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 5)
42 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Jun 19, 2008
Still no hint for a trinity of Arnolds.


Your are correct...there aren't three Arnolds...just like in the Blessed Trinity, there aren't three Gods.
on Jun 19, 2008
lula posts #54
The one instance (book of Joshua) about the sun being stopped in the sky is very contraversial and has many meanings too long to go into here but suffice it to say it's sort of like saying the sun sets and rises. We know it doesn't but it's a way of speak so to speak.


I have an explanation of this from NASA scientists that's a bit long. I may post it separately or here if Leauki doesn't mind.


Leauki posts: #58
I don't mind. Would welcome it.

But note that there is also an explanation for how evolution fits into Genesis: G-d could have created a world that LOOKS and BEHAVES in every way as if it had existed for billions of years and animals (and man) that LOOK and BEHAVE in every way as if they had been the result of evolution.

If science has an explanation for how the sun (could have been perceived to have) stopped in the sky, G-d causing that stop is not needed, just like G-d is not needed for animals to have evolved.

If you show us how NASA can explain something the Bible claims happens because G-d wanted it to happen, you have replaced faith with science.

Personally, I don't believe that there is a difference between acts of G-d and phenomenons of physics; which is also the view of Maimonides (who was not a liberal scholar).

If something happens because of physics, it happens because G-d wanted it to happen; because G-d made physics.



NASA AND THE BIBLE

For all the scientists out there and for all the students who have a hard time convincing these people regarding the truth of the Bible, here's something that shows God's awesome creation and show that He is still in control.

Did you know taht the space program is busy proving that what has been called a "myth" in the Bible is true?

Mr. Harold Hill, Pres. of the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore Maryland and a consultant in the space program relates the following development. "I think one of the most amazing things that God has for us today happened recently to our astronauts and space scientists at Green Belt, Maryland.

They were checking the position of the sun, moon, and planets out in space where they would be 100 years and 1000 years from now. We have to know this so we won't send a satellite up and have it bump into something later on in its orbits.

We have to lay out the orbits in terms of the life of the satellite and where the planets will be so the whole thing will not bog down. They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red signal, which meant that there was something wrong either with the information fed into it or with the results compared to the standards. They called in the service department to check it out and they said, "What's wrong?" Well, they found a day missing in space in elapsed time.

They scratched their heads and tore their hair. There was no answer. Finally, a Christian man on the team said, "You know, one time when I was in Sunday school and they talked about the sun standing still."

While they didn't believe him, they didn't have any answers either so they said, "Show us." He got a Bible and went back to the book of Joshua where they found a pretty riduculous statement for anyone with "common sense".

There they found the Lord saying to Joshua, "Fear not, I have delivered them into thy hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee." Joshua was concerned becasue he was surrounded by the enemy and if darkness fell they would overcome them. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still!

That's right. "The sun stood still and the moon stayed and has not to go down about a whole day!" Joshua 10:12-13. The astronauts and scientists said, "there is the missing day." They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough.The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshua's day was 23 hours and 20 minutes--not a whole day.

They read the Bible and there it was "about (approximately) a day". These little words in the Bible are important, but they were still in trouble becasue if you cannot account for 40 minutes you'll still be in trouble 1,000 years from now. Forty minutes had to be found becasue it can be multiplied many times over in orbits.

As the Christian employee thought about it, he remembered somewhere in the Bible it said the sun went backwards. The scientists told him he was out of his mind, but they got out the Book and read these words in 2 Kings that told the following story:

Hezekiah, on his deathbed, was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die. Hezekiah asked for a sign as proof. Isaiah said, "Do you want the sun to go ahead 10 degrees?"

Hezekiah said, "It is nothing for the sun to go ahead 10 degrees, but let the shadow return backwards 10 degrees."

Isaiah spoke to the Lord and the Lord brought the shadow ten degrees backwards.

Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes. Twenty-three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in Second Kings 20: 9-11 make the missing day in the universe! Isn't it amazing?


on Jun 19, 2008

This is what we might call Almighty God's proper name, "I AM WHO AM". I understand this translated from the Hebrew, phonetically, would be ehyey asher ehyeh.


Just a quick note...

You are right that that is G-d's proper name.

But Biblical Hebrew doesn't have a present tense, and (just to make it a little bit interesting) neither does the verb "to be" in any Hebrew (biblical, mishnaic, modern) or in most (I think) Semitic languages.

A more appropriate translation would be more intense than "I am". G-d is not noticing that He exists; He exists and causes to exist at the same time.

Possible literal translations:

"I will be who I will be."

"I be who I be."

"I must be who I must be."

"I shall be who I shall be."

I prefer the second. It combines "I am who I am" with the fact that G-d commands at the same time as He exists.

"Lihiot 'o lo' lihiot?"

Guess what that means!


Catholics don't use the name Jehovah...It was [some guy] who gave the pronouncable and preposterous hybrid, Je Ho Vah which is not the Hebrew lost name of the God of Israel.


You are correct.



From this I would easily understand that you are speaking of "one man" who can be personally identified by his name (arnolds), his position (a boss) and where he's from (Latvia).


He also had a couple of nicknames.

And, to make the example complete, he wasn't a boss. I just called him that in my text.

And you believed it.
on Jun 19, 2008
Lula posts:
From this I would easily understand that you are speaking of "one man" who can be personally identified by his name (arnolds), his position (a boss) and where he's from (Latvia).


Leauki posts:

He also had a couple of nicknames.

And, to make the example complete, he wasn't a boss. I just called him that in my text.

And you believed it.




Leauki posts:

But note that I do not lie when I translate and my Hebrew is not _that_ bad.


By this you are severly challenging your own self claimed credibility as a truth teller, Leauki!



on Jun 19, 2008
Also, KFC help here, isn't there a biblical passage about man walking with beasts meaning the dinosaurs?


Yes, I believe it's in Job.

There were many legends that states the one (earth is a sphere) and many legends that stated the other (earth is flat). Statistically, some of them had to get it right.


ya, the ones who were reading the Hebrew scriptures were right (like Christopher Columbus).

There are four great names for God in the OT.

1. Elohim-2,570 times and refers to his power and might including his creation
2. El-a reference to His power and has four compounds in the name El
a. El-yon-The Strong One
b. El-roi-The strong one who sees
c. El-Shaddai-The breasted one (48x)
d. El-Olam-The everlasting God
3. Adonai-Master, Lord
4. Jehovah-6,823 times-self existent one;

Quite often the Jews would substitute Adonai for Jehovah or YHWH because his name was so holy to speak and before the scribes would copy this name down, they would lay down their pen and take a bath first.

There are nine compound names for Jehovah (English pronounciation)

1. Jehovah-Jirah....the Lord will provide
2. Jehovah-Nissi....the Lord is my banner
3. Jehovah-Shalom....the Lord is peace
4. Jehovah Sabbaoth..the Lord of hosts
5. Jehovah-Maccaddeshcem....the Lord thy sanctifyer
6. Jehovah-Rohi (Raah)...the Lord my Shepherd
7. Jehovah-Tsidkenu..,the Lord of righteousness
8. Jehovah-Shammah....the Lord who is present
9. Jehovah-Rapha..... the Lord our healer

Jehovah or Yahweh is the most common OT name for God.
on Jun 19, 2008
Stubby....

I think this is for you....but I'm so confused right now...I feel like I have three conversations going on here. Anyhow got this from my son last night after I went to bed I think. He said something similar to what I said a while back to Zoo actually....and I'm thinking it was in reply to something you said...

any hypothesis that can be tested by the scientific method, is technically science. any method that cannot be tested by the scientific method (and this includes evolution just as much as it includes Christianity) is technically not science.

the Scientific Method:
1. Ask a question
2. Research what is known
3. Make a hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis with an experiment
5. Analyze the results- make a conclusion
6. If hypothesis is not true return to step 3
7. If hypothesis is true, report the results

what I don't get is how can you use this to examine evolution but you can't to examine creationism? i suspect that it is becuase hardcore evolutionists have a one-viewed approach to steps 2 and 5.
on Jun 19, 2008
A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation

The difference is the theory of evolution is constantly being approved upon by the collection of data through observation and experimentation. Fossil and DNA collection and experimentation for example.

The theory of creation(or intelligent design or whatever its being called this week) is not being approved upon by any data collection or experimentation, hence it is not being improved upon by the scientific method, hence it is not science.
on Jun 20, 2008

For more information on the lost day idea see

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970325g.html

A NASA related website saying its rubbish

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp#refs

The wbes number one source for urban legands says its rubbish

http://www.progressivetheology.org/principles/Missing-Day.html

One of the many christian websites out there who says its rubbish

on Jun 20, 2008

what I don't get is how can you use this to examine evolution but you can't to examine creationism?


Have you tried it?

You can test evolution in a lab by creating environment for animals to live in and see how (or whether) they evolve to adapt.

Here's a report on an experiment with bacteria:

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

Yes, it includes a change from one "body type" to another. One of the populations evolved a new eating mechanism.

But how do you test G-d creating a new bacterium?

Apart from the fact that testing G-d is blasphemy, it also tends not to work.

Step-by-step:

1. Ask a question

How did all those types of animals come about?

2. Research what is known

There are different species and several hundred legends about how they came about. Some of the legends state that an individual god created all the species.

3. Make a hypothesis

One of those gods created all the different types of animals, including man.

4. Test the hypothesis with an experiment

Watch a room and wait for the god to create a new type of animal out of thin air.

5. Analyze the results- make a conclusion

I must have used the wrong god.

6. If hypothesis is not true return to step 3

Perhaps different types of animals evolve from existing types of animals.

7. If hypothesis is true, report the results

Turns out testing the second hypothesis shows that different types of animals do evolve from existing types of animals.

I would add step 8: Formulate a theory.

Perhaps all different types of animals evolved from existing types of animals (or one existing animal).




By this you are severely challenging your own self claimed credibility as a truth teller, Leauki!


If you are looking for a "truth teller", look elsewhere. My translations are as "true" or "false" as the original text I translate. (Or in technical terms: the truth value of my translation is a function of the truth value of the original text.)

I always found the most reliable source of information to be the one that tells you his sources as well.

on Jun 20, 2008
Here's a report on an experiment with bacteria:

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

Yes, it includes a change from one "body type" to another. One of the populations evolved a new eating mechanism.


Did you start with bacteria?

Did you end with bacteria?

If the answer is yes, then you are describing micro-evolution, and
we've already discussed many times over that we agree on micro-evolution, that is small change within "kind".

It's showing empirical evidence of macro-evolution, in the lab or in the field, that has Evolutionists stumped. They just can't do it.

And btw, back to the experiment with the bacteria..

where did the first bacteria come from? Did it "evolve" many millions of years ago from something entirely different? If so, where's the proof?





on Jun 20, 2008

Did you start with bacteria?

Did you end with bacteria?


Bacteria is a wide field. There are many different species.


If the answer is yes, then you are describing micro-evolution, and
we've already discussed many times over that we agree on micro-evolution, that is small change within "kind".


It's a major change, as described in the article. There is no such thing as "micro-evolution" except in the sense that all evolution is "micro-evolution".

ALL changes are "within kind". You only see two different kinds after many generations, comparing two separate populations of descendants.

The change described by the article is a bigger difference than usually seen between different species among bacteria.

It's certainly bigger than the difference between a lion and a human being, who, after all, both EAT using the same basic method.



It's showing empirical evidence of macro-evolution, in the lab or in the field, that has Evolutionists stumped. They just can't do it.


Mainly because Creationists simply call all evolution shown to them and then claim that there is such a thing as "macro-evolution", which the theory of evolution doesn't mention at all.


And btw, back to the experiment with the bacteria..

where did the first bacteria come from? Did it "evolve" many millions of years ago from something entirely different? If so, where's the proof?


Where did the first bacteria come from? Presumably other one-celled organisms.

You still think that evolution speaks of gigantic steps between species while in reality it never did.

The point is that the experiment shows evolution of bacteria for a few decades and has resulted in several changes and several new species (note that bacteria usually do not mate and that a species of bacteria is defined differently than a species of other lifeforms).

There's your proof.

Bacteria species are defined by how their metabolism works:

"Many species of bacteria can eat citrate, but in an oxygen-rich environment like Lenski's lab, E. coli can't. The problem is that the bacteria can't pull the molecule in through their membranes. In fact, their failure has long been one of the defining hallmarks of E. coli as a species."

Did you even read the article? Or did you just announce "micro-evolution" and dismiss it?

"But in one remarkable case, however, they discovered that a flask had turned cloudy without any contamination. It was E. coli chowing down on the citrate. The researchers found that when they put the bacteria in pure citrate, the microbes could thrive on it as their sole source of carbon."

First you demanded proof that one species can become two. That was shown to work with fruit flies. You dismissed it because you suddenly disagreed with the biologists' definition of "species".

Then you demanded proof that an animal can evolve from one type to a different type (of body). The article shows a complete change of membrane and how the animal feeds. You dismiss it because you think that all bacteria are alike?

What do you want? Do you want an experiment that shows a bacteria transform into a mammal in one or two generations, even though the theory evolution dictates that it cannot? Do you want an example of "macro-evolution" even though the theory of evolution doesn't mention "macro-evolution" and speaks of small changes only?

Experiments for the theory of evolution:

1. One species into two: check.

2. Change of body, completely new mechanisms: check.

And if you can show me experiments that demonstrate Creation to the same degree, I am all for including "Intelligent Design" in science class.

I think you want an experiment that demonstrates what you THINK evolution is because you have not yet understood what the theory of evolution actually says.
on Jun 20, 2008

KFC, are you really 87 years old?

on Jun 20, 2008
KFC, are you really 87 years old?


I was drinking water and almost spit it because I thought your question was a riot! Thanks for the laugh  

The answer is NO but I know why you're asking.
on Jun 20, 2008
Smoothseas (I like your name btw)

A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation

The difference is the theory of evolution is constantly being approved upon by the collection of data through observation and experimentation. Fossil and DNA collection and experimentation for example.

The theory of creation(or intelligent design or whatever its being called this week) is not being approved upon by any data collection or experimentation, hence it is not being improved upon by the scientific method, hence it is not science.


Data collection and experimentation is followed by an interpretation of the results. There is no data that proves evolution in the same way that there is no data that proves creationism. (Leauki are you listening?) All that exists is data. Creationists and evolutionists use the same data to make their point.Thus, the interpretation of scientific data is highly based on one's belief system. There are two hypothesis, they are either equally scientific or equally unscientific. One uses evolution and natural causes to explain diversity of life. The other uses God's guidance (not excluding known scientific facts such as natural selection) to explain diversity of life. In the end, evolution is equally as elusive in scientific research as God.

Christian scientists are continually collecting data and experimenting according to the scientific method in order to improve upon their understanding of the Biblical hypothesis that states God created in six days 6 to 10,000 years ago through. Thus, while the creationism hypothesis is not being altered, it is being used as a model system for
experimentation. You may not agree with these scientists' conclusions, but the experiments performed are non-the-less scientific.





on Jun 20, 2008
There is no data that proves evolution in the same way that there is no data that proves creationism.


There is no proof as to the origin from which evolution began but evolution is a theory and as such much is now known as to how things evolve.

I have no problem with creationism or the teaching of creationism, but I know just as much as economic theory doesn't belong in a science class neither does creationism.
42 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last