rather, there are many examples of ‘proto-life’ such as viruses, prions, etc.
Answer 3: Some experiments show that the early earth’s atmosphere was optimal for life.
Really? No one pointed out to them that their question is a complete strawman? No scientist that works on abiogenesis would EVER say that the first 'life' was complex, and there is no way that it would have required hundreds of proteins. This just shows that CMI are not interested in honest science, but prefer to peddle blatant lies to their all too willing flock of sheep who gobble that bullshit up like it was chocolate mousse.
Question 2:
Answer 1: This is not an evolution question, because evolution starts with an already-reproducing organism.
Answer 2: Originally, life used RNA instead of DNA to encode information.
Answer 3: It is disingenuous to argue from the current DNA code, because the original code would have been much simpler.
Answer 4: The question of how the modern code emerged from these early predecessors is evolution itself. Random deviations in the nucleic acid structure would change the by-product produced, if the by-product was more efficient at replicating, it would overwhelm less efficient codes. This gradual change in the complexity of the underlying code is useful in explaining many aspects of biological theory. Such as why RNA is used as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis.
Answer 5: The words ‘code’ and ‘language’ are only metaphors when applied to the DNA code, and they have no reality outside our own mental constructs. In reality, the whole thing is dependent on chemical properties.
Answer 6: It is easy to create amino acids and the building blocks for RNA by running an electrical charge through mineral-rich water.
At least some of these touch on the key issue. Unsurprisingly they didn't really respond to any of them in any capacity with things like "Secular scientists refer to the nucleobases of DNA as ‘letters’, so it’s hardly original to us." This just ignores the metaphor criticism altogether. To answer 3 they say "This is most disingenuous. So many evolutionists have appealed to the common DNA code to “prove” common ancestry." This to me shows an intentional misunderstanding of the response, either that or they are absolutely brain-dead (which is a very real possibility!).
Question 3:
Answer 1: If only eight mutations per year were passed on for three billion years, that gives 3 gigabytes of information.
Answer 2: Computer models have shown how mutations can lead to large-scale change.
Answer 3: Using words such as ‘accidental’ and ‘mistakes’ is misleading and misses the point entirely.
As with the first question, the objections are relevant, but 2/3 miss the fundamental problem. CMI, and their fans do not understand what a mutation is, and they perpetuate the myth that all mutations are harmful and only remove information. They aren't interested in understanding what mutations really are and what they really do, just like they aren't interested in doing any actual science. All they are interested in doing is lying for Jesus. If they seriously wanted to try and answer objections to their idiotic questions, they would have responded to something like RationalWiki's article. Their actions speak louder than words, they find a handful of criticisms that while valid, don't cut to the heart of the issue. These issues are complex scientific issues and to understand an objection to the flawed misunderstandings that creationists have takes time. Creationists, the dishonest, disingenuous, ignorant lying sacks of shit that they are, simply do not want to put the effort in to learn real, honest science.
Here's a link to RationalWiki's article again, because it's good.
Here are the first 3
- How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
- How did the DNA code originate?
- How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
In their newsletter, they claimed that "atheists have attempted to answer the points we raised ... But the answers fall short as we show in our rebuttal."
Here are the so-called-objections to their 15 questions.
Question 1:
Answer 1: Abiogenesis is not relevant to the discussion of evolution—it is a separate topic (this has been a very common claim).
Answer 2: Life/non-life isn’t a dichotomy. Rather, there are many examples of ‘proto-life’ such as viruses, prions, etc.
Answer 3: Some experiments show that the early earth’s atmosphere was optimal for life.
Really? No one pointed out to them that their question is a complete strawman? No scientist that works on abiogenesis would EVER say that the first 'life' was complex, and there is no way that it would have required hundreds of proteins. This just shows that CMI are not interested in honest science, but prefer to peddle blatant lies to their all too willing flock of sheep who gobble that bullshit up like it was chocolate mousse.
Question 2:
Answer 1: This is not an evolution question, because evolution starts with an already-reproducing organism.
Answer 2: Originally, life used RNA instead of DNA to encode information.
Answer 3: It is disingenuous to argue from the current DNA code, because the original code would have been much simpler.
Answer 4: The question of how the modern code emerged from these early predecessors is evolution itself. Random deviations in the nucleic acid structure would change the by-product produced, if the by-product was more efficient at replicating, it would overwhelm less efficient codes. This gradual change in the complexity of the underlying code is useful in explaining many aspects of biological theory. Such as why RNA is used as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis.
Answer 5: The words ‘code’ and ‘language’ are only metaphors when applied to the DNA code, and they have no reality outside our own mental constructs. In reality, the whole thing is dependent on chemical properties.
Answer 6: It is easy to create amino acids and the building blocks for RNA by running an electrical charge through mineral-rich water.
At least some of these touch on the key issue. Unsurprisingly they didn't really respond to any of them in any capacity with things like "Secular scientists refer to the nucleobases of DNA as ‘letters’, so it’s hardly original to us." This just ignores the metaphor criticism altogether. To answer 3 they say "This is most disingenuous. So many evolutionists have appealed to the common DNA code to “prove” common ancestry." This to me shows an intentional misunderstanding of the response, either that or they are absolutely brain-dead (which is a very real possibility!).
Question 3:
Answer 1: If only eight mutations per year were passed on for three billion years, that gives 3 gigabytes of information.
Answer 2: Computer models have shown how mutations can lead to large-scale change.
Answer 3: Using words such as ‘accidental’ and ‘mistakes’ is misleading and misses the point entirely.
As with the first question, the objections are relevant, but 2/3 miss the fundamental problem. CMI, and their fans do not understand what a mutation is, and they perpetuate the myth that all mutations are harmful and only remove information. They aren't interested in understanding what mutations really are and what they really do, just like they aren't interested in doing any actual science. All they are interested in doing is lying for Jesus. If they seriously wanted to try and answer objections to their idiotic questions, they would have responded to something like RationalWiki's article. Their actions speak louder than words, they find a handful of criticisms that while valid, don't cut to the heart of the issue. These issues are complex scientific issues and to understand an objection to the flawed misunderstandings that creationists have takes time. Creationists, the dishonest, disingenuous, ignorant lying sacks of shit that they are, simply do not want to put the effort in to learn real, honest science.
Here's a link to RationalWiki's article again, because it's good.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Top Ten Quackronyms
If you haven't figured it out, a Quackronym is an acronym for something related to Quackery of some sort.
Let's start at my number 10.
10. EVP - Electronic Voice Phenomena
This is something you see on those Ghost Hunter shows, where they claim the noise or interference picked up by their recording device comes from a paranormal source. The people who believe in this nonsense could learn a lesson or two from Scooby Doo.
9. EHF - Extraordinary Human Function
8. ET - Extra Terrestrial
The reason ET's are so far down this list, is because there is a high probability that some form of life exists somewhere else in the universe. People who think aliens visit earth and that people get abducted by aliens are still crazy though. There is almost no chance that any alien life is close enough to visit earth. If however some alien race were visiting earth, I do not believe for one second they would be at all interested in abducting some of our least sane members of society.
7. DHEA - dehydroepiandrosterone
DHEA is a naturally occurring steroid produced in the adrenal gland. In fact DHEA is very abundant in the human body. However it has been marketed as a "miracle drug" by quack and quack alike, as a cure for everything ranging from auto-immune disorders to weight loss. Quackwatch has a good article on it.
6. NDE - Near Death Experience
Near Death Experiences are often touted as evidence for life after death. I have a few things to say to people who accept this as evidence: Oxygen deprivation, brain damage and hallucination. Here's a link for more information.
5. OBE - Out of Body Experience
I was tempted to combine this into a single category with NDE's, but they are also related to another piece of quackery that doesn't make a nice acronym: Astral Projection. Here's a link to a Michael Shermer video on the 'God Helmet' and Out of Body Experiences. Here's a link to another video about the same helmet. What is abundantly clear from the realistic explanations of these last 2 Quackronyms is that the Human Brain is highly susceptible to manipulation and hallucination. Anyone who has taken some kind of hallucinogen knows this.
4. ESP - Extra Sensory Perception
Believers in ESP are probably either really gullible or Alien-abductee type crazy. No credible evidence has ever been produced for such phenomena, nor any mechanism suggested. Penn and Teller did an episode of 'Bullshit!' that featured an ESP class at a home-based Psychic School. It's good for a laugh.
3. MLM - Multi Level Marketing
Multi Level Marketing just makes me sad. Most of the people that get sucked into it are victims of a scam, plain and simple. They were most likely recruited by other people who are most likely also victims of the same scam. The simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who try MLM do not make any money. They're not supposed to, it's simply a disguised pyramid scheme, the products they sell are only secondary to the recruitment. When you pay to sign up, the people higher up the pyramid make money.
2. YEC - Young Earth Creationism
I wanted to include Intelligent Design (ID) as another category, but then I would have had to remove one of my other list items, or make it a top 11, which just isn't cool (unless you're Spinal Tap). The reason Young Earth Creationism is so high up on this list (or low down if you prefer it that way) is because to be a YECer you literally have to deny just about all of the findings of science from the last 200 years. Creationists are Quacks of the highest calibre.
1. CAM - Complementary and Alternative Medicine
This blight upon humanity is at the number one spot for a very good reason. With the potential exception of DHEA, none of the other list members have the potential to do any physical harm beyond affecting the intelligence and sanity of the believer. Alternative medicine can cause serious harm, and in some cases result in death, as believers will of avoid getting real life-saving treatments for diseases. What really makes me furious though is that some parents make the choice on behalf of their children, like this Sydney couple who only gave their baby daughter homeopathic remedies and she died from septicaemia and malnutrition.
Let's start at my number 10.
10. EVP - Electronic Voice Phenomena
This is something you see on those Ghost Hunter shows, where they claim the noise or interference picked up by their recording device comes from a paranormal source. The people who believe in this nonsense could learn a lesson or two from Scooby Doo.
9. EHF - Extraordinary Human Function
Skepdic says: "An extraordinary human function would be something like the ability to read messages with one's ears, forehead, fingers or some other part of the anatomy besides the eyes. There have even been accounts of reading by sitting on the message. The latter was popular in China in the late 1970's, when the study of EHF became a major research topic at Beijing University and the Chinese Academy of Sciences."There's a little something called evidence, perhaps these folk should learn what it is.
8. ET - Extra Terrestrial
The reason ET's are so far down this list, is because there is a high probability that some form of life exists somewhere else in the universe. People who think aliens visit earth and that people get abducted by aliens are still crazy though. There is almost no chance that any alien life is close enough to visit earth. If however some alien race were visiting earth, I do not believe for one second they would be at all interested in abducting some of our least sane members of society.
7. DHEA - dehydroepiandrosterone
DHEA is a naturally occurring steroid produced in the adrenal gland. In fact DHEA is very abundant in the human body. However it has been marketed as a "miracle drug" by quack and quack alike, as a cure for everything ranging from auto-immune disorders to weight loss. Quackwatch has a good article on it.
6. NDE - Near Death Experience
Near Death Experiences are often touted as evidence for life after death. I have a few things to say to people who accept this as evidence: Oxygen deprivation, brain damage and hallucination. Here's a link for more information.
5. OBE - Out of Body Experience
I was tempted to combine this into a single category with NDE's, but they are also related to another piece of quackery that doesn't make a nice acronym: Astral Projection. Here's a link to a Michael Shermer video on the 'God Helmet' and Out of Body Experiences. Here's a link to another video about the same helmet. What is abundantly clear from the realistic explanations of these last 2 Quackronyms is that the Human Brain is highly susceptible to manipulation and hallucination. Anyone who has taken some kind of hallucinogen knows this.
4. ESP - Extra Sensory Perception
Believers in ESP are probably either really gullible or Alien-abductee type crazy. No credible evidence has ever been produced for such phenomena, nor any mechanism suggested. Penn and Teller did an episode of 'Bullshit!' that featured an ESP class at a home-based Psychic School. It's good for a laugh.
3. MLM - Multi Level Marketing
Multi Level Marketing just makes me sad. Most of the people that get sucked into it are victims of a scam, plain and simple. They were most likely recruited by other people who are most likely also victims of the same scam. The simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people who try MLM do not make any money. They're not supposed to, it's simply a disguised pyramid scheme, the products they sell are only secondary to the recruitment. When you pay to sign up, the people higher up the pyramid make money.
2. YEC - Young Earth Creationism
I wanted to include Intelligent Design (ID) as another category, but then I would have had to remove one of my other list items, or make it a top 11, which just isn't cool (unless you're Spinal Tap). The reason Young Earth Creationism is so high up on this list (or low down if you prefer it that way) is because to be a YECer you literally have to deny just about all of the findings of science from the last 200 years. Creationists are Quacks of the highest calibre.
1. CAM - Complementary and Alternative Medicine
This blight upon humanity is at the number one spot for a very good reason. With the potential exception of DHEA, none of the other list members have the potential to do any physical harm beyond affecting the intelligence and sanity of the believer. Alternative medicine can cause serious harm, and in some cases result in death, as believers will of avoid getting real life-saving treatments for diseases. What really makes me furious though is that some parents make the choice on behalf of their children, like this Sydney couple who only gave their baby daughter homeopathic remedies and she died from septicaemia and malnutrition.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Never Again Will I Debate a Creationist
As of yesterday I've decided that I will no longer engage with Creationists on any science subject. I wasted several hours of my day yesterday in an online debate with a Creatard that I know through University. I'll give the outline of how it went down. This is going to be long, and if you're not interested in hearing about it I suggest you stop now.
-He made the initial post claiming that evolutionary thinking is a cult.
-I responded saying that it's an established scientific fact, and that you would encounter the same resistance if you went around questioning gravity or germ theory.
-He made some irrelevant points relating to the cult idea, then claimed that evolutionists never give evidence.
-I responded appropriately and compiled a short list of evidence (probably about 1.5 A4 pages worth).
-He admitted to not reading any of it and asked me to pick one example to discuss.
-After some deliberation we settled on discussing Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)
This is where it started
-He made a whole bunch of unsupported claims in an almost incoherent post, and then linked to two scientific papers he claimed backed up his assertions.
-I read the papers (which he hadn't done), and informed him that one of them wasn't actually about ERVs, the title of the paper specifically said 'ERV-like Elements'. Even if the paper had been about ordinary ERVs, the article did not support what he was saying. The other paper (which he only read the abstract of I think) was not understood by him. I tried to explain but he kept saying the same things.
-He came back making claims about what the articles had said, but they hadn't said those things.
-He then linked to an article about the discovery of ERVs, claiming that "ERV infections that are identical accross numerous species - which pretty much kills the idea of taxonomical classification using infections".
-When I called him out on using the word 'identical' when the article had talked about 'closely related' ERVs in different species and explained that the terms are not interchangeable, he went to a massive rant telling me I didn't understand ERVs. In this barely coherent rant he strawmanned the simple criticism against him into oblivion. It is difficult to explain just how misguided his grandstanding was.
-During his rant he referred back to his arguments that the first two articles had supposedly proved, then told me to concede the debate. His words: "conceed that ERV infections are *NOT* taxonomical constants Good on your for enterin the debate though! most people wont"
At this point I expressed my dissatisfaction with his incoherent replies, his arrogance, his strawmanning, his misappropriation of words and his condescension.
-I replied to his rant point for point (where there was one)
-He did not reply to what I had said but merely babbled some (again) barely coherent nonsense in which he used the same arguments as he had initially. Numerous times in his textual diarrhoea he insulted my intelligence, told me I was unscientific, biased and talking on a subject that I knew nothing about, which he said displayed "extreme arrogance".
-I once again responded to him point by point, explaining why his postings were incoherent, and where he had misused words like 'phylogeny', 'transcription', 'taxonomy'. I also explained how his arguments confused the evolution of the viruses with the evolution of the host, and their various phylogenies. I asked him for sources for his very specific claims (he gave numbers!). I finished by criticising his attitude again.
-He responded purely with insults, telling me to get a grip, that I'm a dick, that I got "spanked ideological", that I'm not smarter, that I'm biased and that I was being emotional. He had the courtesy to be mildly incoherent too.
At this point I was mad. I flamed him back and tried to explain why his tactics were so dishonest. I told him that he hadn't responded to a single one of my arguments, while I had responded point for point to every single one of his.
-He then comes back telling me that he gave me 59 comments worth of points to critique (hint: that was the total number of comments and half of them were mine). He then told me that it was my fault that I couldn't understand him half the time. He said that I made arguments that I hadn't actually made and told me I didn't understand the science behind ERVs. He then said he knows more about biology and that he would make me "look like a punk". What threw me over the edge and made me quit the discussion and vow to never discuss science with Creatards again was this:
"you have not made a single point. Tell me what you don't understand - and then we will try and move forward"
I simply responded with a good old "Fuck you" and left.
-He made the initial post claiming that evolutionary thinking is a cult.
-I responded saying that it's an established scientific fact, and that you would encounter the same resistance if you went around questioning gravity or germ theory.
-He made some irrelevant points relating to the cult idea, then claimed that evolutionists never give evidence.
-I responded appropriately and compiled a short list of evidence (probably about 1.5 A4 pages worth).
-He admitted to not reading any of it and asked me to pick one example to discuss.
-After some deliberation we settled on discussing Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs)
This is where it started
-He made a whole bunch of unsupported claims in an almost incoherent post, and then linked to two scientific papers he claimed backed up his assertions.
-I read the papers (which he hadn't done), and informed him that one of them wasn't actually about ERVs, the title of the paper specifically said 'ERV-like Elements'. Even if the paper had been about ordinary ERVs, the article did not support what he was saying. The other paper (which he only read the abstract of I think) was not understood by him. I tried to explain but he kept saying the same things.
-He came back making claims about what the articles had said, but they hadn't said those things.
-He then linked to an article about the discovery of ERVs, claiming that "ERV infections that are identical accross numerous species - which pretty much kills the idea of taxonomical classification using infections".
-When I called him out on using the word 'identical' when the article had talked about 'closely related' ERVs in different species and explained that the terms are not interchangeable, he went to a massive rant telling me I didn't understand ERVs. In this barely coherent rant he strawmanned the simple criticism against him into oblivion. It is difficult to explain just how misguided his grandstanding was.
-During his rant he referred back to his arguments that the first two articles had supposedly proved, then told me to concede the debate. His words: "conceed that ERV infections are *NOT* taxonomical constants Good on your for enterin the debate though! most people wont"
At this point I expressed my dissatisfaction with his incoherent replies, his arrogance, his strawmanning, his misappropriation of words and his condescension.
-I replied to his rant point for point (where there was one)
-He did not reply to what I had said but merely babbled some (again) barely coherent nonsense in which he used the same arguments as he had initially. Numerous times in his textual diarrhoea he insulted my intelligence, told me I was unscientific, biased and talking on a subject that I knew nothing about, which he said displayed "extreme arrogance".
-I once again responded to him point by point, explaining why his postings were incoherent, and where he had misused words like 'phylogeny', 'transcription', 'taxonomy'. I also explained how his arguments confused the evolution of the viruses with the evolution of the host, and their various phylogenies. I asked him for sources for his very specific claims (he gave numbers!). I finished by criticising his attitude again.
-He responded purely with insults, telling me to get a grip, that I'm a dick, that I got "spanked ideological", that I'm not smarter, that I'm biased and that I was being emotional. He had the courtesy to be mildly incoherent too.
At this point I was mad. I flamed him back and tried to explain why his tactics were so dishonest. I told him that he hadn't responded to a single one of my arguments, while I had responded point for point to every single one of his.
-He then comes back telling me that he gave me 59 comments worth of points to critique (hint: that was the total number of comments and half of them were mine). He then told me that it was my fault that I couldn't understand him half the time. He said that I made arguments that I hadn't actually made and told me I didn't understand the science behind ERVs. He then said he knows more about biology and that he would make me "look like a punk". What threw me over the edge and made me quit the discussion and vow to never discuss science with Creatards again was this:
"you have not made a single point. Tell me what you don't understand - and then we will try and move forward"
I simply responded with a good old "Fuck you" and left.
Monday, June 13, 2011
A Wild Moron Appears!
On the weekend I encountered a wild creature that expressed a trait that could only be described as 'woeful ignorance'. This creature paraded around like a peacock, making sure that everyone saw his feathers, except in this case it was his delusional perception of his own intelligence. Sightings of this species usually involve several notable behaviours. First he will walk boldly into a group of other creatures which he falsely thinks are of the same species, puff his chest out and declare "Evolution is bullshit! The big bang is bullshit!".
When one of his hopeful targets decides to engage him in discourse, he will try his hardest to prevent them from exposing his mental ineptitude. It spouts arguments like "If evolution is true, why aren't there half-man-half-monkeys? See! Evolution is bullshit!" If his opponent tries to explain why he's wrong, beware, as this creature is incapable of understanding even the most elementary explanations of scientific principles.
If his opponent manages to get enough words in to confuse the creature, it will resort to primitive alpha-male-wannabe type ad hominems, such as: "Do you have a job?" and "Have you had sex?". I am writing this primarily as a warning to all who may engage a creature like this. Unfortunately I believe they may be integrated within the human species to such a degree that it may be difficult to identify them. Engaging them in debate is futile, their primitive brains no longer make new neural connections, they are incapable of learning anything outside of their limited paradigm. If you encounter one, try to avoid confrontation, as you will only leave gobsmacked and depressed that they may be the same species as you.
I propose a new species name for this creature. Homo moronis.
When one of his hopeful targets decides to engage him in discourse, he will try his hardest to prevent them from exposing his mental ineptitude. It spouts arguments like "If evolution is true, why aren't there half-man-half-monkeys? See! Evolution is bullshit!" If his opponent tries to explain why he's wrong, beware, as this creature is incapable of understanding even the most elementary explanations of scientific principles.
If his opponent manages to get enough words in to confuse the creature, it will resort to primitive alpha-male-wannabe type ad hominems, such as: "Do you have a job?" and "Have you had sex?". I am writing this primarily as a warning to all who may engage a creature like this. Unfortunately I believe they may be integrated within the human species to such a degree that it may be difficult to identify them. Engaging them in debate is futile, their primitive brains no longer make new neural connections, they are incapable of learning anything outside of their limited paradigm. If you encounter one, try to avoid confrontation, as you will only leave gobsmacked and depressed that they may be the same species as you.
I propose a new species name for this creature. Homo moronis.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Oh the Stupidity, it HURTS!
While browsing random videos on YouTube, I came across what is perhaps the most retarded creationist video I've ever seen. I found myself staring at the video wide-eyed, frequently shouting "WHAT!?!?!?!" at the screen. The sheer insanity of it made me think that it was a Poe video, but upon investigation it seems legitimate. The video comes from a channel named ppsimmons. The content of the video requires no rebuttal, as anyone with a brain can easily see how utterly absurd the video is.
The video takes some clips from a documentary about evolution, and has written commentary over it. They attempt to criticise the documentary for using incorrect grammar, when in fact there was no mistake made. They criticise the visual representation of the same animal gradually evolving as if that's what evolution actually is. Basically, they're absolute fucking morons, here is the video.
The video takes some clips from a documentary about evolution, and has written commentary over it. They attempt to criticise the documentary for using incorrect grammar, when in fact there was no mistake made. They criticise the visual representation of the same animal gradually evolving as if that's what evolution actually is. Basically, they're absolute fucking morons, here is the video.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Fuck The Catholic Church
Okay it has just gone way too far. Once again, a catholic priest has been arrested for being part of a pedophile sex ring. The irony of the situation, is that this particular priest Father Riccardo Seppia was in the archdiocese of one of the advisers to the Pope on the ongoing pedophile scandals. He was apparently trying to get a Moroccan drug dealer to get him young boys to molest. He allegedly said “I do not want 16-year-old boys but younger. Fourteen-year-olds are O.K. Look for needy boys who have family issues,”
People have been making jokes about the Catholic church and it's pedophilic behaviour as long as I can remember, the first one I heard was probably when I was around 6 years old. Nearly 16 years on from then and the allegations are as true as ever. Jokes about it just do not suffice any more, words simply cannot express the contempt and disgust that the Vatican deserves. Here are two songs that appropriately highlight how vile this despicable organisation is.
'By The Way We're Fucking Your Kids' by AHughman08
What he says at the start of the video shows exactly what is wrong with the Catholic Church, they are so deluded by their own self-righteousness, that in their apology for raping children, they compare their critics to Nazi's and then say you'll burn in hell if you disagree with them. To the Vatican: Fuck you.
'The Pope Song' by Tim Minchin
This song contains more 'fuck's than any other song I've ever heard, and every single one is deserved. The last few lines of the song explain why:
People have been making jokes about the Catholic church and it's pedophilic behaviour as long as I can remember, the first one I heard was probably when I was around 6 years old. Nearly 16 years on from then and the allegations are as true as ever. Jokes about it just do not suffice any more, words simply cannot express the contempt and disgust that the Vatican deserves. Here are two songs that appropriately highlight how vile this despicable organisation is.
'By The Way We're Fucking Your Kids' by AHughman08
What he says at the start of the video shows exactly what is wrong with the Catholic Church, they are so deluded by their own self-righteousness, that in their apology for raping children, they compare their critics to Nazi's and then say you'll burn in hell if you disagree with them. To the Vatican: Fuck you.
'The Pope Song' by Tim Minchin
This song contains more 'fuck's than any other song I've ever heard, and every single one is deserved. The last few lines of the song explain why:
"If this mother fucking stupid fucking song offended you
With its filthy fucking language and its fucking disrespect
If it made you feel angry go ahead and write a letter
But if you find me more offensive than the fucking possibility
The pope protected priests when they were getting fucking fiddly
Then listen to me mother fucker this here is a fact
You are just as morally misguided as that mother fucking
Power hungry, self-aggrandised, bigot in the stupid fucking hat"
Monday, January 25, 2010
God is Love?? Really?
According to 1 John 4:8, god literally IS love. Here's the verse from the good old King James.
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
There is another instance in the New Testament where the Paul gives a description of what love is.
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
According to the author of 1 John, god IS love, so we should be able to substitute the word god in every time love occurs in that passage. Let's give it a try.
God is patient, god is kind. He does not envy, he does not boast, he is not proud. He is not rude, he is not self-seeking, he is not easily angered, he keeps no record of wrongs. God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. He always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
I replaced 'it' with 'he' just to stick with the misogyny of the bible.
I don't know about you, but reading it that way, with god replacing love, it doesn't sit right with me. I feel uneasy reading that about the god of the bible. Let's see if we can find some instances of god being patient, kind, etc.
God is patient.
In Genesis 18, god vows he will not destroy Sodom if he finds 10 non-evil people. He obviously did not look too hard, and obviously doesn't give a damn about children and babies, because according to Genesis 19, he destroyed the whole city.
God is kind.
2 Kings 2:23-24 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
Sending bears to murder 42 teenagers for something so pathetic as calling someone a 'baldy-head' has to be about the kindest thing I've ever heard of. NOT.
God does not envy.
Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
The non-existent god of the bible is so scared of his people worshipping other non-existent gods that he calls himself jealous and threatens them with damnation if they do.
God does not boast.
Receiving endless amounts of worship doesn't count as boasting does it? God is oh so humble, that 24/7/365 praise and worship isn't supposed to inflate your ego is it.
God is not proud.
Psalm 31:23 The Lord preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer.
Pride is obviously a valued trait of the god of the bible.
God is not rude.
Malachi 2:3 "I'm going to punish your descendants. I'm going to spread excrement on your faces, the excrement from your festival sacrifices. You will be discarded with it.
Divine shit-slinging, how un-rude.
God is not self-seeking.
For what purpose did god create mankind if not to serve his own 'desires'?
God is not easily angered.
The entire saga of cursing mankind with the toils of physical labour and cursing women with the pain of childbirth, for simply eating a fruit. Talk about over reacting man!
2 Kings 2:23-24 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
God keeps no record of wrongs.
No, he intends to judge people. If he kept no record of wrongs he would not be able to do this. There are plenty of verses especially in the new testament about judgement. I'm sure most Christians already know this though.
God does not delight in evil.
According to a common christian definition, evil is simply whatever god says it is. With this in mind though, most if not all of the acts attributed to god in the old testament would be considered evil by many christians if it wasn't god who did it.
Judges 11
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."
36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."
38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed.
God rejoices in the truth.
1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
God delights so much in the truth that he intentionally deceives people and sends lying spirits to prophets. It is worth mentioning that the punishment in the old testament for a prophet giving a false prophecy was death by stoning. So if god was sending lying spirits into prophets, they would naturally gives false prophecies, and thus be stoned to death. I'm pretty sure this violates nearly every single characteristic on this list.
God always protects.
Leviticus 26:17
I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.
This is the kind of deity I want on my side, the one that protects me... Oh wait....
God always trusts.
God didn't trust Sodom and Gomorrah to change, he just annihilated them.
Genesis 19
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
God always hopes.
Omniscient beings cannot hope, since they know what is going to happen, therefore god cannot "always hope".
God always perseveres.
According to Genesis, god was fed up with his lousy creation, so he flooded the world. So much for persevering.
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
There is another instance in the New Testament where the Paul gives a description of what love is.
1 Corinthians 13:4-7
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
According to the author of 1 John, god IS love, so we should be able to substitute the word god in every time love occurs in that passage. Let's give it a try.
God is patient, god is kind. He does not envy, he does not boast, he is not proud. He is not rude, he is not self-seeking, he is not easily angered, he keeps no record of wrongs. God does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. He always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
I replaced 'it' with 'he' just to stick with the misogyny of the bible.
I don't know about you, but reading it that way, with god replacing love, it doesn't sit right with me. I feel uneasy reading that about the god of the bible. Let's see if we can find some instances of god being patient, kind, etc.
God is patient.
In Genesis 18, god vows he will not destroy Sodom if he finds 10 non-evil people. He obviously did not look too hard, and obviously doesn't give a damn about children and babies, because according to Genesis 19, he destroyed the whole city.
God is kind.
2 Kings 2:23-24 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
Sending bears to murder 42 teenagers for something so pathetic as calling someone a 'baldy-head' has to be about the kindest thing I've ever heard of. NOT.
God does not envy.
Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
The non-existent god of the bible is so scared of his people worshipping other non-existent gods that he calls himself jealous and threatens them with damnation if they do.
God does not boast.
Receiving endless amounts of worship doesn't count as boasting does it? God is oh so humble, that 24/7/365 praise and worship isn't supposed to inflate your ego is it.
God is not proud.
Psalm 31:23 The Lord preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer.
Pride is obviously a valued trait of the god of the bible.
God is not rude.
Malachi 2:3 "I'm going to punish your descendants. I'm going to spread excrement on your faces, the excrement from your festival sacrifices. You will be discarded with it.
Divine shit-slinging, how un-rude.
God is not self-seeking.
For what purpose did god create mankind if not to serve his own 'desires'?
God is not easily angered.
The entire saga of cursing mankind with the toils of physical labour and cursing women with the pain of childbirth, for simply eating a fruit. Talk about over reacting man!
2 Kings 2:23-24 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
God keeps no record of wrongs.
No, he intends to judge people. If he kept no record of wrongs he would not be able to do this. There are plenty of verses especially in the new testament about judgement. I'm sure most Christians already know this though.
God does not delight in evil.
According to a common christian definition, evil is simply whatever god says it is. With this in mind though, most if not all of the acts attributed to god in the old testament would be considered evil by many christians if it wasn't god who did it.
Judges 11
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."
36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."
38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed.
God rejoices in the truth.
1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.
God delights so much in the truth that he intentionally deceives people and sends lying spirits to prophets. It is worth mentioning that the punishment in the old testament for a prophet giving a false prophecy was death by stoning. So if god was sending lying spirits into prophets, they would naturally gives false prophecies, and thus be stoned to death. I'm pretty sure this violates nearly every single characteristic on this list.
God always protects.
Leviticus 26:17
I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.
This is the kind of deity I want on my side, the one that protects me... Oh wait....
God always trusts.
God didn't trust Sodom and Gomorrah to change, he just annihilated them.
Genesis 19
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
God always hopes.
Omniscient beings cannot hope, since they know what is going to happen, therefore god cannot "always hope".
God always perseveres.
According to Genesis, god was fed up with his lousy creation, so he flooded the world. So much for persevering.
Monday, August 31, 2009
New Zealands shocking internet
Since the storm in Auckland last wednesday, my (and a few others I know) internet connection has been wreaking havoc with my sanity. Millisecond disconnects that stop a page/video/image from loading, bad latency with speed test servers, game servers, voice chat and even a long delay when trying to get websites to load.
I'm just venting my frustration in writing, it makes me feel better.
I'll have to call up my ISP tomorrow, just to wait for 2 hours on hold and have them ping my IP address and tell me that everything is fine, when I bloody well know something is seriously wrong, A copper wire somewhere is probably fried.
I'm just venting my frustration in writing, it makes me feel better.
I'll have to call up my ISP tomorrow, just to wait for 2 hours on hold and have them ping my IP address and tell me that everything is fine, when I bloody well know something is seriously wrong, A copper wire somewhere is probably fried.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Creationists on evolution.
The best place to start when discussing creationism is probably discussing why people hold these beliefs. Creationists don't believe that god created the universe out of nothing, or that the earth is only 6-10,000 years old for any reason founded in science. The reasons behind their belief are purely religious. Many creationists the have the gall to suggest that evolution is a religion.
Lets start with some basic definitions.
From Dictionary.reference.com
Religion
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Evolution doesn't follow these definitions, and the only conclusion that can logically follow that is that evolution is NOT a religion.
Besides definitions, the core difference between creationism and evolution is evidence.
Evolution is an evidence based science. We have fossils that show common descent, we have genetics that show common descent, and this evidence is very substantial, it is not merely a few pieces here and there.
Creationism on the other hand is founded on principles from the bible. This does not constitute evidence in any way. A book written mostly in the bronze age, by men who knew absolutely nothing about science. A book that has been shown to be wholly unreliable on historical and scientific matters, and riddled with contradictions. 90% of the 'evidence' that creationists postulate has either already been refuted or is not in fact evidence at all. What I mean by not being evidence at all is that it is rather an absence of evidence, Creationists look for holes in current scientific understanding (evolution in particular) and then claim, "You can't explain this, therefore god exists" (might I add, it should be "we can't explain this yet"). This is known as the 'god of the gaps' theory.
The proponents of the 'god of the gaps' idealogy are intellectually bankrupt and dishonest. There is nothing scientific about glorifying ignorance and abandoning reason and then claim that it is more scientific that its very well established arch-nemesis evolution.
There is no reason to believe in biblical creationism. There is no scientific evidence that supports it, and the bible itself is nothing to be relied on, except by blind faith.
To be continued...
Lets start with some basic definitions.
From Dictionary.reference.com
Religion
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Evolution doesn't follow these definitions, and the only conclusion that can logically follow that is that evolution is NOT a religion.
Besides definitions, the core difference between creationism and evolution is evidence.
Evolution is an evidence based science. We have fossils that show common descent, we have genetics that show common descent, and this evidence is very substantial, it is not merely a few pieces here and there.
Creationism on the other hand is founded on principles from the bible. This does not constitute evidence in any way. A book written mostly in the bronze age, by men who knew absolutely nothing about science. A book that has been shown to be wholly unreliable on historical and scientific matters, and riddled with contradictions. 90% of the 'evidence' that creationists postulate has either already been refuted or is not in fact evidence at all. What I mean by not being evidence at all is that it is rather an absence of evidence, Creationists look for holes in current scientific understanding (evolution in particular) and then claim, "You can't explain this, therefore god exists" (might I add, it should be "we can't explain this yet"). This is known as the 'god of the gaps' theory.
The proponents of the 'god of the gaps' idealogy are intellectually bankrupt and dishonest. There is nothing scientific about glorifying ignorance and abandoning reason and then claim that it is more scientific that its very well established arch-nemesis evolution.
There is no reason to believe in biblical creationism. There is no scientific evidence that supports it, and the bible itself is nothing to be relied on, except by blind faith.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)