Anyone reading this blog knows that I really hate atheism.
I tend to be very direct and critical in my rebuke of atheist stupidities.
Atheists are always very generous in providing endless examples of such stupidity, usually disguised as science or reason. Of course the other ± 6 billion people on earth know this well.
But anyway, how about a little humor at the expense of our atheist friends?
This page will be updated from time to time as new jokes arrive.
Politically incorrect reasonings on popular myths
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
What is Natural Selection Really?
Natural selection is the Darwinists main magic wand for the passing of life from some purely hypothetical first common ancestor, to man. By this "mechanism", the Darwinist elite claim that all life on earth has come to be. Survival of the fittest, they used to call this. They have attributed to natural selection all the power of a deity.
Natural selection is seen as a cornerstone piece within the whole "modern synthesis" framework.
Simply put, Natural selection is the process by which biological organisms with favorable traits survive and reproduce more successfully than organisms that do not possess such traits. Conversely, organisms with deleterious traits survive and reproduce less successfully than organisms lacking any weakening traits.
Evolutionist Ernst Mayr defined natural selection as "the process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population."
It is well known that natural selection, in the Darwinian sense, constitutes a tautology. It survives therefore it is fit. It is fit therefore it survives.
This is still controversial and often debated simply because the modern Darwinist does not like being told his major foundation stone for the whole of Darwinian theory is circular reasoning. Darwinism is in fact based on several logical fallacies like this. Another common Darwinian fallacy goes like this:
Species A is morphologically very similar to species B, therefore they are biologically related or have some evolutionary common ancestor. Modern molecular biology and genetics has proved this wrong (like so many other standard Darwinian claims). That specific error is almost a definition of the logical fallacy called "undistributed middle".
So they, as usual, merely deny the reality of it and go on arguing over as if debating it using this or that sophism changes anything of the truth of it.
Without going into the origin of this now ubiquitous term, I'll simply say that it was an idea spawned and developed by creationists, not atheists. Darwin took the term mostly from Edward Blyth a British zoologist who had written on the subject long before his "Origin", as had others. Indeed, according to anthropologist Loren Eiseley, Darwin appropriated the work of Edward Blyth, who wrote on natural selection and evolution in two papers published in 1835 and 1837. From a creationist viewpoint. (Eiseley L.C., "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," in "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York, 1979, p.50)
Darwin basically took the idea changed it to his own view and "ran with with", bringing it to the very pinnacle of his theory of evolution.
It is viewed, in Darwinism, that mutations, by creating genetic diversity, supply the raw material for natural selection to work on.
Well, let's get to the reality of what Natural selection really is.
In one single word, natural selection is "death"!
This should be extremely obvious, but for the Darwinian mindset, most of the time, nothing logical is obvious. Real selection is not anything being selected at all, its all about things being filtered out of the environment by death and that's all. Death rids the "unfit" species from the world.
Selection is thus just a very banal involuntary filter.
This is easily seen by the fact that if one removes death, there would be no such thing as natural selection at all. Not in any Darwinian sense, thats for sure.
"Selection" is thus a very poor choice of words for death. Don't you think? It's almost the equivalent of the Grim Reaper. The selection is implies choice, but nature has no mind to enable it to choose anything at all. Some things die, that's it. And it often has nothing to do with fitness.
Again, this is not hard.
So the fact that Darwinian fundamentalists treat natural selection like some sort of wizard able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, creating all the estimated 13 million living species on earth, is rather amazing. You may even find it amusing, and indeed it would be if not so serious and error.
By realizing the real nature of natural selection, its fairly straight forward to see why it isn't all its cracked up to be.
Here's the ultimate question: How can mutations + death be the mechanism, that creates all life on earth?
Natural selection is seen as a cornerstone piece within the whole "modern synthesis" framework.
Simply put, Natural selection is the process by which biological organisms with favorable traits survive and reproduce more successfully than organisms that do not possess such traits. Conversely, organisms with deleterious traits survive and reproduce less successfully than organisms lacking any weakening traits.
Evolutionist Ernst Mayr defined natural selection as "the process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population."
It is well known that natural selection, in the Darwinian sense, constitutes a tautology. It survives therefore it is fit. It is fit therefore it survives.
This is still controversial and often debated simply because the modern Darwinist does not like being told his major foundation stone for the whole of Darwinian theory is circular reasoning. Darwinism is in fact based on several logical fallacies like this. Another common Darwinian fallacy goes like this:
Species A is morphologically very similar to species B, therefore they are biologically related or have some evolutionary common ancestor. Modern molecular biology and genetics has proved this wrong (like so many other standard Darwinian claims). That specific error is almost a definition of the logical fallacy called "undistributed middle".
So they, as usual, merely deny the reality of it and go on arguing over as if debating it using this or that sophism changes anything of the truth of it.
Without going into the origin of this now ubiquitous term, I'll simply say that it was an idea spawned and developed by creationists, not atheists. Darwin took the term mostly from Edward Blyth a British zoologist who had written on the subject long before his "Origin", as had others. Indeed, according to anthropologist Loren Eiseley, Darwin appropriated the work of Edward Blyth, who wrote on natural selection and evolution in two papers published in 1835 and 1837. From a creationist viewpoint. (Eiseley L.C., "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," in "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X," E.P. Dutton: New York, 1979, p.50)
Darwin basically took the idea changed it to his own view and "ran with with", bringing it to the very pinnacle of his theory of evolution.
It is viewed, in Darwinism, that mutations, by creating genetic diversity, supply the raw material for natural selection to work on.
Well, let's get to the reality of what Natural selection really is.
In one single word, natural selection is "death"!
This should be extremely obvious, but for the Darwinian mindset, most of the time, nothing logical is obvious. Real selection is not anything being selected at all, its all about things being filtered out of the environment by death and that's all. Death rids the "unfit" species from the world.
Selection is thus just a very banal involuntary filter.
This is easily seen by the fact that if one removes death, there would be no such thing as natural selection at all. Not in any Darwinian sense, thats for sure.
"Selection" is thus a very poor choice of words for death. Don't you think? It's almost the equivalent of the Grim Reaper. The selection is implies choice, but nature has no mind to enable it to choose anything at all. Some things die, that's it. And it often has nothing to do with fitness.
Again, this is not hard.
So the fact that Darwinian fundamentalists treat natural selection like some sort of wizard able to leap tall buildings with a single bound, creating all the estimated 13 million living species on earth, is rather amazing. You may even find it amusing, and indeed it would be if not so serious and error.
By realizing the real nature of natural selection, its fairly straight forward to see why it isn't all its cracked up to be.
Here's the ultimate question: How can mutations + death be the mechanism, that creates all life on earth?
Thursday, November 21, 2013
David Hume and Intelligent Design
David Hume, the famous Scottish philosopher and author that is often quoted in debates on whether or not miracles exist, atheism vs theism etc. had much to say on the issue of whether there was evidence of an Intelligent Designer behind the existence of the universe.
Hume stated,
He was definitely not an atheist by any means.
Thus, David Hume often cited by atheists and skeptics to prove that miracles do not exist, was not an atheist but an Intelligent Design promoter. Today, he would be maligned, black-balled, ignored, mocked and dismissed outright by the whole atheist crowd.
Once again, this reveals how incompetent and foolish the so-called "New Atheists" really are.
__________________
Hume, David. The Natural History of Religion. Ed. H. E. Root. London: A. & C. Black, 1956.
Hume, David. "A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh," in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.(1st ed. - London, 1748), 1977.
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge; rev. edn. P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Hume stated,
"Wherever I see Order, I infer from Experience that there, there hath been Design and Contrivance. And the same Principle which leads me into this Inference, when I contemplate a Building, regular and beautiful in its whole Frame and Structure; the same Principle obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect, from the infinite Art and Contrivance which is display'd in the whole Fabrick of the Universe." (David Hume 1977, 120; A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh).In the Introduction to his book The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume stated:
"The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent Author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion."(Hume1956, 21).In The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume wrote:
"Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to everything. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author." (Hume 1956, 26).
"The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind." (Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).
"Is there a system, an order, an economy of things, by which matter can preserve that perpetual agitation which seems essential to it, and yet maintain a constancy in the forms which it produces? There certainly is such an economy; for this is actually the case with the present world. The continual motion of matter, therefore, in less than infinite transpositions, must produce this economy or order; and by its very nature, that order, when once established, supports itself, for many ages, if not to eternity. But wherever matter is so poised, arranged, and adjusted, as to continue in perpetual motion, and yet preserve a constancy in the forms, its situation must, of necessity, have all the same appearance of art and contrivance which we observe at present."Clearly Hume was a "designist".
He was definitely not an atheist by any means.
Thus, David Hume often cited by atheists and skeptics to prove that miracles do not exist, was not an atheist but an Intelligent Design promoter. Today, he would be maligned, black-balled, ignored, mocked and dismissed outright by the whole atheist crowd.
Once again, this reveals how incompetent and foolish the so-called "New Atheists" really are.
__________________
Hume, David. The Natural History of Religion. Ed. H. E. Root. London: A. & C. Black, 1956.
Hume, David. "A Letter From a Gentleman to His Friend in Edinburgh," in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.(1st ed. - London, 1748), 1977.
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge; rev. edn. P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)