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 24)
42 PagesFirst 22 23 24 25 26  Last
on Dec 29, 2008

There is no proof that God guided them and that the English language words we see in our Bible are the literal ones God intended us to see - there can be no such proof, hence the entire notion of faith.

I find any religion weird that sees G-d's words in the _translated_ version of the Bible. Suddenly a choice of words that seemed appropriate 500 years ago becomes new dogma.

My favourite example:

The biblical story of Noah tells us of a man who was the only survivor of a flood in, in Hebrew, "haAretz".

And here is the translation path.

Hebrew: "HaAretz" means "the earth" in the sense of "the thing we walk on between the waters and the rocks". "Eretz Yisrael" is "the land of Israel". "Artzot Havrit" is "the United States" ("artzot" is the plural of "eretz").

Latin: "Eretz" is translated with "terra". "Terra" means "land" as in "terra incognita" = "unknown land" (as typically marked on a map). In the 20th century the Latin word "terra" was then used to mean "(planet) earth" by science fiction authors.

English: "Eretz" is translated with "earth". The translation is correct, as 500 years ago "earth" usually meant "land". But the word "earth" is used for "eretz" in some places even when "land" is used in others. Christianity decided that the word "eretz" has to be translated differently depending on how the story fits with Christian mysticism.

That's how a flood in the land known to Noah became a worldwide flood. Is it the word of G-d after all these changes? If so, was the original Hebrew version not the word of G-d? Depends on your faith.

The story of Noah also tells us that, in Hebrew, Noah landed on "HRY 'RRT".

Hebrew: HRY is "hari" = "hills" or "mountains" (It usually means "hills", there are no mountains in Israel). 'RRT can be lots of things, depending on the (in the Bible unwritten) vowels. A good suggestion is "Urartu" which was a region covering pretty much today's Kurdistan.

Somehow this word of G-d, "on the hills of Urartu" became "on mount Ararat (in the middle of the region and far from the valley with the two big rivers that flood all the time)".

The way I see it, the word of G-d is the story as written in Hebrew and explainable by simple facts: the known land (Mesopotamia) was flooded (as the Tigris and Euphrates often will, I would be surprised if Noah of all people never experienced a flood) and Noah with his ark (and his animals) landed on the (lower) hills of Urartu. (I was actually at the place, in northern Iraq, and the region gives itself away for landing on hills before the big mountains.)

This story was already well known when Moses was on Mount Sinai. It's quite possible that G-d saw fit to retell it, given that it covers the history of the ancestor of the Israelites.

But whether we have to make that story bigger than it is and tell ourselves that it is about the entire planet when the text doesn't say that is another matter.

Does the word of G-d remain true if we translate it and change the words? What if we replace other words, instead of making "planet earth" out of "land" we could make "evil warmonger" out of "saviour". Would the "New Testament" still be G-d's word and true if we changed a few words? If not, why can it be done with the "Old Testament"?

It's a question of faith.

I believe that the Torah is the word of G-d, in one way or another. And I believe that it is G-d's law for the Jews.

Whether you believe that too, I don't care. It's up to G-d to figure out if there is a need for you to believe it if you don't want to.

Fact: The Torah is Jewish law.

Belief: That law was given to the Jews by G-d.

 

on Dec 29, 2008

And we are done.

Wouldn't that be nice.  Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

As to the inspiration of the Holy Bible, it's not only my belief...it happens to also be the belief of billions of people all over the world.

So it's just a numbers game?  Interesting concept of 'truth.'  Even by that measure, Christianity loses as only 1/3 of the world's population is Christian.

on Dec 29, 2008

There is no proof that God guided them and that the English language words we see in our Bible are the literal ones God intended us to see - there can be no such proof, hence the entire notion of faith.

well I disagree.  I think the proof is right there in the writings.  HAve you ever studied the scriptures?  I mean really studied them?  I've spent the last 38 years to some degree reading this book and the last  and I can see many proofs that this is the inspired word of God.  Should I share? 

But if you read the Bible you will find that it doesn't say anything about evolution one way or the other. It just says that G-d created. It doesn't say how.

It does give us a time period tho and it's not billions of years.  It's very clear that its a 24 hour period between certain created things.  On top of that everything was created with age to it. 

I agree the Bible was written by fallible human writers

just like we use fallible instruments when we write.  It doesn't stop us from getting our point across does it? 

 

on Dec 29, 2008

Dinosausr, the once great huge reptiles evolution resulted.....they still live with us today, without major change, only as tiny lizards, crocodiles, alligators, etc.

See this is why I can't not read what you write on this Lula, sometimes it's just too funny. Obviously dinosaurs didn't evolve into lizards or there would be transitional fossils. That would also be clear evidence of speciation right? Wait weren't crocodiles and alligators prehistoric, no that can't be right fossils lie.

I'm glad to provide a good hearty laugh!

Again, I believe in God's first hand account of His own Creation of the universe and all that's in it, including mankind, in Genesis....I believe in the literal meaning of a 24-hour Creation day. There wasn't hundreds of millions of years between the ultimate extinction of the big dinosaurs and God's crowning acheivement of creating mankind. The Catholic Douay Rheims Bible has a detailed historical and chronological index showing there were only approximately 4,000 years from Day One of Creation to the birth of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

I couldn't believe Creation days were anything other than 24 hours becasue Christ referred to the creation of human beings, "In the beginning" i.e. on Day 6, so therefore the claim the universe is billions of years old doesn't make sense.   

Again, am I going to believe in fallible pseudo science which claims without proof that dinosaurs lived for millions of years before suddenly becoming extinct some 65 million years ago or the Divinely revealed info given in Sacred Scripture? Genesis 2:19-20 informs us that God formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth and brought them to Adam for him to name. How could Adam name all the beasts of the earth, including dinosaurs, big lizards, if they were long extinct and buried as fossils? Besides, death and bloodshed didn't come to the world until after the sin of Adam and Eve and their Fall from God's Divine grace.  

There is solid evidence that dinosaurs lived with people...footprints of both, cave drawings as well as rock carvings, not  mention the legends that abound.  

The huge dinosaurs met their fate in Noah's Flood; many were buried rapidly and that's why we have their fossils. Fossils are formed from rapid burial in sediment. Only the Flood of Genesis could have provided perfect conditions for the formation of millions of fossils all over the world. Animals which die since then are very unlikely to form into fossils becasue what it takes to form them is not an everyday normal occurence.

 

  

 

 

  

on Dec 29, 2008

well I disagree. I think the proof is right there in the writings. HAve you ever studied the scriptures? I mean really studied them? I've spent the last 38 years to some degree reading this book and the last and I can see many proofs that this is the inspired word of God.

Well, if the proof is so obvious, what's the point of faith?  Why do we need faith if there is proof?  Your reasoning is entirely circular.  "I believe it is the Word of God because... I've read the Word of God."

on Dec 29, 2008

Again, am I going to believe in fallible pseudo science which claims without proof that dinosaurs lived for millions of years before suddenly becoming extinct some 65 million years ago or the Divinely revealed info given in Sacred Scripture? Genesis 2:19-20 informs us that God formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth and brought them to Adam for him to name. How could Adam name all the beasts of the earth, including dinosaurs, big lizards, if they were long extinct and buried as fossils? Besides death and bloodshed didn't come to the world for anything until after the sin of Adam and Eve and their Fall from God's Divine grace.

There is solid evidence that dinosaurs lived with people...footprints of both, drawings of them in caves as well as rock carvings , not ot mention the legends that abound.

The huge dinosaurs met their fate in Noah's Flood; many were buried rapidly and that's why we have their fossils. Fossils are formed from rapid burial in sediment. Only the Flood of Genesis could have provided perfect conditions for the formation of millions of fossils all over the world. Animals which die since then are very unlikely to form into fossils becasue what it takes to form them is not an everyday normal occurence.

There is no hope for the delusional.

on Dec 29, 2008

It does give us a time period tho and it's not billions of years.  It's very clear that its a 24 hour period between certain created things.

How does it give is a time period? How can you say that ancient Hebrew did not use the word for "day" ("yom") also as a unit of counting?

And what's a day before there is a sun?

And how do days work in paradise? Are they the same as on earth? We don't know.

Science tells us that they are not. You say that they are.

We don't even know of Genesis is true. Of all the holy scriptures of old we have picked one and the Hindus have picked another one. Which is true? I don't know.

Let's do research and find out.

So unless you have a better explanation it looks like the "days" in paradise are not the 24-hour days as we know them.

Incidentally, the Torah also uses the plural of day "yamim" in the sense of "time". It's translated that way in King James. For all I know the singular of "time" could be "a bit of time", not "day".

on Dec 29, 2008

There is no hope for the delusional.

I agree - but not on who is delusional.

on Dec 29, 2008

How come there are no comments about the following two points I made in this thread (my best points that is, I have made other, lesser points, that were vigorously attacked):

1. In genesis god (refered to as plural) says that man gained equal wisdom to him by eating the fruit, and thus there is no scripture reason for us to be unable to comprehend things.

2. Let me quote myself:

Genetic limits = lack of information... <details>...

I figured it out! (watching some creationist propaganda videos helped too)

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)

Creationists do not beleive in #2. They say it is impossible for a mistake during gene copy to occur and create an antirely new gene. Despite it being easily observed in a lab (and in nature), they claim that all genes already exist and new genes occur, and they are just mixed and matched. (aka, their beloved psudeo science of micro evolution).

Also, they cling to "missing links" (despite those having been found decades ago). And other "irregularities in the theory" from the 1800s that have long since been solved.

Or is ignoring those posts the same as ignoring the proof so readily available in order to stick by your faith?

 

on Dec 29, 2008

Taltamir, the idea that it would make them as wise as God was a lie of Satan's, which was also in the Bible in pretty much the same place.

on Dec 29, 2008

Why do we need faith if there is proof? Your reasoning is entirely circular. "I believe it is the Word of God because... I've read the Word of God."

no that's not what you said nor is that what I was alluding to.....you said there is no proof that God guided the writers and there could be no such proof.  We're not talking about proof if there's a god or not.  That does take faith.  

You brought up the fact that there's no proof of inspiration and I'm saying when you read these scriptures (which you never answered my direct question btw) you can see this.  Many, many times I've witnessed people looking up from reading scriptures in a study and exclaim "how can people say these aren't inspired when you read this?"   There's no way they got together on all this.  Even if they tried (and they couldn't because of the separation of years) it wouldn't come out this perfect. 

Remember the scriptures are a collection of many books written over a period of 1500 years by about 40 different authors.  Yet they are in TOTAL agreement and the whole thing fits together like a glove or can be pieced together to frame a beautiful puzzle.  All the pieces are there.  You just have to have patience to put it all together.   Just watch a movie with your immediate family and see if they can TOTALLY agree on what they just witnessed.   That in itself is just one example of why we would call it inspired.  Another is the content.  All thru scripture it tells us even as far back as 4500 years ago that the Jews would always be around.  When we look around today...guess what?  They're still here.  That's a proof.   If the bible is going to be inspired it has to be 100% accurate.  So far, to my knowledge, and every biblical scholar I've read or met over the years we are in total agreement this is one unusual book. 

Here's what you said that I was responding to.  The highlighted was where I was zoning in.   

There is no proof that God guided them and that the English language words we see in our Bible are the literal ones God intended us to see - there can be no such proof, hence the entire notion of faith.

Now as far as langauage..  These men wrote in the language of their day.  So the OT basically originally was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek.  Not one book was written in English.  OUr English comes directly from these two languages. 

on Dec 29, 2008

LEAUKI POSTS: #344

I suppose you should read up on evolution.

It has nothing to do with the "creation of life per se" element of Creationism. It's only about how life transformed into so many species.

Here we go again.....you say.....evolution...is only about how life transformed into so many species.

Be specific ..exactly how did/does life transform into so many species? What's the mechanism?

 

 

 

 

on Dec 29, 2008

You brought up the fact that there's no proof of inspiration and I'm saying when you read these scriptures (which you never answered my direct question btw) you can see this. Many, many times I've witnessed people looking up from reading scriptures in a study and exclaim "how can people say these aren't inspired when you read this?" There's no way they got together on all this. Even if they tried (and they couldn't because of the separation of years) it wouldn't come out this perfect.

Straw man argument and no proof of anything.  Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.  Not to mention the gospels which were discarded in Constantinople as politically incorrect, an assessment made by venal, fallible humans.

What's the mechanism?

Natural selection.  Just read the book.  It's even in the title.

on Dec 29, 2008

Straw man argument and no proof of anything. Perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Not to mention the gospels which were discarded in Constantinople as politically incorrect, an assessment made by venal, fallible humans.

this is your answer? 

Discarded by who? 

The gospels are still politically incorrect.

Your point? 

 

on Dec 29, 2008

Council of Carthage (not Constantinople - sorry, meant Carthage) 397 AD.  Bunch of Catholic wheels voted which would be in, which would be out.  Figured you'd know that.

Then there's the Catholic Apocrypha, which are not part of non-Catholic Bibles.  So, are they the True Word of God as well?

42 PagesFirst 22 23 24 25 26  Last