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 19)
42 PagesFirst 17 18 19 20 21  Last
on Dec 26, 2008

Science is science. It is not "Christian" or "secular", it remains the same, regardless of your religion. Both "Christian" and "secular" "sides"are non sequiturs, as we are not discussing culture or morality but facts.

Anyone giving both "Christian" and "secular" "sides" on scientific issues is a liar.

I'm only saying Christian vs secular to differentiate the two.  I know what Science is.  But there is a Christian Worldview to Science and there is a materialistic human worldview.   It all depends on your starting point.   I am a believer in the Christian worldview.  You are not. 

So let's leave it there.  We've covered this already countless times.  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Leauki. 

 

on Dec 26, 2008

Science is science. It is not "Christian" or "secular", it remains the same, regardless of your religion. Both "Christian" and "secular" "sides"are non sequiturs, as we are not discussing culture or morality but facts.

The two sides are lying and truthful, not secular and christians.
The science is the same, and plenty of scientists are christians and they aknoledge evolution. How about YOU read both sides instead of asking the creationists to explain BOTH points of view to you (they completely misinterpret the point scientists are making, and then counting those false points that they created.)

You want to be truthful? go read a BIOLOGY college textbook about evolution... THEN go to christianscience.com or whatever and look for counter arguments to what you learned in that biology book, you would notice that they are attacking strawmen that don't actually exist in the real theory of evolution, or grossly misrepresent it.

on Dec 26, 2008

I said that the theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, not that there "is no origins in Science at all". Is it too much to ask that you at least remember what I tell you?What is so difficult about understand that the theory of evolution is NOT about the origins of life? I don't understand it. Is it so difficult to remember? What if you write it on a piece of paper and stick it to your screen? Would that help?There are probably scientific theories about the origin of the universe and about the origin of life. But the theory of evolution is not one of them. 

Leauki, the creationism/evolution debate is inherently one of where we came from.  I suggest you read up on evolution before making such a silly and nonsensical statement, because the only thing that separates creationists and evolutionists is how they think the universe began.  Hence the 'creation' in 'creationist' and the 'evolution' in 'evolutionist'.

Unless you are simply referring to evolution within a species, this has everything to do with where we came from.  Everything you've said so far makes me think you're just confused.

There is no "microevolution" and "macroevolution". There is no mechanism for evolution to "know" when to stop.No theory of evolution claims that fruit flies would "change into" cats.Your entire argument is silly and nonsensical.I suggest you read up on evolution first, before you make stupid points like that!

Yes, there is microevolution and macroevolution, and yes, there is a difference.  Microevolution is when a species slightly modifies existing information to acquire a different characteristic.  Physical impossibilities are what tell evolution when to 'stop', as you put it.  You cannot simply acquire new DNA information from nowhere, and that is what is required for a species to 'upgrade' to another (chimpanzee to human, for example), as in macroevolution.

Seondly, I think that once again you are confused.  All evolutionists also say that higher life (i.e. humans) came from lower life (i.e chimpanzees), which came from non-life (i.e. rocks).  Dr. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist.  He says that life came about in this way.  You, however, seem to have your own special definition of evolution.

I would therefore like to hear, in your own words, what creationism is and what evolution is.

You talk about probability, which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the opposite of probability. By proving that something is improbably to be created as a finished product, you are disproving Creationism, not evolution. If you don't understand that, I cannot take you seriously.(Also, if you want to learn about science, don't look at answersingenesis.org. It's a religious site, not a scientific one. I don't read Richard Dawkins to learn about G-d either.) 

Macroevolution is, as I said before, the idea that life ultimately came from nothing.  Therefore, using math to show why this isn't possible is a very good argument against it.  If you think otherwise, you're an idiot - the complexity of life makes it impossible for even a lesser life form to evolve into a higher one.  The probabilities also don't disprove creationism at all because the fundimental idea is that a supreme being created everything we know, all at once, and including those mathematical probabilities.

Finally, I would like to point out that in terms of science, a great many of our esteemed scientists from the past (Benjamin Franklin, for example) were Christians.  It is very possible for Christianity and science to go hand in hand.

on Dec 26, 2008

Leauki, the creationism/evolution debate is inherently one of where we came from. I suggest you read up on evolution before making such a silly and nonsensical statement, because the only thing that separates creationists and evolutionists is how they think the universe began. Hence the 'creation' in 'creationist' and the 'evolution' in 'evolutionist'.

BS.  Don't think you can get away with 1) deciding for everyone else what the 'debate is about' and 2) pretending that the theory of evolution has anything to do with the origin of life.  Your ignorance (in the academic sense, not pejorative) or willful disregard for facts, whichever, is self-evident.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.  I hate these pointless arguments but they're like the wreck at the side of the road.

on Dec 26, 2008

Leauki, the creationism/evolution debate is inherently one of where we came from.  I suggest you read up on evolution before making such a silly and nonsensical statement, because the only thing that separates creationists and evolutionists is how they think the universe began.  Hence the 'creation' in 'creationist' and the 'evolution' in 'evolutionist'.

Again, evolution is NOT about how the universe began.

 

All evolutionists also say that higher life (i.e. humans) came from lower life (i.e chimpanzees), which came from non-life (i.e. rocks)

No. No evolutionists say that.

Chimpanzees are not "lower life" as per the theory of the evolution (they are contemporary to humanity and at the same "level"). And evolution says absolutely nothing at all about how life started.

 

Macroevolution is, as I said before, the idea that life ultimately came from nothing

What's wrong with you?

 

on Dec 26, 2008

Finally, I would like to point out that in terms of science, a great many of our esteemed scientists from the past (Benjamin Franklin, for example) were Christians.  It is very possible for Christianity and science to go hand in hand.

It's perfectly possible for Christianity and science to go hand in hand, hence there are no "Christian" and "secular" sides in this debate.

But it isn't possible for science and pseudio-science to go hand in hand.

I assume that most evolutionists are Christians too (apart from Dawkins who is an atheist).

Perhaps you don't understand the debate? You are new. I have written several blog articles about the subject. And I have not only read Dawkins and other biologists but also the Creation story in the Bible (in English, German, and Hebrew). I have certainly never said that religion and science don't go along.

But it is a typical Creationist lie that all Christianity is Creationism and that any criticism of the Creationist pseudo-science is criticism of Christianity. (Again, doesn't anybody ever wonder why Creationists keep lying like that?)

Creationism is, apart from pseudo-science, a popular belief among Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. (It's not widely supported in Judaism, thank G-d.)

 

on Dec 26, 2008

you would notice that they are attacking strawmen that don't actually exist in the real theory of evolution, or grossly misrepresent it.

Thanks, I do notice that.

Creationism is a lie, which is why Creationists require further lies to defend it.

There will never be a Creationist who understand evolution because understanding evolution means not being a Creationist. That's what science does to people.

 

on Dec 26, 2008

The two sides are lying and truthful, not secular and christians.
How about YOU read both sides instead of asking the creationists to explain BOTH points of view to you (they completely misinterpret the point scientists are making, and then counting those false points that they created.)

oh please!  Spare me. 

I was educated in a secular govermental school system for 13 years and forced fed Evolution from a humanistic materialistic worldview.  How about YOU researching what I read and get back to me after 13 years of seeing another viewpoint of the evidence? 

Why don't you tell me why after a hundred years of such secular humanistic education there isn't a 100% belief in the Evolutionary Theory?  They had the advantage over the Christians.   They had all the text books, and all the teachers who can ONLY teach secular evolutionary theory and yet there is a very high percentage of people who don't buy it.  Why is that? 

I know a HS Science Teacher who hates the fact he has to teach what he says is crap because if he even mentions anything outside of this, he gets fired.  Happens all the time. 

Call it separation of church and state...whatever! 

You want to be truthful? go read a BIOLOGY college textbook about evolution... THEN go to christianscience.com or whatever and look for counter arguments to what you learned in that biology book, you would notice that they are attacking strawmen that don't actually exist in the real theory of evolution, or grossly misrepresent it.

Go ahead.  Give me an example.  Go ahead.  Don't just talk big.   

Like I've said countless of times.  WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EVIDENCE.  THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.  The issue is none of us can recreate the beginning and both sides have to at least in some respect have a beginning. None of us were there to come back with a report.   Secular Science cannot nor can Christian Science so we have to make an assumption.  Did this all just happen or evolve or was there a designer that carefully constructed it all? 

 

 

 

on Dec 26, 2008

also... here is what evolution is:
Evolution:
1. there are genes (inhertable traits)
2. copying genes can be done inaccurately from one generation to the next, causing a change in genes.
3. more suitable genes allow a creature to survive, and thus are more likely to be passed on.
4. statistically the above means most species will have their genes change over time to suit their environment, however they would be rare exception, thats how statistics work)

You talk about probability, which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the opposite of probability.

ooh Really !!!!! may i suggest you read the first quote above

I suggest you read up on evolution first, before you make stupid points like that!

I really wish that you would read up on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics before you continue arguing

i am done arguing leauki ...

you know what i think? ... I think you are just arguing ... not to prove anything but to ...  well ... never mind.

 

on Dec 26, 2008

There will never be a Creationist who understand evolution because understanding evolution means not being a Creationist. That's what science does to people.

That's not true.  You've got it backwards.   My son (for example) is being recruited by Stanford and Harvard.  He's been told he's one of the most promising new researchers coming up from the Ph.D program in his field.  Right now he goes all over the country with his research and he's beeing commended for his hard work in the labs.  He's totally surrounded and schooled by hard-core Evolutionists.  They have NO idea he's a  hardcore Christian believer.  He's recieved grants, he's being schooled and 100% funded by the secular side of Science.  He can't open his mouth about this stuff because his career will be over EVEN THO HIS RESEARCH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION! 

Why is that?  You guys have NO idea what's really going on because you're not living it.  You've taken a side, been brainwashed and have swallowed what they have force-fed you hook, line and sinker.  I wish I could say more, but I can't because I don't want to jeopardize my son and his work.  There are many many like him.  Underground if you will.  You guys have no idea. 

Three commonly believed facts about the Scientist.

1.  He is unbiased

2.  He is objective

3.  He is infallible

Here's the real facts about the Scientist:

1.  He is biased (look at his books)

2.  He is NOT objective

3.  He is human. 

 

Creationism is a lie, which is why Creationists require further lies to defend it.

no Evolutionary Theory is a LIE.   A good intelligent Christian Scientist can make mincement of an Evolutionist in any debate. 

Most people have the wrong idea about what the creation/evolution debate involves.  Many have been deceived into believing that evoultuion is Science.  It is not a science at all.  It is a belief system about the past.   We only have the present to go by.  All the fossils, living animals, plants, planet and the whole universe exists in the present.  We cannot test the past using the scientific method (which involves repeating things and watching them happen) since all the evidence that we have is in the present. 

Its the same with creation.  No diff except for the fact that creationists base their understanding of creation on what they believe is God's revealed word to mankind and backed up by Christ who came to the earth, historically, to prove himself as The WORD of the ONE who was there. 

 

 

on Dec 26, 2008

Hey Leauki, if evolution does't make a claim as to the origin of the universe, then what does it claim?  Why bring up a whole bunch of stuff about evolution in the first place?  Creationism is a view of how life came to exist.  If evolution isn't, then what good are evolutionary arguments in stating that creationism is a lie?  You're supposed to present countering evidence, not irrelevant evidence.  Therefore you must either believe that evolution is its own view of how life came to be, or you're just arguing about something pointless (which is what I'm thinking).

If you're saying that merely copying genes, occasionally inaccurately, with some slight variations every now and then that produce a benefit within the same species, then yes, I would agree that evolution is a fact (as would any creationist).  It seems that this is what you are arguing, and if it is, allow me to point out that it's silly.  You can't use something that creationists believe is true to refute creationism.

Also, all true Christians do believe in creationism.  Read the first few chapers of Genesis again, in whatever language.  If you disbelieve Genesis, then on what basis do you believe the rest of the Bible?  You can't just take the Bible piecemeal and still be a Christian, you have to take the whole thing.  I'm sure someone will be offended by this, but that is how it is.  Better to have me tell you than God, right?

If you want to find a pseudo-science, take a look at radiometric (carbon-14) dating.  It is an unbelievably inaccurate way to measure age.

Oh, and KFC, have you seen that movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?  It is a documentary largely about how Christians lose their jobs just because they question evolution (as an explanation of life's origins).

on Dec 26, 2008

they question evolution (as an explanation of life's origins)

Once more, with feeling: evolution is not and never has been an 'explanation of life's origins.'  Your handle is beginning to make some sense.

on Dec 26, 2008

No No Leauki....I said there is a lack of gravity....I think that is what I said...if not that is what I meant. But considering that statement anyway, we must consider the pull and forces of gravity on matter in the universe....I digress from that statement. There is an abundance of Gravity in space. We can, however, use your logic in another way. You don't see gravity on Earth but you know its there....then how can one deny God. It is the same way, I see his work all over the place, I see his work, his intervention, his provision.......so though I cannot see him, I see him. Understand?

But lets pull out the stops...shall we? Science cannot prove God.....because is is by faith that God is belieives. I fail to see how belief in God and his intelligent design of the universe would lead to a theocracy!!! That, my friend, is a stretch. In effect, with the unbelief rampant throughout the world and most tragically, in Israel, there is a kind of Dark Theocracy in power. One that suspends the natural law and ignores physical law when it suits it purpose.

We are all on a journey....man...woman. Placed here by a giant cosmic belch that destroyed and created at the same time or by a loving God that designed it all just for you and me. I have no problem believing in the latter because it tells me that we are a part of the blue ball we inhabit. Therefore we are stewards of it. Categorically, we can ascribe some of the blame to the deteriorating condition of this world to science as a whole....as we have become more advanced, our Earth has suffered because we refused the responsiblity of advancement. 

If we look at the whole of evolution...of the cosmic big bang......macro or micro.. the only small point that makes sense as far as evolution is concerned is adaptation. That I can see. That is advancement but a monkey making the genetic jump from tree swinger to Bill Clinton is just too far of a leap. Don't you think?

on Dec 26, 2008

Once more, with feeling: evolution is not and never has been an 'explanation of life's origins.'  Your handle is beginning to make some sense.

Then why does Leauki try to argue against creationism with it if they're not even the same type of idea?  If evolution isn't about where life came from, then it can't be used as a counter-argument to a position that is about where life came from.  It's like trying to prove that the ground isn't hard by going swimming, or that sugar isn't sweet by setting it on fire - the points are totally unrelated.

And again, if you are arguing for evolution as a method of adaptation, you are also trying to prove creationism wrong with something creationists believe.  Hey, look at this 'missing link' fossil I found!  It proves evolution is false!

You see what I mean?

On the other hand, if you argue that it is more than just mere adaptation, then a logical extrapolation of that idea would be that life came about via said process.

on Dec 27, 2008

EVEN THO HIS RESEARCH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION!

So even though his research and knowledge has NOTHING to do with evolution, he can't go and say what HE thinks evolution is about? and that is somehow a BAD thing? maybe your genious son would not hold the lies of creationism (which are NOT universally christian) so dear if he actually learned and researched evolution. And Phd. are a dime a dozen.

Although it is my guess that he just doesn't have the patience to try to explain to his ignorant parent the depth of their stupidy and dissuade them from perpetuating lies. After all, your retarded notion will die with you, there is no need to break up the family over it. Do you think I argue with my relatives about their ignorances? It is smarter not to.

Evolution is NOT, never been, and never WILL be about the origin of LIFE.

Evolution is NOT a 100% atheist beleif.

All christians are NOT creationists.

Psudeo science is NOT science.

42 PagesFirst 17 18 19 20 21  Last