A Leauki's Writings
The Word is "Lie"
Published on June 16, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

What opponents of evolution (and other theories) don't understand is that science is not about finding the truth (that is best left to philosophy professors) but about finding out something useful about this world.

The predictions of theories can be used in engineering and other fields. Applications of the theory of evolution have been used successfully in such diverse fields as medicine and (yes) computer science. Evolution is solid, a tool that we can use to advance.


For a good article about the difference between a scientific theory and Creationism and the utter stupidity (and, I want to add, sacrilege) of believing in "Intelligent Design", see Steven Den Beste's essay about the human eye.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml

The vertebrate retina is a terrible design. The optic nerve comes into the eyeball at a certain point, and the nerve fibers spread out across the surface of the retina. Each individual nerve fiber reaches its assigned point, burrows down into the retina through several layers of epithelial cells, and ends with the light receptor itself pointing away from the lens of the eye, which is the direction from which the light must come. As a result, incoming light strikes the surface of the retina and must penetrate through multiple layers of inactive cells and then through the body of the nerve itself before it reaches the active point where it might be detected. This both diffuses and attenuates the light, decreasing the efficiency of the retina in accomplishing its function.

For a rationalist and atheist like Steven Den Beste, extrapolating from the existence of the human eye to a "designer" is illogical, because there is no evidence for design but plenty evidence for evolution.

For me, personally, saying that the human eye has been "designed" is blasphemy. I do not think it is all right to claim that G-d would intentionally create a faulty design or was incapable of doing better. (Plus I agree with Steven's thinking as well. There is evidence for evolution in the human eye, but no evidence for design.)


But the problem here is not the fact that some people are not capable of understanding complicated science and are thus forced to make up fairy tales that make them believe that they are as clever as scientists (and even cleverer since scientists don't "know" the truth), but the fact that those some people sometimes have the power to take away knowledge from the rest of us.

There are MANY countries in the world where Creationism is taught instead of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the majority of the world teaches Creationism to some extent, replacing biology or "adding to" biology in schools.

But what does that do for those societies?

Are they leaders in science based on learning something that is a "theory" just like evolution and a "better "explanation?

It's not enough to change the rules to allow Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") to become science, because what is science is not a decision made by man. It's ultimately a desicion made by nature (or G-d, if you will). Because science is something we can use to create.

When we look at the world and compare societies, we see that countries that teach evolution create technologies, whereas countries that teach Creationism, do not have the workforce to be leading in any field of technology.

Teaching Creationism causes stupidity. That's the problem.

And it doesn't help if "Christian" fundamentalists in the west blame Islam for it and pretend that teaching "Christian" Creationism will give better results, because the Creationism of Islam IS the Creationism of Christianity. It's word for word, letter for letter the same legend.

And it's phony. It's phony and stupid and a big lie.

    * Why does the birth canal run through the middle of the pelvis?
    * Why does the backbone run down one side of the trunk instead of through the middle where it would be more balanced?
    * Why does the ankle attach at one end of the foot instead of in the middle?
    * Why are there toes?
    * Why is it that nearly every part of the brain is as far as possible from the piece of the body with which it is associated?
          o Why is the motor control center for the right side of the body on the left side of the brain, and vice versa?
          o Why is the vision center at the rear of the brain, as far from the eyes as possible -- and on the opposite sides?
    * Why is it that fully 90% of the genetic material we carry around is useless?
    * Why do we share a single canal through the neck through which we both breath and swallow?

Biology has explanations for these oddities. Creationism does not. "It was G-d's will" is not an explanation, it's an excuse for incompetence.

(Why are some people born with a mechanism that destroys the beta cells in the pancreas, causing Type 1 Diabetes that is ALWAYS deadly within a few months without treatment? Would an "intelligent designer" design his subjects like that?)

Richard Dawkins called evolution the "blind watchmaker" because evolution does not "see" what it produces, it merely tries out what happens with the stuff it finds. I find the term "incompetent designer" appropriate for a god who designs things like us. And I cannot pray to an incompetent designer. How could I?

Teaching Creationism has never helped a society and is bringing down many.

 

Dear Creationists,

I do not want the western world to become a second "Islamic" world.

Do you not understand that?

 


Comments (Page 10)
42 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11 12  Last
on Jun 26, 2008

however, in general, atheists pay a lot of attention to scientific discoveries and when ever any disprove Darwin's molecules to man theory, a panic sets in the playing field

 

Another broad generalization.  I take it that means you aren't sorry.

 

Since no apology for your egregious generalization came, then none is accepted, loving, understanding, forgiving, compassionate, Christian. 

 

Put up some proof for your above statement, or shut your lying mouth.

on Jun 26, 2008

Sorry to interrupt the whole serious theological debate, but quick detour...

About the whole eye-thing... Maybe it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster imitating his Noodly Appendage? (for those of you who think i'm crazy, which I am, read: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/).

Now for an actual comment... I'm still curious as to why people can be wrong for believing something one way or the other? I'm Jewish and an atheist but that doesn't mean that I have to believe in creationism or evolution or pastafarianism (once again view the link). Everybody believes what they believe and in the end if they're wrong then they're wrong and they're screwed for not believing in the "real believers." Sucks to them.

There was this movie I saw about the Scopes Monkey Trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial) that had a valid point. Maybe both coexist together? Then who's wrong? Maybe nobody is wrong?

Basically, the idea goes along something like this... On the first day G-d made something or other (I don't know what he allegedly made but it was made, huzzah!). The next day he makes something else, and so on and so forth until the Sabbath and then he rests. The point was, whoever said that a day meant a day in our world? Maybe a day was a hunder-bazillion years or whatever. How can we be sure? G-d is some super-cool high power being, maybe his Sabbath is still going on? Maybe evolution was through his creation? Maybe he got really really tired and that's why we're not perfect, we're all just chillin' until he returns from his vacation and gets back to work on week #2 of his journey and whatnot?

I dunno, I don't see why Creationists have to be wrong or Evolutionists. I think the only people who are wrong are those who feel that other people have done wrong by believing in something that makes them feel connected to the world around them.

on Jun 27, 2008
Dreamer,

We have been through all of that. I agree with you and the Creationists don't. That's it.

on Jun 27, 2008
You want to give examples, that's fine, but don't link them to me just because I'm an atheist, too.


To my knowledge, I haven't linked you personally into anything I've written on this blog.

I've correctly and consistently pointed out that Darwinism is an atheistic system of belief....my gripe is mainly that even though Darwinism hasn't been proven...it's taught to unwary school children as scientific fact.

If you adults want to believe you evolved from ape-like creatures, then what can I say....but indoctrinating school kids with that tripe is paramount to a crime in my mind.

The cells of each different "kind" of species may be similiar, but they are not common. The science of Genetics has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I understand that those in Darwin's day and on through the years had no idea how complex the cell is...and they developed a theory... which now, modern science has squashed. It's time to get with the program....

It's man's promotion of Darwinism that's the lie, not God's Creative work and how that is depicted in Genesis.











on Jun 27, 2008

When you say "atheists believe this" or "atheists say that," you're referring to all atheists.  I'm an atheist, and I'll thank you very kindly to not put words in my mouth.  Is that too confusing for you? You have the entire universe figured out but can't tell when you're making an unfair assertion about an entire group when talking about a singular subset of that group?

 

How do you expect anyone to listen to a word you say when you display such abject idiocy?

on Jun 27, 2008
Theology, knowledge of God and His works, is the highest science.


It is not science in any shape or form. It is the study of religion. Not the study of God since some religions have more than one god and others have none.

Most monotheistic religions define God mainly to teach ethics, to teach that there is a greater good than the individual and to stress spirituality over materialism.

on Jun 27, 2008
When you say "atheists believe this" or "atheists say that," you're referring to all atheists. I'm an atheist, and I'll thank you very kindly to not put words in my mouth.


Throughout this discussion, whenver I reference Atheism or atheists, it's always been in a general sense...I can't help it, if as a self proclaimed atheist, you take it personally.

As for my putting words in your mouth,

Truth is, I'd have said what I said had you not ever participated in the discussion.

Put up some proof for your above statement, or shut your lying mouth.


How do you expect anyone to listen to a word you say when you display such abject idiocy?


Now this is personal...and unfortunately, it says more about you than it does about me.

on Jun 27, 2008
Hopefully, now you better understand the differences between the science of micro-evolution (true science) and the pseudo science of macro-Evolution, Darwinism,There is no such thing as "macro-evolution" according to Darwin and the theory of evolution."Macro-evolution" is a concept made up by lying (!) Creationists.Okay, now with this I see you're still not understanding there is a vast difference between the two.I have a book entitled "Evolution of Life; Understanding Science and Nature" published by TIME-LIFE in Alexandria,Virginia. If you care to check out Time-Life, you'll find they are 100% secular...they are part and parcel of the media that pushes Darwinism or macro-Evolution theory as "fact". This book can be found in the children's section of most public and school libraries here in the US. It's indoctrinating Darwinism as fact. On page 24 begins an entire chapter that answers the question, "What is Macroevolution"?Since there are no restrictions whatsoever of my reproducing the first two paragraphs, "At certain times in the course of evolution, the many small changes that produce new species accumulate to the point where, suddenly, a radically different form of life appears. From that one species, many new species evolve--the tree of life grows a new large branch from which dozens of smaller branches will develop. This dramatic change is known as macroevolution, or adaptive radiation. An example is when the first feathered reptile appeared; this was the ancestor of all the first birds that have evolved since.In the animal kingdom, an early macroevolution produced an eel-like species with a spinal cord but no backbone. The next huge step occurred when the first fish evolved, with its weight supporting backbone. The appearance of lobbed-finned fish, which were able to breathe on land, represents another macroevolution. Millions of years later, the first reptile appeared, and millions of years after that, the first mammal."


Lula,

Time-Life is not really a definitive work of "secular" biology. Time-Life books are cheaply-produced and frequently contain errors and outdated information as the primary literature passes them by and they are not updated.

If your book really says this, it's a sad distortion of reality. An adaptive radiation occurs when a group of organisms moves into a new habitat with many empty ecological niches. It involves relatively rapid evolutionary change resulting in different morphological forms that can take advantage of these niches. Darwin's finches are the classic example.

Macroevolution, as Leauki stated previously, is a creationist fantasy. Evolution is change over time. That's it.

But that hasn't happened and why? Becasue Random mutations in the sense of macroevolution have NEVER, EVER, EVER OCCURRED...so therefore impossible to be easily observed in the lab.


The above doesn't make any internal sense. Do you know what we're talking about when we say "mutation"? It means a random change in a nucleotide sequence of DNA, often a single-letter substitution or deletion, that may have far-ranging consequences in a phenotype. Or it may be a "silent" mutation doing absolutely nothing. Over time, however, directed (by processes like selection) mutations can and do lead to the evolution of new species. You are attempting to state that we are waiting for some kind of mutational event that will create a flying pig in a lab. That's also a creationist fantasy, the "hopeful monster" straw man.
on Jun 28, 2008

Throughout this discussion, whenver I reference Atheism or atheists, it's always been in a general sense...I can't help it, if as a self proclaimed atheist, you take it personally.

 

You can't talk about a group of INDIVIDUALS in a general sense.  I still don't know what is confusing to you about that.  Is English your first language?  The idiocy comment I made wasn't personal.  It was observational.  But I know that observing things doesn't make them real in your world.  Unless god said it, it didn't happen.

 

"Pro-lifers" think it's ok to kill doctors who perform abortions.  Do you understand now?  I'm just talking about pro-lifers in a general sense, after all.

on Jun 28, 2008
Lula posts:
however, in general, atheists pay a lot of attention to scientific discoveries and when ever any disprove Darwin's molecules to man theory, a panic sets in the playing field


OCK posts:
You can't talk about a group of INDIVIDUALS in a general sense.


Well, I can and I did...and again, I can't help it if you take it personally.

I also speak of abortionists, Communists, Democrats and Republicans, etc.,etc.,etc., in general terms. So what?







on Jun 28, 2008
Ock: I guess she does want to kill the doctors after all.
on Jun 28, 2008
"Pro-lifers" think it's ok to kill doctors who perform abortions.


One can't be pro-life and for killing abortionist "doctors" at the same time.

Whereas, it's not oxymoronic for atheists who believe in Darwinism to be concerned when true science disproves it.
on Jun 28, 2008

Atheists *I* know don't "believe" in things.  I put that in quotes because it rings of "has faith in."  The atheists I know, including myself, don't have "faith" in things. And note.  You never said "atheists who believe in Darwinism"..that would have been ok,  In fact, you could have just said "people who believe in darwinism, and your opinion would have been just that, an opinion, and fine with me.  But you lumped us all together as if we have meetings to discuss what our agenda is and what we all believe.  It isn't atheists that have meetings to dicuss what we all believe, it's the religious peoples.

 

But what DO atheists believe?  I can make an educated guess.  We believe that 2+2=4 because we can demonstrate it.  We believe in 1=1.  Those of us that "believe" in principles of evolution believe in the parts that can be demonstrated.  We might have an inclination to SUSPECT that other propositions that evolution points to COULD be true, but we don't "believe" in it.  For those other propositions, we stand by, ready to have our suspicions overturned at a moment's notice.  Unlike you, whose suspicions are actually superstitions.  And you aren't ready to be disproved, ever.  If the Bible said 2+2=5, you'd be here arguing it in the face of all the evidence that says it doesn't, or you'd be making excuses about misinterpretations.

 

In short, you're extremely closed minded.  If your god exists, you've commited the cardinal sin of limiting your existence to those things handed down in an outdated doctrine that no longer fits the bill of life.  Observationally, that makes you objectively an idiot.  You think that's personal and says more about me than it does about you?  Fine.  I'm no judge.  I'll let others believe what they believe without my help.  Can you claim the same thing?  Do so, and I'll add "liar" to the list again.  Go ahead and continue trying to fool the sheeple, but I've got your number.  Where's your sign?

on Jun 28, 2008
Atheists *I* know don't "believe" in things.


Go ahead and continue trying to fool the sheeple, but I've got your number.


Regarding your comment about atheists and what they believe and don't believe....
and when I saw the word "fool" in your reply, I was reminded of this email that's been making the rounds.

COURT SETS ATHEIST'S HOLIDAY

In Florida, an atheist became incensed over the preparation of Easter and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists had no holiday to celebrate.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the long passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared, 'Case dismissed!'

The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, 'Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other observances. Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah...yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!'

The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said, 'Obviously your client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate his own atheists' holiday!' The lawyer pompously said, 'Your Honor, we are unaware of any such holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?'

The judge said, 'Well it comes every year on exactly the same date---April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as 'April Fool's Day,' consider that Psalm (13)14:1 states, "The fool has said in his heart: There is no God."

Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there is no God, then by Scripture, he is a fool, and April 1st is his holiday! Now have a good day and get out of my courtroom!





on Jun 29, 2008

Now we're all fools as well.  Your Christian love knows no bounds, does it?  That you don't care a wit about personally offending an atheist is indicative of your true colors.  Exactly as I expected.  Yet another Christian hypocrite.  Yawn.

 

The content of that email, by the way, is fictional.  Never happened.  Yet another lie propogated by the biggest bearers of false witness in the galaxy.  Keep going, Lula...see if you can break a few more commandments.  You're on a roll.

 

Ah the self esteem bump you must get from sitting around with your Christian friends laughing about the silly atheists and singing "we're going to heaven, and they don't get to..nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah"  We don't get to do that.  I'm going to court.

 

Not.

42 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11 12  Last