tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-119712432024-02-28T02:06:01.728-05:00Reason StreamPolitically incorrect reasonings on popular mythsGary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-31597938304919807302017-07-16T00:04:00.000-04:002017-07-27T11:15:41.793-04:00Bronze Age Goat Herders?How many times have I heard ignorant atheists tell me that the bible was written by "bronze age goat herders", with the obvious implication that "therefore it is unreliable, and mostly ignorant junk"? Well, I can't count the times. You'd think that at least some of these poor folks would have the honesty and at least some minor competence in researching things before opening their mouths and revealing to all that they know nothing whereof they speak. Nope. I guess that would be too much to ask for.<br />
<br />
I guess that insults the poor atheist that parrots this kind of tripe while thinking himself "smart"? <br />
Well sorry, but you deserve it. Get a proper education. Get informed. Learn some honesty. Stop being such a lazy bum.<br />
Do the world a favor. Do yourself a favor. Stop embarrassing yourself in front of every informed person reading your parroted-verbatim ignorance.<br />
<br />
<b>Historical FACTS on some of the bible authors</b>:<br />
<br />
Moses wrote the 1st five books of the bible. Moses was a prince, brought up in the Egyptian Pharaoh's courts and educated in all the knowledge of science, history, religion, philosophy, language, architecture and military strategy that the people who built the Pyramids possessed. Moses was also the commander of the Egyptian armies.<br />
Does that sound like a bronze age goat herder to you?<br />
<br />
If you still think so then you exemplify how ludicrous the misinformed, misguided atheists are, the ones who make this kind of bunk up.<br />
<br />
Enoch was a high king over many other kings and called the scribe for his recording historical events, long before there was any such thing as a historian.<br />
<br />
Abraham was a prince of Chaldea, the so-called cradle of civilization, having learned the knowledge of the Chaldeans and Babylonians who built ancient Babylon. Isaac and Jacob were educated in his house. He moved to Canaan and, like every other well educated prince of his time, he large herds of cattle. Sure they had cattle. Almost EVERYBODY did back then! Ninety-five % of the population in ancient societies were agricultural.<br />
<br />
So does that mean they were uneducated? Totally wrong. And talk about ludicrous "logic". How in heaven's name do these ill-reasoning souls equate being a cattle rancher and/or an agriculturalist with uneducated, ignorant or stupid? Not by any known logical means, that's for certain. Ergo, these kinds of atheists are website posting, nonsense and ignorance herders, less knowledgeable than most of the biblical authors.<br />
<br />
Moreover, EVERY Jewish child had to learn and often memorize the Torah and often the commentaries of the principle doctors of the Torah on it. Guess what you? THAT is almost the ancient equivalent to a law school degree!<br />
<br />
Lawrence Krauss is one of the disingenuous jokers that proffers and parrots - like a mindless robot - such naive ignorance-based statements. Believe it or not ignorant Mr. Krauss, there were no supermarkets, grocery stores, general stores, shopping malls back then. People raised their own cattle and grew their own food. Ever tried it? <br />
<br />
And look at this - these same ancient people also invented language, writing, science, history recording, architecture, medicine, developed mathematics, ...<br />
<br />
David was a highly educated king of Israel, a brilliant military strategist and leader.<br />
<br />
Solomon is still viewed as among the wisest and richest men that ever lived. Anyone with a competent-thinking mind can read his Proverbs and recognize deep psychological understanding of human nature and good practical wisdom.<br />
<br />
Here's why clueless atheists so often have such problems with this. <i>If "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", then the rejection of the Lord is the beginning of insanity</i>. Indeed. Atheism is little better than denial of reality. Denial of reality is part of insanity.<br />
<br />
I continue. Nehemiah was king Artaxerxes' cup-bearer.<br />
<blockquote>
"This, with the Persians, was reckoned a very honourable office (g). A son of Prexaspes, a very honourable man, was made cupbearer to Cambyses; and so it was with the Greeks and Romans (h); and the poets not only make Ganymedes to be Jupiter's cupbearer (i,but even Vulcan himself is put into this office (k).<br />
(g) Herodot. Thalia, sive, l. 3. c. 34. Xenophon. Cyropaedia, l. 5. c. 36. (h) Vid. Athenaei Deipnosophist. l. 10. (i) Homer. Iliad. 21. ver. 234. (k) Homer. Iliad. 1. prope finem." - John Gill</blockquote>
Most of the Hebrew prophets were well educated priests. All priests were required a thorough education in the law.<br />
<br />
Daniel was the first counselor and advisor to the greatest kings on earth, the Persians, the Babylonians and the Medes, far surpassing all the other advisors in knowledge and wisdom - wisdom, something the new atheists and their merry band of sheepish disciples and dupes have none of.<br />
<br />
Luke, author of the gospel of that name and the book of Acts, was a physician and professional historian.<br />
<br />
Paul was a respected doctor of Law and leader among the Jewish people of his time.<br />
<br />
People like Krauss, Coyne, Dawkins, Harris et al., are in dire need of getting informed and getting out of their childishly naive and fatuous claims.<br />
Indeed, as even atheist philosopher Michael Ruse pointed out,<br />
<blockquote>
"Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing"<br />
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/scienceandthesacred/2009/08/why-i-think-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster.html</blockquote>
Sadly, the gullible and those too lazy to do their homework, among the public, and who swallow the intellectual codswallop that those imposters preach like the most fervent TV evangelists out for your money, are suckers for these old baloney-brain "goat herder" lies.Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-57096324867413705172016-07-06T23:39:00.004-04:002016-07-07T07:13:23.841-04:00Darwinism vs Facts<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
I was once challenged by a self-confessed atheist Darwinist in this way:<br>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #45818e;"><span style="color: #76a5af;">Are you holding back then? Do you have some ground breaking evidence that shows that evolution is false? I'm sure the the scientific community would love to hear about it.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: #cc0000;">Here is my initial response</span>:<br>
<br>
Definitions: <br>
<b>Information:</b> For this entry we're talking about biologically meaningful information, or semantic information or more specifically still biosemiotics. Shannon information is useful in biology as well but not at the level required for ID. That is, both descriptive info and prescriptive info.<br>
<br>
<b>Complexity</b>: Here ID refers to specified complexity - and this is not an IDist invention - it was first used by Leslie Orgel. Complexity alone is insufficient. A long string of random letters for example is complex but not specified. A string of letters from a Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.<br>
<br>
And let's not forget that when talking about evolution, we are NOT talking mere of adaptation and variation within a taxonomic Family. We are referring to Darwinian <b>Macro-evolution</b>. Not <b>mere micro evolution</b>.<br>
<br>
No one, including the most staunch young earth creationist has any problem with micro evolution. And for Darwinists reading this, no, you cannot gratuitoulsy extrapolate micro into macro. It does not work and there is absolutely no grounds for assuming it is even possible. Indeed, we have abundant evidence that says it is not possible at all. Even the late evolutionist, William Provine of Cornell University, an staunch atheist evolutionist, stated that macro is NOT an extension of micro. <br>
</div><a href="http://reasonstream.blogspot.com/2016/07/darwinism-vs-facts.html#more">Read more »</a>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-8847650836741002832016-07-06T19:46:00.009-04:002016-07-06T23:26:35.210-04:00Are Atheists Rational? Notice that the title of this article is not “Is Atheism
Rational”. One of the things that all the new atheists claim is that
they are “free thinkers”, rational, logical, science and evidenced based
in having chosen atheism. Is this true? In fact is light years away
from the truth.<br />
Here are some facts about atheism and it’s inescapable logical implications and conclusions.<br />
In atheism, you have no choice but to believe yourself an
electrochemically animated “bag of meat” or a bag of chemicals. National
Academy of Sciences, Anthony Cashmore claims that we are nothing more
than a bag of chemicals.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #00ccff;">“Materialism—the belief that
nothing exists except matter, if true, means there is no place for any
explanation of people and the ‘choices’ they make other than
chemistry—the interactions of genes and the environment, and the random
behaviour of matter.”</span></blockquote>
<img alt="Chemicals " class="aligncenter wp-image-557 size-medium" height="267" src="https://borne.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/chemicals_in_flasks-sm.jpg?w=300&h=267" width="300" /><br />
Cashmore thus claims that the concept of human responsibility is also
invalid. According to him, the evolutionary process gave rise only to
the illusion of responsibility. Indeed, he maintains,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #00ccff;">“neither religious beliefs,
nor a belief in free will, comply with the laws of the physical
world.”* – The Lucretian swerve: The biological basis of human
behavior and the criminal justice system, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 107(10):4499-4504, 2010; <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.full.pdf</a> html Antony Cashmore is Robert I. Williams Prof essor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania.</span></blockquote>
Prof. Will. Provine said,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #00ccff;">“There is no way that the evolutionary process … can produce a being that is truly free to make choices.”</span></blockquote>
So is evolution compatible with free will? Nope. So is morality compatible with <i>no free will</i>? Nope. Cashmore wrote,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #00ccff;">“The reality is, not only do
we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we
have no more free will than a bowl of sugar.”</span></blockquote>
And he says that freely, of his own volition? Apparently not. Not
without glaring self-contradiction. But that’s atheism’s only
possibility – as bags of chemicals or meat. Atheism is an idea that
doesn’t even matter and has never done anything good in the whole
history of the world, but has caused irreperable dammage and mass death.<br />
Now here is the fatal flaw in all this atheist nonsense. <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>Rationality depends upon free will</b></span>.
Rationality means being capable of understanding and choosing between
conceptual alternatives. The No Free Will claim, if true, negates that
possibility completely and finally. How can you choose what idea is
correct and which is not, if you are not free to choose it? Stunningly
obvious.<br />
Atheist scientist Peter Atkins says,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #00ccff;">“Free will is merely the
ability to decide, and the ability to decide is nothing other than the
organised interplay of shifts of atoms.” – Atkins, Peter, The Creation,
W.H. Freeman & Co Ltd, Oxford, 1981</span></blockquote>
I wonder if Atkins thinks that he freely choose to believe that and say that? Not according to himself. His DNA did it.<br />
Atheist Nobel laureate Francis Crick wrote,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #00ccff;">“The Astonishing Hypothesis
is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your
ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no
more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their
associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased:
“You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” (p. 3) -Francis Crick (1994)
The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons</span></blockquote>
The late William Provine also stated,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #00ccff;">” Naturalistic evolution has
clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods
worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate
foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and
5) human free will is nonexistent.”</span></blockquote>
So much for anyone being a free thinker and thinking for themselves.
Atheism’s super star TV evangelists shot that false idea to hell. All
this clearly implies that as bags of meat, no one ever really selects
their beliefs, their own concepts based upon logical evaluation,
critical thinking and personal choice. Under atheism, therefore, since
free will is an illusion of the brain and we are nothing but sacks of
meat, real rationality cannot even exist. Bags of meat cannot reason or
rationally come to conclusions. Atheism means that you are nothing but a
biological automaton, a robot, a computer that deludes itself into
thinking itself rational and free while being nothing but a clump of
conglomerated matter with integrated circuits giving the illusion of
real volition.<br />
No other conclusion is even possible, if atheism is true.<br />
<br />
Atheists
sometimes counter this by claiming that we have tested our brains and
proved that our faculties of reason are in correspondence with reality.
This too is a gross error and lack of intellectual depth. You cannot
test your brain using your brain. Nor can you test all brains using
brains. There is simply no way to really know that what the human mind
is doing is truly related to reality. We fall into The Matrix scenario.
How do we know that we’re not all bags of flesh hooked up to machines
with our brains being pumped full of illusions of a reality? We don’t.
Not under atheism.<br />
Moreover, only in deism or theism can we assume that the mind is
rational, based upon it’s being made by a super intellect, as Sir Fred
Hoyle called it.<br />
<br />
Again, we are left with a serious vital choice to make. God or stupidity.<br />
<br />
Atheism is a debilitating religious position with no foundations in
logic or rational thinking – rationality cannot even exist in atheism.
Another thing atheists fail to see. Meat can never be rational.
Rationality itself is metaphysical, not physical. Atoms moving in any
form cannot be rational. Sad really. Just freaking sad.<br />
The great theist philosopher – and ex-atheist – C.S. Lewis wrote,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #00ccff;">“My argument against God was
that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this
idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he
has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe
with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless
from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the
show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet
when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish
would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice
by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did
that, then my argument against God collapsed too -for the argument
depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it
did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of
trying to prove that God did not exist -another words, that the whole of
reality was senseless -I found I was forced to assume that one part of
reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently
atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no
meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as,
if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with
eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #00ccff;">“The theory that thought is merely a
movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that
theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which
may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use
the words ‘true’ or ‘false'”.<br /><br />“If he is honest, the materialist will
have to admit that his own ideas are merely the “epiphenomenon which
accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself
the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” If all thoughts are
merely the products of non-rational causes, this includes the
materialist’s own thoughts. In other words, there is no reason according
to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true.”</span><br />
<span style="color: #00ccff;"> -C.S. Lewis</span></blockquote>
Simple and absolutely logical. And with that, there goes the ballgame
for atheists. If they remain atheists, they cannot remain logically
consistent with themselves if they claim they are free thinkers or free
anything else, nor truly rational beings. They are obliged to consider
themselves bio-automatons with no more self-determination than a
hamburger.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLSfninyKzlnq3oR3nsp8wzcrF8OzqZlKX-mOdTrQrOU1uCdeY4cO3mhw96yDldaN9RGqr-ImLHr6LBgGXcsNfsiXGFCgZA96eUGv7M0Va2_SjESMuzYbanX74_cM6K0bWPmUF/s1600/this-is-atheism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="This is atheism" border="0" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLSfninyKzlnq3oR3nsp8wzcrF8OzqZlKX-mOdTrQrOU1uCdeY4cO3mhw96yDldaN9RGqr-ImLHr6LBgGXcsNfsiXGFCgZA96eUGv7M0Va2_SjESMuzYbanX74_cM6K0bWPmUF/s320/this-is-atheism.jpg" title="This is atheism" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzPltsbxt5AUiFF8EX9eB6ymK5nEWc5PgXM0YjTjkjuGn_1V-qQG4XKrld1O9bYt2zT8mTQP5PmK1lvfWojZ_X29ft45jfcZ3zXn5z0Bv2YhnRFuXSaroOrnkCr9H11tZqpctd/s1600/brain-on-atheism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzPltsbxt5AUiFF8EX9eB6ymK5nEWc5PgXM0YjTjkjuGn_1V-qQG4XKrld1O9bYt2zT8mTQP5PmK1lvfWojZ_X29ft45jfcZ3zXn5z0Bv2YhnRFuXSaroOrnkCr9H11tZqpctd/s400/brain-on-atheism.jpg" /></a></div>
Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-91965778933582104002016-07-06T19:36:00.000-04:002016-07-06T19:36:15.542-04:00God and Politics?Every time there are elections we see a lot of talk on the Internet
and between people on things like who should one vote for, which
political party is the best, which candidate has the best competence,
and among religious folks, how the believer ought to view polictics in
general, is God interested in politics, can use the scriptures to better
decide which party to vote for? etc ..
<br />
These discussions and debates are often very passionate on all sides.
There are many people who say that we should not mix religion and
politics including God and politics. It’s an age old adage. So we hear a
lot about the issue of mixing religion and politics. We hear about it a
lot in the United States regarding their Constitution and the famous
Establishment Clause, “Congress shall make no law Respecting an
establishment of religion “with” … or Prohibiting the free exercise
thereof ” Because of these perpetual quarrels and abuses of these terms
and ideas on the issues, we hear that the church should not “interfere”
in the state.<br />
<br />
To clarify the issue I must say at the outset that there is a
difference between “God and State” and “Religion and State”. Religion is
the human expression of beliefs in God or not, metaphysical beliefs.
The government must therefore not <em>impose</em> a specific religion on
the nation since the people must have the right to choose freely. It is
at this level that the words of Christ, “My kingdom is not of this
world.” applies .<br />
<br />
However, we must not make the mistake of saying, based on this
saying, that Christ is not interested in human governments. On the
contrary, the Old Testament very clearly declares his interest in the
way that nations act. He is called King of the Nations. Even in the
Apocalypse of John, the book of Revelation, we see the role of nations
in the new earth ruled by Christ and his servants.<br />
<br />
Assuming that those who read this article understand the subject fairly well, I will try to clarify some important points.<br />
<br />
The Bible is the compass of the world, and not only the Christian. It
is the revelation of God to humanity, not just Jews and Christians, to
show us the way to God and the way of righteousness, justice and mercy
in life. So it’s back to the Scriptures to find the correct views. What
does the Bible say about the subject? Does the Bible speak of it? We
do not want only human, subjective opinions versus another opinion, but
we want to see if the word of God is clear on the subject.<br />
I will start with a quote from a highly relevant key text for all that concerns God and human governments.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #2c89db;">At one time I may threaten
to tear up, break down, and destroy a nation or a kingdom. But suppose
the nation that I threatened turns away from doing wrong. Then I will
change my plans about the disaster I planned to do to it. </span><br />
<span style="color: #2c89db;"> At another time I may promise to build and
plant a nation or a kingdom. But suppose that nation does what I
consider evil and doesn’t obey me. Then I will change my plans about the
good that I promised to do to it. </span><br />
<span style="color: #2c89db;"> – Jer 18: 7-10</span></blockquote>
In it God reveals very briefly the principle by which he governs the
nations on earth. The whole principle is closely related to their
obedience or disobedience to the moral law. The very fact that God
intervenes in the affairs of men already gives us an important clue to
the question of God and the State. <strong>God is not absent from the state</strong>, he is not indifferent to the state and considers the human affairs constantly.<br />
So right there we may not pretend that God and state should be kept
separate, as if one had nothing to do with the other. The reality is
that it is actually impossible to separate them completely! Indeed,
although we could believe that government should not establish a single
religion as the religion of the state, imposed on all, one can not say
that a government can be separated from God and views of religion
either.<br />
In the Old Testament, for example, God arranged to place a person of
his choice as the head of a Nation and over and over again. For
example, Joseph was chosen by God to come to rule Egypt. We see the
many judges he raised up and established. We see the he choose Saul to
be the first king of Israel, followed by David etc. In the story of
Esther we find God very involved in the fate of the Jews in a pagan
nation. We see how God used Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem through the
governor. God is seen to interfer in the Gentile (non Jewish) nations
also. For example with Cyrus that he predetermined many years before
his birth, to become the king of Persia (Iran). We also see Daniel and
his position of influence and governance in Babylon.<br />
The list is long. One can even say with certainty that the <em>Old Testament is the history of moral and political relations between God and nations, especially Israel but many others also.</em> We read in Deut. 32: 7.8<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #2c89db;">Remember the days of old,
consider the years of generation to generation: ask thy father, and he
will declare to you, your elders, and they will tell thee. When the
Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated
the son of Adam, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the
number of the son of Israel.</span></blockquote>
We see throughout the Bible that God wants to be respected and served by nations and their leaders. In Psalm 2 we read,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #2c89db;">Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, and for thy possession the ends of the earth;</span><br />
<span style="color: #2c89db;"> Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; like a potter’s vessel thou shalt parts.</span><br />
<span style="color: #2c89db;"> And now, O kings, be wise; you rulers of the earth, receive instruction:</span><br />
<span style="color: #2c89db;"> Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling; …</span></blockquote>
In Psalm 9 we read,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #2c89db;">Psa 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, all the nations that forget God;</span></blockquote>
King David recognized God’s authority when he said, “<em>you have made me head of the nations;</em>”
God is interested, not only in politics. but who will be leader of a
nation. And is it any wonder? Seeing that God’s purposes on earth for
the well being of humanity are always at stake in politics?<br />
Even stronger language is used by Isaiah when he said, concerning the Messiah (Christ), “<em>and the <strong>government</strong> shall be upon his shoulder;</em>”<br />
In short, to say that we must respect separation of state and
religion and especially with God is simply a very wrong idea! We cannot
separate the them. It is in fact impossible, because God intervenes in
the affairs of men and more than anything else in politics!<br />
Psa 10:28 says,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #2c89db;">“For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and he dominates among the nations.”</span></blockquote>
The nations belong to him. He is not an idle, uninterested
bystander. A normal family man is interested in and has daily
involvement with his family and it is his duty. It is also so with God,
indeed it is the <em>duty</em> of God to govern nations.<br />
The prophet Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #2c89db;">“This order is fixed by the
watchers, and the decision is by the word of the holy ones: so that the
living may be certain that the Most High is ruler over the kingdom of
men, and gives it to any man at his pleasure, lifting up over it the
lowest of men.<br />
… your kingdom will be safe for you after it is clear to you that the heavens are ruling.<br />
For this cause, O King, let my suggestion be pleasing to you, and let
your sins be covered by righteousness and your evil-doing by mercy to
the poor, so that the time of your well-being may be longer.” – Dan
4:17…</span></blockquote>
The interpretation Daniel gave Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was fulfilled and when the time of prophecy was completed seen said,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #2c89db;">“… At the end of the days I,
Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up my eyes to heaven, and my understanding
returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored
him who lives forever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and
his kingdom is from generation to generation; and all the inhabitants of
the earth are reputed as nothing: and he does according to his will in
the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth;” – Dan 4:35</span></blockquote>
King David said,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #2c89db;">“The God of Israel spoke,
the Rock of Israel said to me: He who rules over men righteously, who
rules in the fear of God is like the morning light when the sun shines
And a morning without clouds; Shining after rain out of the earth the
green. “- 2 Samuel 23</span></blockquote>
God cares <em>passionately</em> about human affairs and therefore to
claim that we should not mix politics and religion, or more specifically
God and politics, is <em>a major mistake</em>. It is therefore
important that people probe their conscience and the scriptures and
biblical principles in any decision dealing with politics, political
parties and their leaders. We can not pretend that the politics is
religiously neutral. It most definitely is NOT! Politics determines
the governance of a nation and must necessarily touch its morality, its
behavior and thus its fate. It is therefore important that the people
get informed as much as possible on the ideology of a political party,
ideology of its leaders and their goals in government.<br />
<br />
This means that the people must try to choose as leaders, chiefs and
the party with the objectives, principles and moral ideology close as
possible to those things in the Bible. The religious person, most
precisely the Jew and the Christian, has a moral obligation to get
informed, to follow biblical principles and not party loyalty or
political leanings and not to just vote as usual or act with
irresponsible complacency towards political choices and involvement.<br />
It is therefore very ignorant of scripture and just plain foolish to
talk of elections, politics and government without God and religion.<br />
<br />
Now, does that mean we can take politics into the church to make
sermons? I do not think so. Not to discuss who should vote or to present
the parties and candidates involved. No more than a few words on the
nature of the thing and the Christian duty to carefully examine the
morals, goals etc. each party to make an informed choice by the Bible
and by his conscience before God.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcdlOFvHXerR-4QbvsC27uKVbviARVAKCo4-53tAmvvbIsabp-xtUiNVdtOuLr4uMivFSOzLdZBl95bf1By7OUD_M2wVwYehh4OJV58awI4-ZuwLlo05XZkqB7wNESuhMqthQM/s1600/KaijuChrist.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcdlOFvHXerR-4QbvsC27uKVbviARVAKCo4-53tAmvvbIsabp-xtUiNVdtOuLr4uMivFSOzLdZBl95bf1By7OUD_M2wVwYehh4OJV58awI4-ZuwLlo05XZkqB7wNESuhMqthQM/s320/KaijuChrist.jpg" width="263" /></a></div>
Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-26706535689393517722014-11-30T20:35:00.004-05:002015-06-11T20:42:57.960-04:00No Creationist Scientists with Real Credentials?I've been told that there are no creationist scientists with real credentials so many times I wish I had a buck for every one.<br />
<br />
The truth is quite the contrary and atheist TV evangelist shills preaching, proselytizing and indoctrinating others with this kind of spurious codswallop ought to be severely reprimanded and fired.<br />
<br />
The truth about this is presented briefly here. It would take days and a load of space here to list every creationist scientist with earned degrees from reputable universities so this is a small sample.<br />
<br />
<b>Creationists developed and established the modern scientific method - not atheists.</b> No atheists were even involved. Historical fact. Indeed, atheists, under atheist assumptions about the universe, could never have developed the method. Why? Because atheists
have no reason at all for believing in an ordered and comprehensible universe. Under
atheism, the universe should be chaotic and incomprehensible. It is
neither.<br />
<br />
Bishop Robert Grosseteste, a reform-minded cleric of the 13th
century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the
scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil,
the friar Roger Bacon. Both predicted that application of their methods
would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge--a result which
followed. Bacon especially enumerated the results, which included
submarines and flying machines.<br />
<br />
So the greatest scientists in
past history, all creationists of some sort, did not believe the
materialist definition of science! <b>How then can the atheists claim,
as they ubiquitously do, that creationism or even mere intelligent
design (which leaves the question of God and holy books out of the
issues) will lead to the ruin of science when in fact all the great
scientists that led us to where we are today were themselves
creationists?</b> Utterly ridiculous and in fact a downright evil lie. <br />
Modern science was born and raised in theistic world views and would have never been born in atheism. Modern
science was cradled in Christianity and it is the environment of
Christianity and theism that fueled and nurtured its birth and maturing. Not
atheism. <a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" dir="ltr" href="http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749</a><br />
<br />
Atheism has never brought any good to humanity whatsoever. In fact, quite the contrary with more than 170 millions murders perpetrated by atheists under officially atheist governments in the 20th century alone.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The
founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular
geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I'm
thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and
perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of
the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir
Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system);
Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of
comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of
modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern
entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern
electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first
law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to
clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler
(discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father
of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the
electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics);
Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise
Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics);
Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory)." ... Gregor Mendel (genetics), Sir William Herschel (galactic astronomy), John Woodward (paleantology), Sir Humphrey Davy (thermokinetics), Lord John Rayleigh (dimensional analysis)....</blockquote>
The great christian (ex-atheist) philosopher and author C.S. Lewis said,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Men became
scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in
Nature because they believed in a Legislator." - C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.</blockquote>
<b>Atheism
would never have given birth to modern science at all</b>. It is perfectly
at home with all kinds of idiocy, superstition and irrational nonsense like "a universe from nothing".<br />
<br />
All the people in the above list were creationists and all scientists and responsible for virtually
every convenience and health benefit you enjoy today including internet,
cell phones, television, radio, flight, space flight, calculus, and on and on it
goes.<br />
<br />
<b>And yet atheist fanatics are all running around slandering and whining like perfect imbeciles against them and their followers and successors.</b><br />
<br />
How about if we denied them access to everything that was invented or founded upon creationist science and inventions? No cell phones, no airplanes, no television, no radio, no computers, no penicillin, no flights to the moon, no lasers, masers or anything built on laser technology - and on and on the list goes.<br />
<br />
The
ironic thing is that all these irrational ignorant atheists these days,
that think they're so smart and highly educated, are virtually all educated in schools, colleges and universities founded by creationists :
<b>Yale, Princeton, Oberlin College, Harvard, Dartmouth, McGill, Laval,
Oxford, Cambridge, Cornell, and almost all the great universities of
Europe and the West</b>. Not to mention hundreds in Africa, South America and Indonesia where it is Christian missionaries that started the school systems there as well as the hospitals!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005)
a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that
(65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its
various forms as their religious preference (423 prize). Overall,
Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,
72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in
Economics[8] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.<br />
<br />
The three
primary divisions of Christianity are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy,
and Protestantism. between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates 32%
have identified Protestant in its various forms (210 prize),[9] 20.3%
were Christians (no information about their denominations) (133
prize),[9] (11.6%) have identified as Catholic[9] and (1.6%) have
identified as Eastern Orthodox.<br />
<br />
According to study that was done
by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998 found that 60% of Nobel prize
laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background.<br />
<br />
Alfred
Nobel who established the prizes in 1895, through baptism and
confirmation Alfred Nobel was Lutheran and he frequented regularly the
Church of Sweden Abroad.<br />
<br />
Christians make up over 33.2% of the worlds population and have earned 65.4% of Nobel prizes."</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>References<br /> Davis & Falconer, J.J. Thomson and the Discovery of the Electron<br /> "The Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine 1904 Ivan Pavlov". Nobelmedia. Retrieved 2 February 2012.<br /> "Gov't Rejects Newspaper Story". The News 2014-05-07. Accessed 2014-05-09.<br /> Martin 2008, p. 30<br /> "Nobel Prize" (2007), in Encyclopædia Britannica, accessed 14 November 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online:<br /> "All Nobel Laureates". Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2010-03-01.<br />
Baruch A. Shalev, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003),Atlantic Publishers
& Distributors , p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654
Laureates belong to 28 different religion Most 65.4% have identified
Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.<br />
"Alfred Nobel, hans far och hans bröder". March 2013. Retrieved 9
December 2013. "(swe: Genom dop och konfirmation var Alfred Nobel
lutheran -en: Alfred Nobel was through baptism and confirmation a
Lutheran)"<br /> 33.2% of 6.7 billion world population (under the section 'People') "World". CIA world facts.<br /> "The List: The World's Fastest-Growing Religions". <a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" dir="ltr" href="http://foreignpolicy.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">foreignpolicy.com</a>. March 2007. Retrieved 2010-01-04.<br /> "Major Religions Ranked by Size". Adherents.com. Retrieved 2009-05-05.<br /> ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). "Global Christianity". Pewforum.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17.</i></blockquote>
<b>Take Dr. AE Wilder Smith for example - a young earth creationist - with 3 earned PhDs</b> :<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCmb8znQHuunZzNExxjq7wHxhV1TWdULum3Biye5ECCzuvlVF5Gui8xqotd9Bj08u7Z9ehmWcTs7CgRUXID6qeglI1Rdnzpo7TzDAbBUqFV-4LWGerii-7-YXeWM9m0pi8A0gi/s1600/wilder-smith.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCmb8znQHuunZzNExxjq7wHxhV1TWdULum3Biye5ECCzuvlVF5Gui8xqotd9Bj08u7Z9ehmWcTs7CgRUXID6qeglI1Rdnzpo7TzDAbBUqFV-4LWGerii-7-YXeWM9m0pi8A0gi/s1600/wilder-smith.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
# Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)<br />
# Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich<br />
# D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)<br />
#
F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships
held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical
School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61,
received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures),
University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway)
School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical
School, etc.<br />
# Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company<br />
# Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford<br />
# Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages<br />
# NATO three-star general<br />
<br />
How's that for real credentials?<br />
<br />
The list of theist and creationist scientists with real earned degrees is extremely long. The atheists, once again, are lying to you, and to themselves. All because of their own fanatical religious beliefs that impede them from acknowledging the facts. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities... <b>Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science</b>." - Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin". Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96</blockquote>
And what of Copernicus, Galileo, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Godel, Marconi, von Braun, ... these were all men of strong religious beliefs. They were all theists and mostly full fledged creationists!<br />
<br />
Next time you here another ignorant atheist tell you that there are no creationist scientists, or that religion makes people dumb or that Christianity is anti-science, point them to the historical FACTS, the schools, hospitals, charities, inventions, and the scientific method itself and tell them to get informed and get a proper education in the history of science.<br />
<br />
The atheists have done nothing but cripple the scientific method with their groundless, <i>a priori </i>insistence that only the natural can explain the natural. And how exactly, do they know this? They don't. That claim is a metaphysical, materialist presumption, and total bollocks. <b>For if you cannot see outside of the material world how in the world can you predicate, with embarrassing certitude as atheists do, that there is nothing outside the material world?</b><br />
<br />
Excluded ANY possibility from science is idiocy. Excluding metaphysical existences from science is nothing but a religious prejudice. We should always seek material explanations, but not where no such explanations suffice and design is the only Occam's Razor answer possible! The beginning of the universe is precisely one such case.<br />
<br />
Creationists number among the greatest scientific minds in all history. And today's creationist scientists are very well educated in their scientific domains in major universities. Don't swallow the atheist propaganda, it's pure bull, as usual.<br />
<br />
<br />Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-57640304064959986952014-05-25T23:21:00.001-04:002014-05-25T23:32:53.244-04:00John Piippo: It's False That an Atheist Just Believes in One Fewer God Than a Theist DoesGood stuff that all "new atheist" fundamentalists seriously need to read. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.johnpiippo.com/2014/01/its-false-that-atheist-just-believes-in.html">John Pippo: It's False That an Atheist Just Believes in One Fewer God Than a Theist Does</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://Philosophical atheism as superstition" target="_blank">http://www.johnpiippo.com/2014/01/philosophical-atheism-as-superstition.html </a>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-90252479871772538192014-05-25T23:16:00.001-04:002014-05-25T23:33:43.926-04:00John Piippo: I Don't Believe in Fairies Either (On the Conceptual Confusion of Unlearned Atheists)<a href="http://www.johnpiippo.com/2014/01/i-dont-believe-in-fairies-either-on.html">Simple, logical and effective - John Piippo: I Don't Believe in Fairies Either (On the Conceptual Confusion of Unlearned Atheists)</a>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-74680695853777112372014-04-05T08:33:00.000-04:002014-04-05T08:33:50.877-04:00The Religion of Atheism<div class="posttitle">
<small><a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/tag/faith-in-nothing/" rel="tag"></a> </small>
</div>
How many times per day do atheists, worldwide, deny that atheism
is a religion? My guess is millions. Why? Because wherever there is
debate on the existence of God vs atheism, you are absolutely guaranteed
that sooner or later in the discussion, the word religion will be
brought in and the atheists present will be eschewing all religion. But
then some deist or theist will tell them that atheism itself is a
religion, having all the telltale signs. At that point the atheists
will get angry, act insulted, and arrogantly state that atheism isn’t a
religion and that if atheism is a religion, then not playing tennis is a
sport – or some such similar analogy (which they copy/paste parrot from
their masters, the high priests of atheism). They radically deny that
atheism is a religion because they despise religion per se and cannot
endure to have their own beliefs called religion.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://reasonstream.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-religion-of-atheism.html#more">Read more »</a>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-50700233185451422252014-02-21T14:56:00.000-05:002015-06-09T22:22:17.269-04:00Neo Darwinism is “GONE”<div class="posttitle">
<h2 class="pagetitle">
Neo Darwinism is “GONE”</h2>
How many times have you heard that,</div>
<blockquote>
“<b>Evolution has been proven as much as gravity</b>“</blockquote>
Whenever you hear that, the first step is to ask the Darwinists:
“What definition of ‘evolution’ are you referring to? Micro or Macro?”<br />
<br />
In 99.9% of cases, they will answer something like this, “Macro
evolution is merely and extension of micro evolution.” Darwinists
erroneously believe that one can gratuitously extrapolate micro
evolution, which is small changes like say, variation of size of color
etc. in some given species, into macro evolution which is major change
that crosses taxonomic Family boundaries upward.<br />
<br />
In case you’re not familiar with taxonomic classification it goes basically like the following diagram:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfbsn2MDw-0QVWIX8eywQLYEB9Q1UdITUZ8xMF2O7Ok7r1VqOnBWzqPpmtNwzbWT2Sd9aMhJUxJfPtGHOxQnNi01ML590vnbZFdDYG4XDnbV9bl7olXLBq3dLTh43TzObyzs0v/s1600/230px-Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfbsn2MDw-0QVWIX8eywQLYEB9Q1UdITUZ8xMF2O7Ok7r1VqOnBWzqPpmtNwzbWT2Sd9aMhJUxJfPtGHOxQnNi01ML590vnbZFdDYG4XDnbV9bl7olXLBq3dLTh43TzObyzs0v/s320/230px-Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg.png" width="124" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_UqLEoLWuqA/UweuJrf_XBI/AAAAAAAABh0/0HyezaVpBMo/s1600/150px-Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip_svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://borne.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/150px-biological_classification_l_pengo_vflip_svg.png" target="_parent"></a>
We know that some evolution takes place with the Family and below.
But there is not a grain of evidence that it ever takes place above the
Family level. Though, there may be some overlap into the Order level.
Nothing above this has ever been observed and there is no evidence that
either occurs and much evidence that not only does it not occur but that
it cannot occur at all! Some might say, “The fossil record!”.<br />
The fossil record itself refutes gradualist Darwinian style evolution. See Stephen Meyer’s, <a href="http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/" target="_parent">“Darwin’s Doubt”</a>.<br />
Humans have been breeding animals etc for millennia, trying to
artificially select for this or that trait in some Family like dogs or
cats, horses, roses etc. In spite of many efforts to interbreed species
from different taxonomic Families, none have ever succeeded except to
bring about creatures that cannot reproduce or are severely handicapped.<br />
<br />
The point is that you cannot extrapolate micro evolution into macro
evolution. Not without proof that the extrapolation is valid. Is it?
No. The basic reason is that the genome contains safety mechanisms,
error detection and correction mechanisms that impede such
“extravagances” if you will.<br />
<br />
Now, every staunch creationist knows that evolution occurs within and
below the Taxonomic Family level. No problem. Variation and adaptation
occur all the time, and are indeed observable.<br />
<br />
But there is not a single grain of evidence – let alone proof – that
it occurs above that level; and vast evidence that it does not and
cannot!<br />
<br />
Here I will quote once of atheist Darwinists major players. Or ex-Darwinist I suppose he should be called now.<br />
<br />
In 2008, William B. Provine, Cornell University historian of science and professor of evolutionary biology, stated that “<b>every assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false</b>“:<br />
<blockquote>
1. <b>Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process</b>. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .<br />
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a
good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to
mimic phenotypic evolution.<br />
5. <b>Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution</b>. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.<br />
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b>7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.</b> </span><br />
<b>8. Definition of “species” was clear[--]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr</b>.<br />
<b>9. Speciation was understood in principle.</b><br />
<b>10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to
the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of
life.</b><br />
11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.<br />
<b>12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked
constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil
organisms. </b><br />
<b>13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.</b><br />
14. Molecular biology has stolen from paleontology all ability to
construct phylogenies. – William Provine, Random Drift and the
Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.</blockquote>
In that single paragraph, Provine destroyed almost the whole neo Darwinian theory. And he is an adamant atheist!<br />
It gets better, or worse if you’re a Darwinist:<br />
A paper in the journal Biological Theory in 2011 stated,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>“Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope.” </b>
— David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, “The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution
After the Modern Synthesis,” Biological Theory, Vol. 6: 89-102
(December, 2011).</blockquote>
And even better still:<br />
In 2009, Computational Biologist Eugene Koonin of the National Center
for Biotechnology Information stated in “Trends in Genetics” that there
are major problems in core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as the
“traditional concept of the tree of life” and the view that “natural
selection is the main driving force of evolution.”<br />
Koonin stated,<br />
<blockquote>
<b> “<span style="color: red;">the modern synthesis has crumbled</span>, apparently, beyond repair” and “<span style="color: red;">all
major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright
overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of
the key aspects of evolution</span>.”</b> Koonin concludes,<b> “not to mince words,<span style="color: red;"> the modern synthesis is gone</span>.” </b>
— Eugene V. Koonin, “The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis
in Sight?,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 25: 473 (2009) (internal citations
omitted).</blockquote>
Koonin is, Senior Investigator National Center for Biotechnology
Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National
Institutes of Health (NIH)<br />
<br />
The so-called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Altenberg-16-Expos%C3%A9-Evolution-Industry/dp/1556439245" target="_parent">Altenberg 16</a>
said pretty much the same things. The famous meeting at Konrad Lorenz
Institute in Altenberg, Austria in July 2008, where 16 scientists
discussed expanding evolutionary thinking beyond outdated hypotheses.<br />
<br />
If all these people say neo Darwinism (the modern synthesis) has
failed, why is that people like Dawkins, Coyne, et al. are still loudly
proclaiming that it is “<b>proved as gravity</b>” when nothing could be further from the truth?<br />
<br />
Either some are being deviously dishonest or they are self-deceived.
I’ll opt for deviously dishonest since Dawkins’ hypocrisy is easy enough
to see everywhere he goes and opens his mouth. I’m not going to give
you proof of his hypocrisy here, but the facts speak for themselves
concerning his record of telling the truth!<br />
<br />
Some may wish to make reference to the old and useless, “<b>scientific consensus</b>” argument.<br />
No thank you. <b>Science has nothing to do with consensus. If
its consensus it isn’t science and if science then consensus has NOTHING
to do with it.</b><br />
<br />
The evidence <b>against</b> neo Darwinian evolution has
literally gone through the roof in the past decade alone, with the
advent genome sequencing through high tech advancements.<br />
<br />
Indeed, we now have incontrovertible PROOF of intelligent design in DNA. Recently discovered in DNA is that <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/another-headache-for-darwin/" target="_parent" title="Another Headache for Darwin">ZERO and the DECIMAL</a> place are encoded in it and used computationally in the genome.<br />
Under neo Darwinian terms, you don’t. You must explain it away; something Darwinists have always been professionals at.<br />
<br />
To reiterate some of that previous article: There is only one single
possible source for such mathematical units represented in DNA and that
is necessarily intelligence – or “artificiality” as the discoverer
called it stating moreover that,<br />
<blockquote>
“Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could
not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized
the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can
neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them. “<br />
…<br />
Being non-material abstractions, all the zero, decimal syntax and unique
summations can display an artificial nature of the genetic code. They
refute traditional ideas about the stochastic origin of the genetic
code.<br />
… There is no plausible chemical logic to couple directly the
triplets and the amino acids. In other words, the principles of
chemistry where not the sought essence of the genetic code<br />
…The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any
alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of
artificiality.</blockquote>
All that means that neo Darwinism is utterly wrong. Nature knows
nothing of ZEROs or Decimal places – they do not exist in nature!<br />
<br />
There goes the ballgame for Darwinian evolution. Curiously, what
shCherbak discovered is exactly what both IDists and creationists have
been saying all along!<br />
<br />
<b>Intelligence underlies and permeates the whole genome and genetic code. </b><br />
<br />
Symbolic codes, no matter the physical medium by which they are
stored to represent information, require intelligent origin. That’s
what Code is, an intelligently organized and defined suite of symbols
used to represent something other than themselves, to represent
information. The information in DNA is also algorithmic – ie prescriptive, instructions. This CANNOT arise by any mindless process.<br />
<br />
Atheists and Darwinists have been denying (there it is again <i>denial</i>)
this fact of life for decades. Yet now they are backed into a fatal
corner and the whole foolish fairy tale of neo Darwinian evolution is
finished, or “gone” as Koonin aptly put it..<br />
<br />
It will take many years to undo both its deeply ensconced &
religiously held and legally protected “authority” and popularity and
the damage it has done to science by retarding its advance.<br />
More recently a second genetic code has been discovered imbedded in the first. Do you have any idea what that implies?<br />
<br />
Imagine writing computer code in the C++ programming language, and
knowing that it can be compiled using two different language compilers,
producing two completely different programs.<br />
<br />
Imagine speaking in English and everything you say is also perfectly
legit grammar of a completely different language all at once! That’s
pretty close to what this discovery means. Think of the difficulty
involved in creating a coded information system that is in fact two
coded information systems in one. Try, for example, creating a language
wherein saying, “Hello how are you?” in one means, “Darwinism sucks big
eggs” in the other. Go ahead, think and try it; its humanly possible
but only with great intellectual effort. Such things do not and cannot
just “evolve”.<br />
<br />
Neo Darwinism is “gone”. How long will it take before the religious
establishment of secular humanism, that controls the whole public
education system and most of the government and so much more in the West
and in Europe, crumbles with it?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihPUZDbhFWl9phEKKG8r34SkEC40cEzNZOf3KTYdUJPTrKLZqZRCWLHeSd2eSfm659ePvsFnLsB6OK4z2kaf-TQJQtpiwOgVrPnkVkPtLZGCb2A1cBonN1eXj9-8-uJ0rpIvsD/s1600/weekend-at-darwins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
My guess is many years; painful, conflicted and possible even violent
years as the Darwinian propaganda and brainwashing juggernaut slowly
grinds to a rebellious halt and dies.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://borne.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/weekend-at-darwins.jpg" target="_parent"><img alt="weekend-at-darwins" class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-488" height="224" src="https://borne.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/weekend-at-darwins.jpg?w=300&h=224" width="300" /></a></div>
Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-28767479649374316012013-11-26T22:06:00.005-05:002013-11-26T22:29:32.907-05:00A Little Bit of Truthful HumorAnyone reading this blog knows that I really hate atheism.<br>
I tend to be very direct and critical in my rebuke of atheist stupidities.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
But anyway, how about a little humor at the expense of our atheist friends?<br>
This page will be updated from time to time as new jokes arrive.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://reasonstream.blogspot.com/2013/11/a-little-bit-of-truthful-humor.html#more">Read more »</a>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-44992242670308900742013-11-22T03:32:00.001-05:002013-11-22T03:32:39.272-05:00What is Natural Selection Really?<b>Natural selection</b> 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.<br />
<br />
Natural selection is seen as a cornerstone piece within the whole "modern synthesis" framework.<br />
<br />
Simply put, <b>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.</b> <br />
<br />
Evolutionist Ernst Mayr defined natural selection as "<b>the process by which in every generation individuals of lower fitness are removed from the population</b>."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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:<br />
<br />
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".<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />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.<br />
<br />
It is viewed, in Darwinism, that mutations, by creating genetic diversity, supply the raw material for natural selection to work on. <br />
<br />
Well, let's get to the reality of what Natural selection really is.<br />
<br />
<b>In one single word, natural selection is "<span style="color: #cc0000;">death</span>"!</b><br />
<br />
<br />
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 <i>filtered out of the environment by death</i> and that's all. Death rids the "unfit" species from the world.<br />
Selection is thus just a very banal involuntary <i>filter</i>.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />Again, this is not hard.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
By realizing the real nature of natural selection, its fairly straight forward to see why it isn't all its cracked up to be.<br />
<br />
Here's the ultimate question: How can mutations + death be the mechanism, that creates all life on earth? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-66050534538166317112013-11-21T23:28:00.001-05:002013-11-21T23:43:34.234-05:00David Hume and Intelligent Design<b>David Hume</b>, 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.<br />
<br />
Hume stated, <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><b>"Wherever I see Order, I infer from Experience that there,<u> there hath been Design and Contrivance</u>. 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 <u>obliges me to infer an infinitely perfect Architect</u>, 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).</b></span></blockquote>
In the Introduction to his book The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume stated:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #0b5394;">"The whole frame of nature bespeaks an <u>intelligent Author</u>; and <u>no <span style="color: #cc0000;">rational </span>enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief</u> a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion."(Hume1956, 21).</span></b></blockquote>
In The Natural History of Religion (1757), Hume wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #0b5394;">"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 <u>one single Being</u>, 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. <u>One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author</u>." (Hume 1956, 26).</span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b><span style="color: #0b5394;">"<u>The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind.</u>" (Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).</span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b><span style="color: #0b5394;">"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 <u>contrivance</u> which we observe at present."</span></b></blockquote>
Clearly Hume was a "designist".<br />
He was definitely not an atheist by any means.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
Once again, this reveals how incompetent and foolish the so-called "New Atheists" really are. <br />
__________________<br />
<br />
Hume, David. The Natural History of Religion. Ed. H. E. Root. London: A. & C. Black, 1956.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge; rev. edn. P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-11636502592181680732013-10-19T21:18:00.002-04:002013-10-19T21:41:25.502-04:00A Stable Universe - In Atheism or Theism?In my<a href="http://reasonstream.blogspot.ca/2013/10/god-of-posted-october-17-2013-in.html" target="_blank"> last article</a> I discussed the "God of the gaps" accusation levied against creationists and IDists. A "refutation" that is common all across the scope of Darwinian influenced minds.<br />
<br />
I showed that, in fact, it is the Darwinists that use "gap" arguments, or arguments from ignorance and not the designists at all.<br />
<br />
Now at the end of that article I quoted professor Richard Lewontin on his absolute adherence to materialism in all things "scientific".<br />
<br />
Here is the quote again, followed by my comments on the last sentence of it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<b><span style="color: #0b5394;">We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of
its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we
have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that
the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a
material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that
we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying
to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis
Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in
anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any
moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may
happen.”</span> <span style="color: #0b5394;">– </span></b><span style="color: #0b5394;">Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The
New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard
Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard University</span></blockquote>
Lewotin makes a perfectly foolish unthinking statement at the end when
he says that appealing to an omnipotent deity allows that at any moment
the regularities of nature may be ruptured. Really?<br />
<br />
Lewontin fails to see that this is perfectly true for atheism, not theism!<br />
<br />
Under
atheism there are no absolutes, there is no absolute truth, so no one
cannot even know anything for sure -including no scientists, such as
Lewontin. Now if there are no absolutes THEN it would be true that we
allow that the regularities of nature may change any & every moment.
The laws may dissolve, mathematics is no longer certain, nothing
remains! Nothing is certain under atheism's obligatory relativism.
Nothing can be known as objectively true in atheism, including atheism
itself! This is standard atheist dogma and if atheism were true, then
they would be right in claiming this.<br />
<br />
However, under
theism, what is the reason that the regularities may be ruptured? The
only possible reason would be the will of the deity. But then <b>why</b>
would an intelligent creator simply screw everything he made from one
day to the next? What reason would he have?<br />
<br />
Moreover, even if he did,
would mankind ever know it? Highly unlikely, well at least not for more than a few seconds. We would almost certainly disappear in some sort of total cosmic implosion if only 1 of the "fine tuning" constants were to be radically altered by the deity. And who would be left to give a damn for humanity?<br />
<br />
<br />
In
theism, we infer through multitudes of inferences and the very state of the cosmos, that the intelligence of the creator is infinite (just
look at what he made) and that his moral nature is the very foundation
of all morality.<br />
<br />
Worse, Lewontin's statement is in fact ludicrous, since we
already have ample testimony that in fact the laws of the nature are
universal, stable and constant since the beginning of all human history. Simply because we have something we call "science" and it works!<br />
<br />
Now
to prove how utterly asinine atheists can get on this specific point, lets read
the "expert" atheist version; one that, if true, literally turns Lewontin's inane statement upside down:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><b>"There
is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang
into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population
that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary
connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is
happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis
that the world began five minutes ago." </b>— Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind,1921, pp. 159- 60</span></blockquote>
Can
you see that the truly unstable, unreliable, utterly mutable universe
Lewontin imagines under a deity, is actually the highly probable state
of nature if atheism were true and not at all if theism is true!? <br />
Thank God it isn't!<br />
<br />
Why else would Einstein consider that one of the most surprising attributes of nature to be that it is understandable?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><b>"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility ... The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle"</b><br />-Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, p. 462</span></blockquote>
Einstein was not an atheist by any means.<br />
Thank God for that too.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIWgJ6msdj06Iy_0kfF87iKGAPoA7UoE2WAouWCDpZ5yR_AyYQDnKNxDZQm9zs0r7IzNVSiTKxS2QROXFj1_A2Eb76GR-0uYypXiVpYgRBMH48M1JkLuIBEr_6bMnnSo-fHdo0/s1600/99933-97370.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIWgJ6msdj06Iy_0kfF87iKGAPoA7UoE2WAouWCDpZ5yR_AyYQDnKNxDZQm9zs0r7IzNVSiTKxS2QROXFj1_A2Eb76GR-0uYypXiVpYgRBMH48M1JkLuIBEr_6bMnnSo-fHdo0/s1600/99933-97370.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-26014377728889500062013-10-19T20:02:00.001-04:002013-10-19T21:21:08.370-04:00God of the Gaps?<div class="posttitle">
<h2 class="pagetitle">
<a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/god-of-the-gaps/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to God of the Gaps?">God of the Gaps?</a></h2>
<small>
Posted: October 17, 2013 in <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/category/atheism-2/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Atheism">Atheism</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/category/darwinismintelligent-design/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Darwinism/Intelligent Design">Darwinism/Intelligent Design</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/category/evolution-2/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Evolution">Evolution</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/category/existence-of-god/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Existence of God">Existence of God</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/category/logic-2/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Logic">Logic</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/category/philosophy-2/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Philosophy">Philosophy</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/category/reason-2/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Reason">Reason</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/category/science/" rel="category tag" title="View all posts in Science">Science</a> <br />
Tags: <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/tag/argument-from-ignorance/" rel="tag">argument from ignorance</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/tag/darwinism/" rel="tag">darwinism</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/tag/evolution-of-the-gaps/" rel="tag">evolution of the gaps</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/tag/god-of-the-gaps/" rel="tag">god of the gaps</a> </small>
</div>
Well here we go ladies and gents. Yet another piece of Darwinian/atheist imbecility must be exposed for what it really is.<br />
<br />
Will this kind of thing ever end? Not until atheists finally admit
that their position -its not merely a “lack” as they foolishly pretend
to themselves- is void of intelligence and in fact annihilates
intelligence itself since atheism cannot have true rationality.<br />
<br />
In atheism all rationality is the end product of completely non
rational processes and of course is an “accident”. Under atheist
stupidity, rationality is just electrochemical movement in meat. As
Francis Crick himself said,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense
of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the
behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated
molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing
but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most
people today that it can truly be called astonishing.” -(p. 3)
-Francis Crick (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search
for the Soul. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons</b></blockquote>
Atheism says that your so-called rationality, your logic, your
reasoning faculties; all together is “nothing but a pack of neurons.
Well, Sir Crick has passed on to the other realm that is much more solid
than this one and has been obliged to answer for his crimes against the
Deity, so we can’t ask him the obvious question, “Why should we listen
to what a pack of neurons is saying?”, or “How can a pack of neurons be
true or false?”.<br />
Other interesting questions like this could and should be posed to
atheists as often as it takes to get the message, the logical
conclusions and implications of their inane position, into their
incredibly stubborn heads.<br />
In any case, we must take a quick and dirty look at one Darwinism’s
chief complaints against both creationism and Intelligent Design (these
are not the same).<br />
<br />
Often when theists or even deists point out to Darwinists that their
theory cannot account for the intricacies and functional complexities
found in every living thing, they will tell you that you’re committing a
logical fallacy. Specifically they claim this type of statement is a
“God of the gaps argument”. This simply means that, because you can’t
explain how something occurred, you simply invoke God as the answer.
God fills in the gap where knowledge of how is.<br />
<br />
God is used to explain what evolutionism can’t explain. This is of
course a form of “argument from ignorance”. And believe me, Darwinians
everywhere are quick to parrot their fave priests that have told them
this, over and over and over. Here I would love to start a nice
discussion of how virtually every amateur and professional Darwinist in
the world is little more than a parrot. They are always parroting what
they were told in school, in their temples (universities), on their fave
web sites, in books etc etc.<br />
<br />
They do not tend to think well at all for themselves, so, having been
forced into the standard Darwinian mantra, they simply parrot what they
were told by their priests and pastors. This is because they either
cannot or will not think such things through for themselves. So, they
need indoctrination and counselling from their priests to know what to
believe.<br />
<br />
Well, I would love to really get into that little delicacy, just for fun, but I don’t feel like it. <img alt=";-)" class="wp-smiley" src="http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif?m=1129645325g" /> <br />
So, on to the infamous parroted “God if the gaps” accusations.<br />
<br />
First of all, arguments of the pattern:<br />
“Evolution cannot explain this therefore God did it” arguments, are
almost never used by any informed theist and never by any of the major
Intelligent Design or creationist debaters, scientists etc on this.<br />
People like Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Marks, Jay
Richards etc, do not use “gap” arguments at all. What they really do is
argue from a simplified form of “statistical mechanics” (for lack of a
better term). This means that when an IDist says anything like, “no
evolutionary evidence exist for this, no known evolutionary pathway
exists to explain this, no known mechanism exists that can accomplish
this”, They are not saying “you can’t explain it, therefore God must
have done it”.<br />
<br />
That is simply and categorically false.<br />
<br />
They are saying that 1) there is no evidence at all that evolution
did this, but 2) there is enormous evidence that Darwinian evolution <i>cannot</i> do this, and there is enormous evidence that <i>only</i>
intelligent agents can produce algorithmic, prescriptive information
that is found everywhere in biological systems. Therefore, the best
explanation is not evoltuon but intelligent origin.<br />
<br />
Very, very few creationists or IDists will simply say, “God did it
and that’s it that’s all, no need for further research”. In recent
years, I’ve never heard any of them say anything even remotely like
that! So, when highly misinformed and disingenuous Darwinian fanatics
claim that this is what they’re saying, they are lying, incapable of
thinking straight, seriously not listening or all of the above.<br />
<br />
In my personal experience it is ALWAYS the last 2 options. and sometimes the first as well.<br />
Again, what are IDists saying? Based on the principles of statistical
mechanics, they’re saying that we already know that such mechanical
sophistication and algorithmic information <i>cannot</i> arise by
chance no matter how much time is allotted. The probability of such
machinery and circuitry being constructed, with the plans for making the
parts and the assembly instructions for putting them together with all
this being algorithmically encoded in DNA, is so astronomically small
that it may as well be considered impossible. It is in fact,
statistically impossible by ANY known random or stochastic process
including mutations plus selection.<br />
<br />
So, this has nothing at all to do with “gap” arguments but is merely
stating the obvious based on the laws of probability! Something
Darwinian biologists tend to be uniquely inapt at using or even
understanding.<br />
Designists are not saying, “we can’t see how this happened therefore
God id it” at all; on the contrary! They are saying, “the laws of
probability”, thermodynamics and physics do not allow any purposeless,
unguided process to create this kind of integrated functionality.<br />
<br />
That is a <i>very</i> different thing from a mere gap argument. So
in fact, they are not arguing from ignorance but from well documented
knowledge! Knowledge of proven mathematics applied to the mechanics of
biological machinery.<br />
<br />
See?<br />
<br />
That is NOT a gap or ignorance based argument at all. It is a solid
scientific empirical method being used to calculate whether nature can
even do such things. When facing the odds of events that have estimated
with between 1 in 10^20 to 1 in 10^130 to even worse odds, the obvious
answer is that blind evolution could not have done it, no matter how
much time you allot!<br />
Secondly, there is a humongous hypocrisy at work among the Darwinists when they foolishly choose to use this rebuttal.<br />
<br />
Notice that Darwinists have NEVER, not even once, provided a viable
mutation/selection pathway for the existence of even the smallest living
things. This means that the ONLY way they can claim that any living
thing evolved is through speculation and conjecture -most of the time
just wishful thinking and vivid imaginations are all they have.<br />
<br />
For example, how does Darwinism explain the incredible integrated circuitry of vision, the eye?<br />
They invent, yes invent, out of thin air, a story!<br />
<br />
If you’ve seen the perfectly naive, childishly simplistic
explanations given by Darwinists for the origins of sight and eyes you
know what I’m talking about it. Even the scenarios given by so-called
professional scientists. There simply are no viable, serious Darwinian
pathways for vision and eyes. None. Not even remotely close.<br />
<br />
Their explanation is always the same – an imaginary pathway -less
than 100 steps (rotflmao)- that they think may have, could have, must
have etc., been the real evolutionary one. So how about evidence for
such naive suppositions -they’re ALWAYS ridiculously naive- on how
something may have happened by evolution? Nope. Don’t need any real
empirical evidence.<br />
Really? Why not?<br />
<br />
Because <b>they simply invoke evolution of the gaps</b>!
They do this everywhere, “evolution did it”. Oh, sorry, they use
slightly different terms but the answer is always the same – evolution
did it!<br />
In other words, Darwinists are the WORST offenders of “gap”, ignorance-based arguments! They <i>never</i>
have any viable mutational-selection pathways to explain anything but
the very very trivial! So, without a grain of empirical evidence that
really does explain how vision systems developed without a “seeing”
intelligence, they simply claim -loudly and with much bombast and
pompous fury against any other theory, “evolution did it!”<br />
“Proof?”<br />
“We don’t need proof!! We KNOW evolution did it!”<br />
“How do you know this, without proof?”<br />
“Because no God exists! “<br />
<br />
Oops. There you have it. The cat is out of the bag. The whole
system is 99% religion based. Metaphysical Naturalism. In other words.
The religion of atheism.<br />
Don’t believe this? Well then you’re being incredibly naive and demonstrating a very profound ignorance.<br />
Just to help you out:<br />
<blockquote>
<b><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;">We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of
its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its
extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of
the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we
have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that
the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a
material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that
we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying
to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis
Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in
anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any
moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may
happen.”</span> – </b>Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The
New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan’s The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).- Dr. Richard
Lewontin, Geneticist, Harvard U.</blockquote>
Wow, if that isn’t clear enough, nothing is. So, Darwinists are in
fact religious adepts of Naturalism (materialism), a very very old
heathen religion.<br />
Therefore it must be illegal, in the USA, to teach Darwinism is public schools. So why isn’t it?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-74948102692712724832013-04-29T00:56:00.002-04:002013-10-19T21:22:48.380-04:00Another Headache for DarwinIn 2008 scientist Vladimir ShCherbak published information his book “The
Codes of Life” with a chapter entitled “The Arithmetical Origin of the
Genetic Code”. <i>(Biosemiotics Volume 1, 2008, pp 153-185 – <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/t85w0h771510j187">http://www.springerlink.com/content/t85w0h771510j187</a>)</i><br />
<br />
The discoveries covered in this are yet another wonderful refutation of Darwinism.<br />
Of course, we know beforehand that the Darwinians will deny these
clear implications, as they always do when any discovery challenges
their secular humanism (a religion) based theory. That’s because
Darwinism is materialism’s origins myth.<br />
For example shCherbak writes,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #146198;">“There seems to be but one
conclusion: the genetic code is itself a unique structure of
arithmetical syntax. The arithmetical syntax is separated from natural
events by the unbridgeable gap between the fundamental laws of nature
and the abstract codes of the human mind (Barbieri, 2005). Chemical
evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled
on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the
genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions
nor fit the genetic code out with them.”</span><br />
<span style="color: #146198;">“The zero is the supreme abstraction of
arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be
an indicator of artificiality.”</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #146198;">“First, a general and the
most forcible argument: it has been found that the genetic code is
governed directly by the arithmetical symbol of zero. This striking fact
is verified simultaneously by several independent orderlinesses –
logical, arithmetical, and semantical… Incidentally, such an acting zero
alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic
code.”</span></blockquote>
Zero is indeed and abstraction, as is the decimal point. Only minds
can entertain abstractions. Nature, being mindless, cannot therefore
create or use abstract data like this. Abstractions don’t exist in
nature’s matter and energy.<br />
Indeed, the very definition of the word abstract is as follows:<br />
<blockquote>
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.<br />
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.<br />
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.<br />
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.<br />
…<br />
8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.<br />
9. an abstract work of art.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Note: removed unrelated definitions (related to arts)</i></div>
<b>Abstractions are only and always conceptual, requiring a mind</b>. Thus Nature, DNA and life as a whole, cannot know or understand abstract concepts like <b>zero</b> and the <b>decimal point</b>. Matter and energy alone cannot abstract.<br />
<br />
The very obvious conclusion of the existence of abstraction being
used in the genetic code is a proof – not a mere evidence – that the
genetic code was created by a mind, and intelligence.<br />
ShCherbak states this very clearly in his statement- that I repeat for emphasis, “<i>Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.</i>“<br />
An “artificial origin” is the same as “intelligently designed”.<br />
There is no other source for abstraction but mind and only mind can understand it.<br />
<br />
<b>Is this thus the end of Darwinism?</b><br />
<br />
Well the truth is that Darwinism died many years ago with the
discovery of the genetic code itself. How so? Code is a symbol system.
Codes do not write themselves. Codes are conventions of symbols
contrived to represent something other than themselves. Algorithms
cannot create themselves. No random process can create algorithmic
symbol systems. Algorithms, being instructions and how to do something –
like make a blueberry pie or build car - require a mind.<br />
As Dr. David Abel explains,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #116f9b;">“Not even Descriptive
semantic information is achievable by inanimate physicodynamics (Pattee,
1972, 1995, 2001). Measuring initial conditions in any experiment and
plugging those measurements appropriately into equations (e.g., physical
“laws”) is formal, not physical. Cybernetic programming choices and
mathematical manipulations are also formal.</span><br />
<span style="color: #116f9b;">The specific term PI originated out of a
need to qualify the kind of information being addressed in
peer-reviewed scientific literature. Shannon measured only probabilistic
combinatorial uncertainty. Uncertainty is not information. It is widely
recognized that even reduced uncertainty (“R,” poorly termed “mutual
entropy”) fails to adequately describe and measure intuitive
information. Intuitive information entails syntax, semantics and
pragmatics. Syntax deals with symbol sequence, various symbol
associations, and related arbitrary rules of grouping. Semantics deals
with the meanings represented within any symbol system. Pragmatics
addresses the formal function of messages conveyed using that symbol
system.” – <a href="http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html</a></span></blockquote>
More information and several articles one should read to grasp the concepts discussed can be found <a href="http://lifeorigin.org/" target="_blank">here.</a><br />
Again Abel notes,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #116f9b;">“No one has ever observed PI
flow in reverse direction from inanimate physicodynamics to the formal
side of the ravine—the land of bona fide formal pragmatic “control.” The
GS Principle states that selection for potential function must occur at
the molecular-genetic level of nucleotide selection and sequencing,
prior to organismic existence (Abel, 2009b, d).</span><br />
<span style="color: #116f9b;">Differential survival/reproduction of
already-programmed living organisms (natural selection) is not
sufficient to explain molecular evolution or life-origin (Abel, 2009b).
Life must be organized into existence and managed by prescriptive
information found in both genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms.
The environment possesses no ability to program linear, digital folding
instructions into the primary structure of biosequences and biomessages.</span><br />
<span style="color: #116f9b;">The environment also provides no ability
to generate Hamming block codes (e.g. triplet codons that preclude
noise pollution through a 3-to-1 symbol representation of each amino
acid) (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007). The environment cannot decode or
translate from one arbitrary language into another. The codon table is
arbitrary and physicodynamically indeterminate. No physicochemical
connection exists between resortable nucleotides, groups of nucleotides,
and the amino acid that each triplet codon represents. Although
instantiated into a material symbol system, the prescriptive information
of genetic and epigenetic control is fundamentally formal, not
physical.”</span></blockquote>
What he is saying, for those not used to the terms of reference and
concepts of the laws and nature of information, is that Darwinism cannot
be true because matter + energy, random mutations + “selection” (a mere
filter) cannot create abstractions like codes and symbol systems. It
just doesn’t happen. No more than your rose bush can do arithmetic.
Math is abstract in itself, nature knows nothing out it.<br />
<br />
Therefore this arithmetical nature of the genetic code, with its zero
and decimal, its algorithmic information, cannot be natural. This is a
defeater for Darwinian evolution – period.<br />
<br />
The current generation of elder Darwinian fanatics will never accept
these obvious facts, it counters their whole world view and makes them
nervous and insecure. That’s why the Darwinistas are so enraged,
utterly out to lunch, LOUD and adamantly resistant. They are the new
inquisition. It’s about religion for them, not science, whether they
confess this “sin” or not.<br />
<br />
This was revealed by one of their own, who at least was honest enough to admit it. Richard Lewontin,<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #116f9b;">“We take the side of science
in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of
its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a
commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door.”</span><br />
<span style="color: #116f9b;">‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell
deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big
truths.’ – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of
Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.</span></blockquote>
Well we can take his word for it, right? Well um … if you can trust a
scientist that tells you that he lies! This is nevertheless a very
strange statement. He says the materialism is absolute, and we cannot
allow a Divine Foot in the door. But atheism has no absolutes!<br />
<br />
The Darwinists only logical response to this is to claim panspermia,
an extra-terrestrial origin for DNA. But that only pushes the problem
back one step, for then we need to ask, “How did they get here?” Now,
supposing that the ETs themselves are DNA based will only leave us with
the same question of the origin of life.<br />
<br />
It will of course take a long time before these perfectly logical
conclusions are accepted – perhaps the next generation of students of
biology and other related domains will accept the truth. We’ll have to
wait till this generation dies off.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQDMvxzrXSa-fyHFDPtdxQNDQmJaoXEB6Ejheb9VUnrjzrLJ7j_z1OUcmmp3QRNHn2A4zqCnc6whJ9NPvK8p1G63Ya2wKm9hfE54wrfqi2BwJI2x9MSeqUQSfzV3nZj4Zou0GX/s1600/charles-darwin-headache.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQDMvxzrXSa-fyHFDPtdxQNDQmJaoXEB6Ejheb9VUnrjzrLJ7j_z1OUcmmp3QRNHn2A4zqCnc6whJ9NPvK8p1G63Ya2wKm9hfE54wrfqi2BwJI2x9MSeqUQSfzV3nZj4Zou0GX/s320/charles-darwin-headache.jpg" width="262" /></a></div>
Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-12432093739626498972013-04-25T01:46:00.002-04:002013-10-19T21:24:33.613-04:00A Theory In RuinsThe Darwinian propaganda juggernaut is a lot like a T-Rex: huge,
stupid, vicious and utterly intolerant of dissension. But it's slowing
down.<br>
<br>
Its engine is broken down to the point that it can no longer
provide the force necessary to keep its velocity. The engine runs on
gas (hot air) and the hot air is the only thing keeping the machine from
completely falling apart.<br>
<img alt="" class="mceWPmore mceItemNoResize" data-mce-src="https://borne.wordpress.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" src="https://borne.wordpress.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" title="More..."><br>
<a href="http://reasonstream.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-darwinian-propaganda-juggernaut-is.html#more">Read more »</a>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-54983798390002089952012-07-04T01:50:00.002-04:002013-10-19T21:26:31.225-04:00On the Problem of Evil & SufferingAtheists often argue against the existence of God, and specifically
an almighty and good God on the basis of the existence of evil and
suffering in the universe. The argument goes something like this:<br />
God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.<br />
<br />
A perfect, good God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).<br />
The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.<br />
Therefore, God does not exist.<br />
<br />
So
in short, either God is not good, or not all-powerful or he does not
exist, because if he did exist then surely he could stop all the
suffering. The atheist then concludes that both the idea of a bad God
and idea of a limited God makes no sense, therefore God must not exist.
Variations on this ages old theme exist but that is the gist of it.<br />
<br />
So how does one answer this type of objection?<br />
<br />
Most
apologists go into lengthy arguments concerning why a good and almighty
God could and does allow evil & suffering in the world. They will
usually get into the biblical fall of Lucifer and of man to explain how
such evils and sufferings came to be.<br />
<br />
Forget all that for now. There is a much simpler way to demonstrate why this argument is utterly flawed.<br />
First
you must see that in a universe with no God, there cannot be any
absolute moral values. Most atheists admit this. For example:<br />
<blockquote>
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>"Naturalistic
evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood
perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists;
3)no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in
life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." -William B.
Provine, atheist professor of biology at Cornell University</b></span><br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b></b></span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>"In
a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some
people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky;
and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The
universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if
there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good.
Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music."Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden,
page 133</b></span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>"If there is no God, everything is permitted." - Jean Paul Sartre on Ivan Karamazov - Fyodor Dostoevski's character</b></span><br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b></b></span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>"Morality
is no more … than an adaptation, and as such has the same status as
such things as teeth and eyes and noses. . . . [M]orality is a creation
of the genes". - Michael Ruse</b></span><br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b></b></span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote>
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>"Nature has no concern for good or bad, right or wrong. . . . We cannot get behind ethics." - Naturalist Simon Blackburn </b></span></blockquote>
Evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson said that morality is just a survival mechanism. Ethics, he claims,<br />
<blockquote>
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>"is
an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate," and
"the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there
is an objective higher code to which we are all subject."</b></span></blockquote>
Now how does one refute the atheist argument against God based on evil & suffering?<br />
<br />
<b>Easy, since without God, there is no good or evil. </b>The atheist high priests, quoted above say so.<br />
<br />
The
atheist thus shoots himself in the head again with such arguing against
God based on "there is so much evil". For such an argument becomes too
obviously wrong given that "no God = no evil", (as most atheist
philosophers themselves state).<br />
<br />
Suffering becomes a mere amoral,
purposeless event in a cold uncaring cosmos. Or as Dawkins put it, a
blind, pitiless, indifferent universe. Suffering but without God
suffering is neither evil nor good nor "bad". Thus we see how the
atheist in using the existence of evil and suffering to refute the
existence of God is unwittingly assuming the existence of God in the
very argument itself!<br />
<br />
Therefore, how can one claim God doesn't exist while admitting the existence of evil? <b>If there is no God how does one define evil?</b> Indeed, how does one claim that suffering is "wrong" in a universe without God?<br />
One might even state,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"Evil exists. Therefore God exists."</b></blockquote>
The
fact that all men everywhere and at all times have recognized the
existence of evil, demonstrates the existence of a transcendent moral
law, else, evil does not exist. Things simply are what they are -
neither right nor wrong; neither evil or good.<br />
<br />
Without an absolute
law giver, there can be no such thing as evil or good and since
atheists, as shown above, really do admit that without God there is no
real good or evil, how can they then contradict themselves by claiming
God doesn't exist based on it?!<br />
<br />
Thus the atheists show a rather
amazing lack of perception, as always. But in this case it is a lack of
perception of their own arguments logical implications and flaws! To
argue against God based on the existence of evil is to argue for God
based on the existence of moral right and wrong! So when atheists use
the old "problem of pain and evil" argument they are unwittingly
admitting of a transcendent Law that defines evil by the existence of
absolute good - which is the ONLY way evil can be defined!<br />
C.S. Lewis wrote,<br />
<blockquote>
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>"Truth and falsehood are opposed; but truth is the norm not of truth only but of falsehood also."</b></span><br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #3366ff;" style="color: #3366ff;"><b>–The Allegory of Love</b></span></blockquote>
Indeed, without God (ultimate truth) there is no reason to call anything at all "evil".<br />
<br />
Thus
the whole "evil and suffering" based argument falls apart under its own
underlying assumptions! Thus, this argument actually does more to
uphold the existence of God than it can ever do to refute it!<br />
Sadly, atheists do not and will not see this, such is the hardness of their hearts (and heads).Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-1615280653574132382012-05-12T18:12:00.000-04:002012-05-12T18:12:27.289-04:00No Evidence for God?I often encounter atheists who claim that there is no evidence for God.<br />
<br />
Question: Is this true?<br />
<br />
A: The most obvious answer is a quite resounding <strong>no</strong>.<br />
<br />
No
one can claim there is no evidence in the universe for the existence of
a supreme being. Yet, arm chair atheist pseudo-experts and wannabe
philosophers say dumb things like that all the time because they never
think anything through deeply enough to see how foolish such statement
is.<br />
<br />
Proof? Ask them to prove there is no evidence for God. Gee -
End of discussion right there - if they were honest, but they are not.<br />
<br />
What has been said of lawyers easily applies to atheists - its only 99% of atheists that give a bad reputation to the rest.<br />
<br />
It
is simply not - by any means - a logical or justifiable claim. Why?
Well obviously no atheist can possibly offer any evidence for his own
claim! He can't offer any justification for such a stupendous claim,
therefore he must bare alone the burden of proof that there is no
evidence for God. Can he? No, of course not.<br />
<br />
The atheist positing
such thus puts himself in the exact same position that he claims
theists are in! Claiming that which cannot be proved. This is hardly
surprising since atheists also vehemently and religiously claim there is
no God all while admitting they can't prove a negative!<br />
<br />
His
position implies that he has indeed searched out and deeply examined all
proposed evidences of God and found them all lacking. Of course there
are no atheists who can even be aware of all the evidences that may
exist for God, nor even of all proposed evidences since this would
require a knowledge of every argument for God that has ever existed as
well as all possible other evidences. Yet another knowledge claim that
atheists cannot uphold.<br />
<br />
To truly <strong>know</strong> there is
zero evidence for God's existence implies that the atheist claiming this
knows all possible evidences for God's existence. No single human
being ever has, nor ever will, be able to do this, thus all such
flippant dismissals of all evidence for God are mere arrogant
pretensions to unavailable knowledge.<br />
<br />
That in itself destroys all
claims by any atheists that there is no evidence for God. It also
demonstrates what every theist knows - that atheists are almost
invariably arrogant blowhards making foolish claims they cannot back up.<br />
<br />
<strong>Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against God</strong>. It is mere <span data-mce-style="text-decoration: underline;" style="text-decoration: underline;">denial of reality</span>
that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first
cause. Claiming there's no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming
to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever, are wrong. This has
never been done by anyone, ever.<br />
<br />
Moreover, claiming that any
proposed evidence is wrong or insufficient does not prove that it is in
fact wrong or insufficient. Worse, even if one were able to truly
refute all proposed evidence, that still does not imply that there is no
God. There may be other evidences that one is unaware of, the wrong
analysis tools and methods may have been used for devising evidence,
etc.<br />
<br />
Atheist Kai Nielsen stated,<br />
<blockquote>
<strong>“To
show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the
conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence
may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.” - <em>Reason and Practice</em> (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.</strong></blockquote>
The
atheist, though he will always deny it, because of personal wishes that
there be no God, is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs
on. What do we see instead? Nothing but denial and lame attempts at
shirking his share of the burden of proof. Atheists always shirk this
by mere caviling and, as always, denial that they even have any such
burden. But they do have such a burden anyway - shirked or not, admitted
or not.<br />
<br />
Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for
God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist.
False. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a
knowledge claim "There is no God" as theism's "There is a God". Thus,
as Ravi Zacharias states,<br />
<blockquote>
<strong>"the atheist’s
denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the
theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting
God’s existence".</strong></blockquote>
The atheist cannot say,
"Well I don't claim there is no God, only that I don't believe there
is". But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism. If one does
not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no
God, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof! Is there
evidence that no God exists? No. None whatsoever.<br />
<br />
Is there
evidence of a first ultimate cause? Yes, everything that exists is
evidence of a first and ultimate cause, by implication of the laws of
cause and effect! (Quantum theories notwithstanding). To say a
singularity started it all, or a quantum fluctuation started it all is
to say "we have no idea what started it all"! Fluctuation of what? etc.<br />
<br />
<strong><em>Consider the following evidence, for example</em></strong>:<br />
<br />
Information
is evidence of God. Information itself is metaphysical. Logic is
metaphysical. Now, if metaphysical things exist then that itself is yet
another evidence for the possibility and probability of the existence
of God, who, by very definition, is metaphysical! But atheists claim
there is no such thing as a "metaphysical" something. All is matter and
energy.<br />
<br />
Thus atheism is little different than insanity, for
claiming that nothing metaphysical exists is as bad as claiming that
information doesn't exist! So where does the atheist get this tasty bit
of information?!<br />
<br />
We know information is metaphysical because it is
always other or different from the medium in which it is stored. The
ink on the paper in a book, by itself is not information. It's just a
dye. Ink on paper, by the way it's used and structured to form symbols
that, in turn, represent specific concepts and meanings, is merely the
container, the medium through which information is conveyed. All symbol
systems imply metaphysics and intelligence. The collective symbols, by
the way they are organized on the paper can contain meaningful
information, to a mind that knows the symbolic convention, or code,
used.<br />
<br />
Again, the pixels on your screen are not the information they contain. They are mere colored light spots. However, the pixels <strong>encode</strong>
information that requires a mind - a mind that has been taught the
symbol convention used (say the alphabet or icons) - to interpret it.
That information is not random - it isn't a meaningless blotch - but is
structured and semantic. It has syntax, semantics (meaning) and
purpose. No symbolic convention (code) is without purpose. But the very
concept of purpose implies intention which implies mind and volition.<br />
<br />
Encoded
algorithmic information is a symbol system, whether that symbol system
be such as the English or Hebrew alphabets or the ATCG chemicals of
DNA. Such symbol systems <strong>cannot</strong> exist without
intelligence (they intrinsically imply intelligent origin) thereby
demonstrating that metaphysical intelligence must exist in order to
explain the humongous levels of algorithmic information contained in the
DNA molecule.<br />
<br />
That intelligence - given its complexity, depth and
intricacy - is best and most simply (Occam's Razor) explained by what
men have always called "God". The Intelligent originator.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQWVnpsLmaLbmo_FmDJw5kgE-JLgtoINs74jfjUdcHrjQwDKXm_q8YnKVU7kyvgJs-DZv1W_uY8jNwL9Vf-ueAQTNsBnIok11OyO_yOJuCYzhub9Z4LW9ObX7tZxLjUSiLLSdS/s1600/binary-god.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQWVnpsLmaLbmo_FmDJw5kgE-JLgtoINs74jfjUdcHrjQwDKXm_q8YnKVU7kyvgJs-DZv1W_uY8jNwL9Vf-ueAQTNsBnIok11OyO_yOJuCYzhub9Z4LW9ObX7tZxLjUSiLLSdS/s320/binary-god.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Encoded information</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAwGMAFyUocMIKJRWf8YwtH7HHwxlDNsB90DtivepDAI-LEW8ZHF1CXrNoYAFemMrsFm95drJJNPz-6z6owj9goXQYTtFoERMV969kK__uCB_zzexw1smkZmzq82DQi0k2ZLnv/s1600/DNA_orbit_animated_small.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAwGMAFyUocMIKJRWf8YwtH7HHwxlDNsB90DtivepDAI-LEW8ZHF1CXrNoYAFemMrsFm95drJJNPz-6z6owj9goXQYTtFoERMV969kK__uCB_zzexw1smkZmzq82DQi0k2ZLnv/s1600/DNA_orbit_animated_small.gif" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Encoded information</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"> </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-76216969982145544422012-05-11T17:59:00.000-04:002012-05-12T18:14:12.173-04:00An Atheist That Doesn't Get ItHere I
will attempt to show how atheists don't understand their own position by
using the complaining claims of an atheist that wrote me. I will try to dismantle their obvious errors.<br />
<br />
<br />
So here, I'll post some of his misguided comments and respond. I don't allow comments here because I've
learned over the years that arguing with adamantly religious atheist
fundamentalists is a waste of time. They cannot see because they don't
want to see and thus live in perpetual denial of reality and darkness.<br />
<br />
So let's deal with his first, unsurprising because almost universal with <i>watheists</i> (a typical web forum atheist), but utterly wrong claim,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"Evidence for atheism? No, atheism is the default position."</b></blockquote>
This is a ubiquitous claim amongst atheists but still very wrong and that for several reasons:<br />
<br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #e01e22;" style="color: #e01e22;"><b>1. Who says atheism is the default position?</b></span><br />
<br />
Can
anyone seriously make this claim and back it up? No. It is a positive
claim to knowledge that no atheist possesses. Worse - Can atheists
prove this? Have they proved this? No they have not and no they cannot.<br />
<br />
The claim assumes, or rather presumes, that metaphysical beliefs, religion
and faith if you please, are taught and learned from early childhood.
It assumes that no metaphysical concepts exist in initially in very
young children. It also assumes, (once again revealing that the
atheist here doesn't understand that he has a positively chosen
position, a religious belief), that atheism is a non position - no
position at all! This is rather amazing persistence in the foolishness
of denial of reality that is atheism. Yet, this same atheist implores
me to open up comments so he (in his own mind) can refute what I'm
saying here! He has not understood the real nature of atheism yet, but
still wants to refute it!<br />
<br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #da2428;" style="color: #da2428;"><b>2. If atheism is the default position, where is the proof of this?</b></span><br />
<br />
The
atheist wrongly assumes that a default position doesn't require proof.
If this were the default position it still requires proof that it ought
truly be the default position. Back to square one! More atheist
circular reasoning that they their default cognitive dissonance creating
position hinders them from detecting.<br />
<br />
<span data-mce-style="color: #e01e22;" style="color: #e01e22;"><b>3. There is ever mounting evidence that atheism is not the default position.</b></span><br />
<br />
Dr.
Justin L. Barrett is senior researcher at University of Oxford’s Centre
for Anthropology and Mind and the Institute for Cognitive and
Evolutionary Anthropology. Barrett has published studies demonstrating
that metaphysical beliefs or innate or born in humans. His research,
which is also based on or associated with the research of many others
who have come to the same conclusions, is that humans are born with a
natural propensity to believe in God, purpose in life, and they
demonstrate a clear recognition of designed artifacts versus natural
ones right from the earliest stages of cognition. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief" target="_blank">Here is a link to a short article</a>. Dr. Barrett has even written a book on the subject called <a href="http://books.simonandschuster.com/Born-Believers/Justin-L-Barrett/9781439196540" target="_blank">Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief</a>.<br />
<br />
As one commenter of the book put it,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"A
fascinating and readable account of why religious beliefs are perfectly
normal and virtually universal. In an age of atheism, this book will
challenge widespread assumptions that nonbelief is the default and that
children must be indoctrinated to believe. Jam-packed with insight and
wit, Born Believers should be required reading for all parents and for
anyone else interested in the spiritual lives of children." -- Robert
A. Emmons, Professor of Psychology, University of California</b></blockquote>
Barrett stated,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"The
preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has
shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of
children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see
the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of
intelligent being is behind that purpose," - on BBC Radio "4 Today".</b><br />
<b>"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."</b></blockquote>
I
may also point to the work of Paul Bloom of the Department of
Psychology, Yale University, USA. His essay called, "Religion is
natural", Bloom says,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"The proposal here is
that there are certain early-emerging cognitive biases that give rise to
religious belief. These include body–soul dualism and a
hyper-sensitivity to signs of agency and design. These biases make it
natural to believe in Gods and spirits, in an afterlife, and in the
divine creation of the universe. These are the seeds from which religion
grows."</b></blockquote>
Many other recent research articles could be noted.<br />
<br />
Atheists
are shown to be off in their logic and metaphysics. I provide solid and simple reasoning and evidence whereas the
atheist provides bare assertions. Assertions that, no matter how
universal, inevitably turn out to be false.<br />
<br />
Thus you can see why the atheists next statement is also wrong,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"The claims that need evidence are the positive claims "there is a God" or "there is no God". </b></blockquote>
Worse, or perhaps better, I'm not sure, the atheist says,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"Atheism
is simply the position of not accepting the positive claims. Without
evidence either way I am agnostic. But I am also an atheist. Your
writing undoubtedly betrays your lack of awareness of this position."</b></blockquote>
Here
is the atheist has modified his definition of himself in contradictory
ways. First he states that atheism, previously a mere absence of
belief, is now a refusal to accept evidence - which is exactly what I've
been saying all along! So has he accepted this at last? Apparently
no, as he is very confused as well. How so? He now claims to be an
atheist agnostic. But the two are mutually exclusive! One cannot be an
agnostic and an atheist at the same time. Agnostics are not atheists,
they simply claim they don't know whether their is a God or not, and
many also claim that such knowledge is unattainable. Atheists, on the
other hand do not believe in God at all, and many, such as this atheist
friend of ours here, adamantly refuse all evidence pointing to a supreme
being. "Curiouser and curiouser"!<br />
<br />
Then he added,<br />
<blockquote>
"<b>Not only that, but even if you do attack atheism it doesn't prove theism true."</b></blockquote>
This
is rather surprising since I stated clearly in the previous article
that proving any specific evidence for God wrong does not prove there is
no God. Obviously the reverse is true. Proving atheist counter
propositions to God to be false doesn't prove there is a God. And?<br />
<br />
Then
he insults my academic and experiential credentials - a bachelors
degree in informatics plus many years of experience in information
technologies - by stating,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"As for your not
understanding information, you don't. The idea that you think
information necessitates a mind is just a nonsense."</b></blockquote>
Obviously our friend is very uniformed on information himself. As he follows with this,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"Are
the ice core records not information? Are tree-rings not information?
Are soil layers not information? If they are then information obviously
doesn't need a mind, and if not explain why DNA is information and these
things are not."</b></blockquote>
Here we see a very common
and glaring error committed by atheists attempting to refute the laws of
information and the nature of specified information. Once again the
atheist fails to discern between information and the medium in which it
is stored, even though <a data-mce-href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/no-evidence-for-god/" href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/no-evidence-for-god/" target="_blank">I clearly explained this here</a>. <a data-mce-href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/biological-meta-information/" href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/biological-meta-information/" target="_blank">Also here</a> and <a data-mce-href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/darwinism-vs-facts/" href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/darwinism-vs-facts/" target="_blank" title="Darwinism vs Facts">here as well</a>. (Mirror blog) Not clearly enough apparently, or he didn't read it.<br />
<br />
Our atheist antagonist commits intellectual suicide here, not realizing that this very statement proves him wrong.<br />
<br />
Ice cores, tree rings, soil layers etc. are information? No they are not.<br />
<br />
However, a <b>mind</b> can <b>derive</b>
information from them by obtaining previous knowledge on interpretation
of ice layering properties etc.. The information on conditions of the
various eras when the ice was formed exists only in a mind that can
reason upon its natural properties. It is not structured information
contained in the ice itself. This is not specified information. It
isn't algorithmic at all. Not is it encodedm, the code exist in the
mind of the interpreter alone.<br />
<br />
The same thing applies to tree
rings, soil layers, and the color of stars, a benzene molecule etc.
These things merely are what they are. Information <b>derived</b> by <b>understanding</b> their nature and condition is completely other and can <b>only</b>
be derived by a mind using logic. Logic is a property only of minds.
Rocks have no logic. Rocks carry only derivable information.<br />
<br />
The
information contained in DNA is however another matter altogether -
again as I previously explained in the original article. It is
algorithmic, prescriptive and descriptive information such as one finds
in a recipe or a set of plans for building a car. It's information doesn
not point only to itself but describes whole information systems
constructed with proteins by long sequential algorithmically ordered
molecules of amino acids.<br />
<br />
I suggest those interested in a real understanding of information read the published <a data-mce-href="http://lifeorigin.info/" href="http://lifeorigin.info/" target="_blank">papers of Dr David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors here</a>. Their work and lucent reasoning is devastating to both atheism and it's origins myth Darwinism.<br />
<br />
Here's a short excerpt on their work from Biosemiotic Research Trends,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>Genomic
instructions are a form of what Abel (Abel, 2002, Abel and Trevors,
2005) calls prescriptive information. Such a clarifying descriptor of
information is necessary to distinguish mere Shannon combinatorial
uncertainty and Kolmogorov complexity from functional algorithmic
strings. Algorithms steer events and behaviors towards predictable
usefulness. Prescriptive information utilizes a sign system to either
instruct or direct compute utility. </b><br />
<b>…</b><br />
<b>Artificial
life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality
early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any
kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to
“live in denial” of this fact.</b></blockquote>
The atheist/agnostic (don't think he knows what he is) then states,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"Now, your last post contradicts your About section"</b></blockquote>
Right. Nuff' said.<br />
Then he adds, with equally unimpressive lucidity,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"See,
to think about it you really need to be open to contrary views and to
debate the evidence, you're not willing to do that. What you are doing
is closing the comments section and spreading dishonesty."</b></blockquote>
Sadly,
his own mind is shut like a trap and has probably been on hold for many
years. The fact is that I've debated thousands of times with atheists,
on and off line. So this poor dupe again insults me by claiming that
I, like himself, have a closed mind and am not willing to debate!
Laughable and truly pathetic. Oh and once again, there is no evidence
for atheism.<br />
<br />
The only dishonesty witnessed around wen forums where
fanatical atheists attempt to debate their "default" non-position is
amongst atheist themselves, the most dishonest pseudo thinkers on earth.<br />
<br />
He invites me to debate on his blog.<br />
<br />
Sorry
dear boy but no. That's my only sane response, given he has understood
virtually nothing I've said thus far and I have no hopes he ever
will. I've seen overwhelming evidence of the following statements too
many times for one person in one life and as I stated before, no longer
interested in wasting time arguing endlessly with willful fools,<br />
<blockquote>
<b>"The
atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who
reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin
of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the
eternity of things and of inevitability....." - Voltaire: Philosophical
Dictionary<br /> </b><br />
<b>"You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can't make him think." - Ray Comfort</b></blockquote>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-34399809686019109832012-03-29T01:27:00.000-04:002012-03-29T01:27:20.692-04:00Of Invisible Pink UnicornsHow many times have I encountered the atheist standard argument
about not believing in invisible pink unicorns and thus not believing in
God either? Variations on the theme are leprechauns, ice cream
factories on some other planet and the truly inane flying spaghetti
monster (FSM) and such. Have you met up with one of these arguments
against theism or deism? I see it all the time.
<br />
These are nothing more than popular variations of B. Russell’s famous
“Tea Pot” argument. This argument is only famous because Russell was
famous. For, it has no real validity. Russell argued that he could
assert that there was a tea pot floating in space somewhere, so small
that no telescope could detect it. And given this assertion, no one
would be required to believe in the tea pot, because there is no real
evidence, just assertion. The tea pot cannot be proved <em>not</em> to exist.<br />
<br />
Typical of the logical positivists. Logical positivism – a misnomer
because there was anything either logical or positive about it – a
philosophical system now bankrupt, now defunct and lying in ruins
because it was void of reason but full of bare assertions and hot air.<br />
<br />
The argument is devised to show that if a thing can’t be proved or
disproved to exist, then the burden of proof belongs to asserting its
existence. Therefore since – according to atheists – God can neither be
proved nor disproved to exist, the theists, who assert his existence,
must prove it. Since the atheist assumes the existence of God cannot be
proved he believes himself to be thinking logically and the theist to
be unreasonable or even irrational. We see this type of position
posited everywhere across cyberspace as though it were some fatal blow
to theism. It isn’t. Not even close.<br />
<br />
The tea pot in space argument is flawed. Curiously, atheists never figure this out and still flaunt it over and over again, <em>ad nauseum</em>.
I’ve was once challenged to produce a refutation, and the challenge was
stated in terms indicating that the challenger believed the argument
irrefutable – even though its been refuted many times.<br />
<br />
What they’re really doing is trying – as always – to squirm their way
out of having any burden of proof of their own in asserting the non
existence of God. Whenever atheists do this, it’s mere escapism and
denial. For, to pretend they have no burden of proof is tantamount to
saying <strong>they have no position</strong>, that – once again – atheism were a mere involuntary state of “lack of belief”. This has been refuted <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/is-atheism-mere-lack-of-belief-2/" target="_parent" title="Is Atheism Mere Lack of Belief?">here</a>, <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/atheism-is-lack-of-belief-sequel/" target="_parent" title="Atheism is ‘lack of belief’? Sequel">here</a> and <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/more-atheist-folly/" target="_parent" title="More Atheist Folly">here</a> as well as many other places across the web.<br />
<br />
Now for the IPU argument itself.<br />
As Dinesh D’Souza has aptly pointed out, there are no books called
“Unicorns Are Not Great”, or “The Unicorn Delusion”. Nor are there any
books around called “The Flying Spaghetti Monster Delusion”, the FSM
being yet another example of just how dumb atheists have become in their
never ceasing efforts to show themselves inapt in reason and logic.
They never see it though.<br />
So how does one dismiss the invisible pink unicorn argument, specifically? I respond with Rich Deem’s simple refutation:<br />
<blockquote>
Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink
electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be
invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation.
Therefore, the term “invisible pink unicorn” is self contradictory.
Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don’t know
who invented the term “invisible pink unicorns,” but they were obviously
deficient in their physics education.</blockquote>
You can read the whole argument <a href="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html" target="_parent">here</a>.<br />
So as you see, the IPU “argument” is so deeply stupid it doesn’t even
qualify as an real argument. Now, given just how easily the IPU
argument is shown to be just plain dumb, unscientific and unthinking,
you would think atheists would get smart and try to find something that
could at least qualify as reasonable. Do they? Well no, not really.<br />
<br />
Russell’s tea pot argument is just as easily refuted. Several refutations can be proposed and William L. Craig has given a few.<br />
<br />
But just for fun consider: tea pots are uniquely human artifacts.
Therefore, the only possible way there could be a tea pot floating
around the moon, sun etc. would be that some humanly fabricated tea pot
escaped from some also humanly fabricated space ship, or, that some
crazy person on earth sent one into space on a launch platform capable
of sending its payload right out of earth’s magnetic field.<br />
<br />
Is that possible? Of course something like that could be done. So,
there may very well be a tea pot orbiting Earth for all we know. But do
we have any historical records from NASA, the Russians or whoever, of a
tea pot having escaped from some space mission? Well gee, I don’t think
so. But this isn’t really the point.<br />
The point being that such arguments generally commit two logical fallacies, i.e. a fallacy of equivocation and a category error.<br />
<br />
Again, the same reasoning applies to FSM’s or anything else the
ill-thinking atheist may dream up to escape the wholly logical God
inference.<br />
<br />
Now, back to the more important reasons to dismiss all such “tea
pot” arguments. They are category errors. They are fallacies of
equivocation when used as comparisons to the inference of the existence
of a supreme being logic. Comparing the belief in a tea pot orbiting a
planet, to the logical inference based belief in the existence of a
first and sufficient cause for the existence of the universe, is utterly
hilarious. If only it weren’t so seriously posited by unthinking
atheists – obviously trying to escape their own burden of proof.<br />
<br />
Moreover, if they have no burden of proof it could only be if atheism
were not a metaphysical position at all, but a mere involuntary state
of mind. But the fact that they are everywhere stating their position
and fervently arguing for it shows that they do indeed hold the “no god”
stance as a metaphysical position, a chosen belief – not a bare lack
thereof!<br />
<br />
Atheists prove their religious devotion to their world view, their
metaphysics, by writing so many books, debating everywhere and by
infesting web forums ever trying to refute the existence of God – and
never ever succeeding! Religious fervor is the only appropriate label to
put on such behavior. Yet, all while they’ll still vehemently deny
it. Denial of reality is atheism’s most glaring trait.<br />
<br />
Atheists admit they cannot prove that there is no God. So what does that imply? Just this<strong>, </strong>that<strong> atheism is a position that can only be held by blind faith</strong>. Since no proof of their position exists, blind faith in that position is the only thing left.<br />
<br />
Curiously the atheist always accuses the theist of this very thing!
The theist however knows that all things can used as a starting point
towards the First Cause inference and yet nothing at all can be used to
the contrary!<br />
A supreme being’s existence is logically inferred by the very
existence of the universe itself. How so? Well, we know the universe
is not eternal – it has an age. This is not hard. We also know it
doesn’t oscillate eternally – Fred Hoyle’s hopeful hypothesis – that he
was forced to abandon due to the evidence against it.<br />
<br />
This of course implies that something made it, and that whatever made it necessarily exists apart from it.<br />
We know too that it cannot have created itself. Something creating
itself from from nothing? The very idea is preposterous – except to
blind atheism’s terrible reasoning. You see – “nothing” doesn’t exist.
Nothing, as non-existence, cannot be said to have properties, energy,
matter, law. So the more recent nonsense arguments of “quantum
fluctuations” in some speculative void, are still “fluctuations of
nothing” – i.e. more logical absurdity.<br />
<br />
So where do all these glaring anomaly’s leave the poor atheist? In a <strong>logic void</strong>.
Atheism, as C.S Lewis so aptly states, “turns out to be too simple. If
the universe has no meaning we should never have discovered it has no
meaning”. Thus the arguments (tea pots, IPUs, FSMs etc.) that the new
atheist is so proud of verbalizing turn out to be lame-brained nonsense
as soon as the light of reason and logic is applied to them properly.<br />
<br />
The atheist is thus left in a philosophical <em>no mans land</em>
because taking his arguments to their logical conclusions always leads
to absurdity, or else a kind of metaphysical free-for-all, in which
nothing can be proved. But if nothing can be proved, then we have no
reason to believe in ourselves.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixh6respiZV9rdYvgqMScU3Fvor3VpkGKSUbsX1r1Xa0VblRoBsyzc39bLhxhtgTKKe-ocQYu1gpyMB7hXUDgOo48yxO7nXwtBdgAXc943tY22uJtA0noePCWPESJPmsZoNAjN/s1600/no-ipus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixh6respiZV9rdYvgqMScU3Fvor3VpkGKSUbsX1r1Xa0VblRoBsyzc39bLhxhtgTKKe-ocQYu1gpyMB7hXUDgOo48yxO7nXwtBdgAXc943tY22uJtA0noePCWPESJPmsZoNAjN/s1600/no-ipus.jpg" /></a></div>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-81625921102519457342011-10-27T18:02:00.000-04:002011-10-27T18:02:01.432-04:00The Secular Humanist ConspiracyDon’t you just love a good conspiracy theory? I do. They can be so much fun, even instructive and eye opening. Some of course are so far off the wall that they give a bad name to the rest. Some are so-so credible but lack any convincing evidence. Others ring so truly that they are downright scary.<br />
<br />
Well, one that fits the last category has got to be the one I call here simply the “secular humanist conspiracy”. For, if ever there was a true conspiracy of the kind that grabs the attention of the public, this should have been it. But it wasn’t and it still isn’t. It’s a conspiracy that was put into action many decades ago and is still in “all out cultural war” phase.<br />
<br />
One must not confuse secular humanism with humanitarianism. The two could not be farther apart.<br />
The most amazing thing about this conspiracy is how well it has been dissimulated, brushed under the carpet, yet not so secretly implemented. Yet the evidence of it is everywhere. The evidence of it isn’t even hard to find. The secular humanist high priests worked simply and rather brilliantly in conceiving it and putting it into action. Most of them were not even surreptitious when speaking publicly about their plans.<br />
They met with such little opposition probably because either no one paid much attention or, those who should have and could opposed them didn’t because of their own ignorance and/or apathy.<br />
<br />
So, where is the evidence of such a conspiracy that has led to the downfall of American society in general?<br />
Secular Humanist Charles F. Potter wrote,<br />
<blockquote><strong>“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”</strong> (Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930)</blockquote>The term secular humanism was first known to have been used in the 1930′s. In 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury of the day, William Temple, warned that the “Christian tradition… was in danger of being undermined by a Secular Humanism which hoped to retain Christian values without Christian faith.” – “Free Church ministers in Anglican pulpits. Dr Temple’s call: the South India Scheme.” <em>The Guardian</em>, 26 May 1943, p.6<br />
<br />
John Dewey, remembered for his efforts in establishing America’s current educational systems, was one of the chief signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. Called “The Father of Modern Education” John Dewey was a Communist, atheist and a signer of the Humanist Manifesto and of course one of the great secular humanist conspirators. Dewey stated clearly enough,<br />
<blockquote><strong>“You can’t make Socialists out of individualists — children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”</strong></blockquote>Isn’t it amazing how liberty and freedom of thought and speech disappear under the reign of secular humanism?! No matter how much they insist they’re all for freedom – theirs that is, not yours.<br />
Sir Arthur Keith, a British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, stated, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” <br />
<br />
Darwinian evolution is the certainly secular humanists origins myth. Believed largely for metaphysical reasons and not scientific ones. These religious fanatics like to pretend these days, contrary to their forefathers, that secular humanism isn’t a religion, but clearly it is as the quotes here easily demonstrate.<br />
<br />
One of the most famous humanists, Paul Kurtz often called “the father of secular humanism”, founded of the “Council for Secular Humanism” and of the “International Academy of Humanism, USA”, wrote in the preface to the Humanist Manifesto 2000:<br />
<blockquote><strong>“<em>Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” </em></strong></blockquote><strong><em></em></strong>Kurtz’ books call for the establishment of humanist churches. Not a religion?<br />
Yet, in his farewell address to the new nation of the United States of America (September 19, 1796), George Washington declared,<br />
<blockquote><strong>“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”</strong></blockquote>Make no mistake, secular humanism is founded upon atheism, otherwise known as metaphysical naturalism – a religion, a very old religion.<br />
<br />
The term secularism was coined in 1851 by George Jacob Holyoake in order to describe “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life.” Once a staunch Owenite, Holyoake was strongly influenced by Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism and of modern sociology. Comte believed human history would progress in a ‘law of three stages’ from a ‘theological’ phase, to the ‘metaphysical’, toward a fully rational ‘positivist’ society. In later life, Comte had attempted to introduce a ‘religion of humanity’ in light of growing anti-religious sentiment and social malaise in revolutionary France. This ‘religion’ would necessarily fulfill the functional, cohesive role that supernatural religion once served. Whilst Comte’s religious movement was unsuccessful, the positivist philosophy of science itself played a major role in the proliferation of secular organizations in the 19th century. – (from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism">wikipedia </a>… verifiable)<br />
<br />
Robert Muller (former assistant to the secretary general of the UN):<br />
<blockquote><strong> ”Within 15 years we will have a proper government and administration of planet earth and of humanity. Why? Because the current troubles, injustices, wastes and colossal duplications of national expenditures – especially on armaments and the military – will force us to. It is inevitable. The salvation of this planet and survival of the human species depend on it. No one can for long go against evolution. Nation-states must adapt or they will disintegrate, even the biggest ones.”</strong> (http://goodmorningworld.org/blog/2006/01/gmw-852-robet-muller-happiest-person.html)<strong>.</strong></blockquote>Humanist John J. Dunphy wrote:<br />
<blockquote><strong>I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects what theologians call divinity in every human being.</strong><br />
<strong>These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level — preschool day care center or large state university.</strong><br />
<strong>The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.</strong><br />
<strong>It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.</strong> – A Religion For A New Age, The Humanist magazine, January-February 1983</blockquote><br />
Tell me again how this isn’t a religion in thew public education system! Darwinism is its origins myth.<br />
<br />
These are the highly influential persons whom, with billion dollar aid from other famous humanists, pushed this “hidden agenda” into the public schools. Yet they are also the ones who are always claiming the infamous Establishment Clause when faced with any threat to the Darwinist agenda in public schools! All of this is rather amazing in itself, but the mass media – virtually all controlled by secular humanists - have just sort of neglected to tell the public of these things! They are conspirators themselves for the most part and have not so curiously failed to report on any of this, either as it was being planned or while it was being implemented and to this day the liberal media bias and insistence on sweeping all such inferences under the rug is as clear as a warning bell.<br />
<br />
Secular humanists love to speak of personal freedom, self-fulfillment, the good of humanity etc. But as soon as you start digging deeper, all is defined according to their own terms, no one else’s definitions are allowed in the door!Indeed, it turns out that the religion of secular humanism is all about selfishness and population control of the mass by the self-styled “elite” of society. They want to form a society guided only according to their own religious dogma of atheism, scientism and elitism. The roots of secular humanism are selfishness and atheism, even though they deny the former. Of course they deny it!<br />
<br />
Humanism is nothing more than a modern push to create a new tower of Babel, trying to reach heaven, a new religion in defiance of God where self is the only god. It is an attempt to return to Eden, to paradise on earth, but by all the wrong means. Means that can never work as all the world witnessed with the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia etc. The end of purely secular governments, based on atheism is nothing but human suffering, misery, mass murders, torture and “killing fields”!<br />
<br />
Look at this revealing, and rather disgusting, quote by secular humanist geneticist Richard Lewontin,<br />
<blockquote><strong>“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”</strong><br />
And this one beats ‘em all:<br />
<strong>“Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.”</strong> – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.</blockquote><br />
How’s that for inane drone “thinking” and overt dishonesty!?<br />
<br />
Evolution News and Views editor, Anika Smith, wrote a column in the SPU Falcon newspaper titled “Beware of ‘Darwin Day’”. In describing some of the more humorous elements of Darwin Day celebrations (carols, Darwin look-alike contests and even an incredible, edible tree of life) Smith notes the holiday’s familiar trappings.<br />
<blockquote><strong> If you’re wondering what a secular humanist does to commemorate such an occasion, it turns out that these particular humanists stand on street corners and hand out leaflets about evolution in an attempt to reach passers-by.</strong><br />
<strong> In Victoria, B.C., a philosophy of religion professor organized a Darwin Day celebration for his students where they decked the halls with humanist style. Participants decorated an evolution tree, exchanged Darwin cards and even sang evolution carols.</strong><br />
<strong> If this sounds familiar to you, that’s because it was designed that way. This celebration, like so many others, was styled as a “light-hearted satire” of Christmas. Had the celebration taken place in a culture with a different religious history, such as Turkey, it might look something more like the Feast of Sacrifice.</strong></blockquote>Not a religion huh? Got any more clueless claims, humanists?<br />
Now, let’s look at some of those who signed the Humanist Manifesto III I highlighted a few :<br />
<br />
Khoren Arisian<br />
Senior Leader, NY Society for Ethical Culture<br />
Bill Baird<br />
Reproductive rights pioneer<br />
Frank Berger<br />
Pharmacologist, developer of anti-anxiety drugs<br />
Lester R. Brown<br />
Founder and president, Earth Policy Institute<br />
August E. Brunsman IV<br />
Executive director, Secular Student Alliance<br />
Rob Buitenweg<br />
Vice president, International Humanist and Ethical Union<br />
Vern Bullough<br />
Sexologist and former copresident of the International Humanist and Ethical Union<br />
David Bumbaugh<br />
Professor, Meadville Lombard Theological School<br />
Matt Cherry<br />
Executive director, Institute for Humanist Studies<br />
Joseph Chuman<br />
Visiting professor of religion, Columbia University, and leader, Ethical Culture Society of Bergen County, New Jersey<br />
Curt Collier<br />
leader, Riverdale-Yonkers Society for Ethical Culture, New York<br />
Fred Cook<br />
Retired executive committee member, International Humanist and Ethical Union<br />
Carlton Coon<br />
Former US Ambassador to Nepal<br />
Richard Dawkins (what a surprise huh)<br />
Charles Simonyi professor, University of Oxford<br />
Arthur Dobrin<br />
Professor of humanities, Hofstra University and leader emeritus Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island, New York<br />
Margaret Downey<br />
President, Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia<br />
Riane Eisler<br />
President, Center for Partnership Studies<br />
Albert Ellis<br />
Creator of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and founder of the Alber Ellis Institute<br />
Edward L. Ericson<br />
Leader emeritus, Ethical Culture<br />
Antony Flew<br />
Philosopher<br />
Arun Gandhi<br />
Cofounder, M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence<br />
Kendyl Gibbons<br />
President, Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association<br />
Sol Gordon<br />
Sexologist<br />
Pervez Hoodbhoy<br />
Professor of physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan<br />
Fran P. Hosken<br />
Editor, Women’s International Network News<br />
Joan Johnson Lewis<br />
President, National Leaders Council of the American Ethical Union<br />
Edwin Kagin<br />
Founder and director, Camp Quest<br />
Beth Lamont<br />
AHA NGO representative to the United Nations<br />
Gerald A. Larue<br />
Professor emeritus of biblical history and archaeology, University of Southern California<br />
Ellen McBride<br />
Immediate past president, American Ethical Union<br />
Henry Morgentaler<br />
Abortion rights pioneer<br />
Stephen Mumford<br />
President, Center for Research on Population and Security<br />
William Murry<br />
President and dean, Meadville-Lombard Theological School<br />
Indumati Parikh<br />
President, Center for the Study of Social Change, India<br />
Katha Pollitt<br />
Columnist, the Nation<br />
Eugenie Scott<br />
Executive director, National Center for Science Education<br />
Michael Shermer<br />
Editor of Skeptic magazine<br />
James R. Simpson<br />
Professor of international agricultural economics, Ryukoku University, Japan<br />
Matthew Ies. Spetter<br />
Associate professor in social psychology at the Peace Studies Institute of Manhattan College, NY<br />
Oliver Stone<br />
Academy award-winning filmmaker<br />
John Swomley<br />
Professor emeritus of social ethics, St. Paul School of Theology<br />
Carl Thitchener<br />
Co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canadaigua, New York<br />
Maureen Thitchener<br />
Co-minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Amherst and of Canadaigua, New York<br />
Kurt Vonnegut<br />
Novelist<br />
Edward O. Wilson<br />
Professor, Harvard University,<br />
…<br />
<br />
Of course I excluded a lot of other names. Notice how many scientists, so-called “ministers” or “theologians” and wealthy and influential persons are on the list in organizations related to “ethics”, education and religion!<br />
<br />
None dare call it conspiracy. Of course, there are no conspiracies in America! None… no no no… and anyone who says there is is a paranoid nut case. Ya right…<br />
<br />
So how did they succeed in bringing the religion of humanism into the whole of public departments – education, justice et al.? Quietly, stealthily, insidiously at first, now quite openly. They believe they are invincible, just as did Nimrod and his slaves, right before the confusion of languages was put on the builders of Babel.<br />
<br />
The humanists simply placed all the most dedicated of their dupes in key positions of power in the education departments of the nation and then started bad-mouthing Christianity and religion, calling for the infamous “separation of church and state” all while pretending religious neutrality! All while constantly reiterating (good pedagogy) the post modernist refrains that only science can tell us the truth, the religion is passé and that it must not be allowed in the classroom. This all while implanting their own religion in the classrooms!<br />
<br />
No conspiracy here?<br />
<br />
If you believe this was not a long planned and keenly executed conspiracy, I have a few big beautiful bridges to sell you… cheap, as well as some huge land lots on Mars that you can leave to your posterity when humans will be living there.<br />
<br />
Virtually every public school in America was taken over by these people and most of America (and Europe as well) has swallowed all these lies and accepted all this.<br />
<br />
Winston Churchill commented,<br />
<blockquote><strong>“If you will not fight for the right when you can win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”</strong></blockquote>This is what is going to happen, and much sooner than we think, if we don’t get off our lazy asses and stand up and protest with righteous indignation -and plenty of proof of what we state – as well as viable solutions to remedy the catastrophic consequences that secular humanism and its goons have wreaked on the morals of society already. Consequences that have already taken incalculable lives and wrought irreparable damage.<br />
<br />
It’s time to oust this intruder, this liar, the secular dogmatist & manipulator from the whole social system of the West.Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-20449104830932382932011-08-26T16:46:00.002-04:002011-09-28T14:06:18.748-04:00Even More BAD Thinking by Atheists<b>Nothing created everything.</b><br />
<br />
Yes ladies & gents, this is the sum of all atheist origins myths. Even normally brilliant people like Stephen Hawking, being desperate to find any other solution to origins but a God being, i.e. a sufficient agency and power to explain the universe, are now claiming that nothing created everything.<br />
<br />
In his latest book he claims,<br />
<blockquote><div style="color: #0b5394;">“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” – The Grand Design</div></blockquote><br />
First, it is very important to understand that this is not a scientific statement at all but a metaphysical belief statement. Hawking’s claim is very bad logic to say the least, but it’s far worse coming from his pen, it isn’t anywhere near the scientific ball park!<br />
<br />
Real science says the total energy of nothing is always nothing. That’s what nothing “is”, no thing, including no energy, no “random quantum fluctuation”, no gravity.<br />
<br />
This “quantum fluctuation” argument, I sadly saw used once again today. Yet a more meaningless phrase, if ever there was one in a context of “before the universe existed”, is very difficult to imagine. How can we have quantum anything before the universe exists? Where does the quantum something come from? What is it fluctuating exactly? What is it’s nature? No one answers this coherently because no one knows. Hawking, L. Krauss et al. are foolish atheists who, not being capable to comprehend or endure the idea of God, invent new pseudo-scientific trash to explain away reality. It’s pure scientific sounding sophism. As scientist Edgar H. Andrews put it,<br />
<blockquote><div style="color: #0b5394;">“But laws of nature are nothing more than descriptions of the way nature operates. No one has ever proposed a law of nature that does not involve existing natural entities, whether they be matter, energy, space-time or mathematical systems.”</div></blockquote><br />
Dr Andrews is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and an international expert on the science of large molecules. He’s simply saying that you can’t have pre-existent laws of gravity and such without existing nature. And he concludes,<br />
<blockquote><div style="color: #0b5394;">“attempts to explain away the origin of the universe as a spontaneous event occurring in some pre-existing ‘void’ fail the tests both of science and logic.”</div></blockquote>This means that using some pretended and undefined “quantum fluctuation” is no better than saying, “We don’t have a clue”.<br />
<br />
Scientist John C. Lennox commented on Hawkings latest lapse of cognition thus,<br />
<blockquote style="color: #0b5394;">“But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.<br />
What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent. … Hawking’s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?”</blockquote><br />
Indeed, how can you have gravity before any mass exists, before any matter & energy exist?<br />
<br />
Even Hawking’s ex-wife had something to say on this,<br />
<blockquote style="color: #0b5394;">“Stephen has the feeling that because everything is reduced to a rational, mathematical formula, that must be the truth. He is delving into realms that really do matter to thinking people and, in a way, that can have a very disturbing effect on people — and he’s not competent.”</blockquote><br />
Hawking has indeed engaged in reductionism to the point of the absurd. What is troubling is that he, like his many atheist fans and colleagues, seemingly cannot see the glaring error of such foolish and yes anti-scientific claims.<br />
<br />
As Lennox points out you can’t have mere laws creating things and you cannot have the laws of physics doing something without a universe in which they may exist! This is not hard. This is grade one science. Law is descriptive, in itself it does nothing. Moreover those laws themselves need explaining as to their own origins.<br />
<br />
Atheism provides no answers for the origin of the universe and even less for the origin of life. But they’ll never admit it because atheism is for them a religion, a sacred calling to emptiness and a utterly vain universe. Strange that any intelligent person would ever choose such a feckless position.<br />
<br />
Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter. If true, nothing really matters, the universe is meaningless, life is an accident and all is permitted for no overarching moral law exists either.<br />
<br />
Atheism is pure denial of reality. So why are the so-called New Atheists such adamant proselytizers of it? Easy. It’s their religion. No matter how much they deny it, it is nevertheless so. Dawkins, Harris et al. are their high priests, perpetually spewing forth vitriol and codswallop using pretzel logic – high in fiber makes great dung, but that’s it.<br />
<br />
John Lennox concludes,<br />
<blockquote><div style="color: #0b5394;">“Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.</div><div style="color: #0b5394;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #0b5394;">Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.</div><div style="color: #0b5394;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #0b5394;">It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.</div><div style="color: #0b5394;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #0b5394;">Hawking’s new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.”</div></blockquote><br />
My own conclusion? Atheism sucks.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: #cc0000;">Update</span></b>: <i>An atheist, attempting to squirm his way out of reality, responded to my comments on the "not playing tennis isn't a sport; not believing in God isn't a religion" statements above with the following nonsense:</i><br />
<i>"Apparently you don't understand analogies". </i><br />
<br />
<i>Um, right. Analogies are </i><i><b>so</b> hard to understand. </i><br />
<br />
<i>So, how to answer this deeply reflective "rebuttal"? Well, the obvious answer is that analogies that don't work, because they are logical fallacies, um ... don't work. Duh. That was </i><i>so hard.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<i>Once again we see why it is that only 98% of atheists give such a bad reputation to the rest -as being such shallow thinkers and ignoramuses? Not only does atheism suck, its for suckers who "can't handle the truth".</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo4p0f4rXV7TL7DZkoNtz6EEWcBhQxwJbe9nAPxs2F7OoYxauzB9sYhX4YwSntfELGnB-rXAzboOkuwhAEOgZ1RqYDmMiV7Q3D4W7k80FlCUJfkgv_DzgHhzfQmIYNZBXpQTwF/s1600/atheistblinders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjo4p0f4rXV7TL7DZkoNtz6EEWcBhQxwJbe9nAPxs2F7OoYxauzB9sYhX4YwSntfELGnB-rXAzboOkuwhAEOgZ1RqYDmMiV7Q3D4W7k80FlCUJfkgv_DzgHhzfQmIYNZBXpQTwF/s320/atheistblinders.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-10087020327976172011-08-20T18:03:00.001-04:002011-08-20T18:08:59.153-04:00More Atheist Bad ThinkingFanatical atheists infest the halls of Internet <i>forumdom</i>, spewing forth anti-religion, antichrist and anti-rationality in their never ceasing goal to proselytize.<br>
<br>
Call one of these ignorant, and usually uneducated preachers what they really are and you'll get blasted by many vehement accusations of breaking some moral principle of "niceness".<br>
<br>
Of course, according to atheist uh hum "logic", objective morality doesn't exist, seeing there is no "ultimate foundations for ethics" and morality is "an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate,” and “the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.”<br>
<br>
Hey, we can thank evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson for that bit of ill tasting codswallop.<br>
<br>
But here's the thing: why should anyone care when atheists point fingers at theists for calling them vidiots<sup><a href="#vidiot">1</a> </sup>, hypocrites, or whatever, when it's true?<br>
<br>
They contradict themselves by such accusations and never see the contradiction. If you point it out to them what do they do? Well they resort to pretending your comment is a strawman! Apparently they don't know what a strawman is. They don't know that following the laws of logic, it's been shown many times by many philosophers that atheism necessarily leads to the conclusion that no objective values exist and relativism is all that remains.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://reasonstream.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-atheist-bad-thinking.html#more">Read more »</a>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-88934237098047678262011-07-27T17:31:00.001-04:002011-07-27T17:40:56.025-04:00Who Designed the Designer?In debate circles and discussion forums on atheism vs. theism or deism; Darwinism vs Intelligent Design (ID) all across the world today we hear that ID is stuck with a serious problem. According to the opponents of ID such as Christopher Hitchens (one the worst reasoners by the way on this subject) the ID, uh hum, <i>stopper</i> goes like this,<br />
<blockquote><b>"...the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator."</b></blockquote>This is a very strange statement, and incredibly presumptuous one at that. It is of course equal to the old atheist argument, "Who made God?".<br />
<br />
The 1st error here is that it the question is based on assumption of infinite regression of Gods creating Gods, Designers designing Designers. But infinite regressions in logic are logical absurdities, since all infinite regression propositions are such. <br />
<br />
The most curious thing however is the stupidity inherent in such bold assertions as Hitchens makes. Truly the so-called New Atheists can't hold a candle to the old ones, who tended at least to be much smarter and somewhat less smart-ass. On the one hand the assertion seems to be based on the logical absurdity of infinite regressions, and on the other it foolishly demands an answer to a logical absurdity! Then it claims that not being able to answer a logical absurdity is somehow important in the challenge of the "who designed the designer" rebuttal.<br />
<br />
Besides being a nonsense question, if one assumes an infinite regression of designers, it is indeed unanswerable, as are all logically absurd questions! An simple example of a nonsense question is "Is the color green square or round?"; or "Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?" - which questions generally come from the minds of children not yet trained in reasoning, logical and critical thinking, not from highly educated fools like Hitchens et al.<br />
<br />
But here is another answer to the question at hand, supposing we are not implying an infinite regression; <b>Who cares!?</b><br />
<br />
Why should anyone care if the designer himself were designed? Once you've gotten to the designer of the thing you're examining, it doesn't matter! That becomes a second and separate inquiry altogether!<br />
<br />
Consider the following:<br />
<br />
If I'm trying to figure out who designed the car across the street, I may be able to get to the correct answer by a simple search - checking the logo on the front or back of the car. Now, once I've determined who that designer is - say Honda - why should I look any further? Suppose I discover it was made by Honda. Why should I inquire as to who designed the designer, i.e. who created Honda? The question may indeed interest me but once I've gotten to the cars maker, that is sufficient, all by itself, to be able to postulate that the car was indeed manufactured by a specific designer.<br />
<br />
Now, here's the real issue; in ID I'm not even looking to know who the designer is! The whole purpose of ID is <i>not to determine the designer of life, but to determine that it was indeed designed </i>rather that self-assembled by some other non rational process.<br />
<br />
Do I really need to know who the designer is to determine that it was indeed designed or whether it came to be by a chance series of events by some other process? <b>The answer is no</b>. No more than claiming that when determining that some structure was designed or not, I can't logically postulate design until I know exactly who designed it! This puts the cart before the horse. Obviously I cannot postulate a designer until I've adequately determined design.<br />
<br />
Design must be determined first! Otherwise postulating the identity of the designer is futile. Moreover once design <i>is</i> determined, with reasonable certainty, the question, "Who did it?", is an entirely separate research issue!<br />
<br />
<br />
Darwinist always fail to see this distinction and thus fail to come up with more intelligent questions. Why? Because their minds are on hold in strict materialism. For them it <b>has</b> to be 100% natural, no intelligence allowed, no goals, no purpose, no guidance allowed. So as soon as a design inference is made, they are <i>forced by their metaphysics</i> - <b>not evidence, not science</b> - to deny design.<br />
<br />
Afterwards they come up with the intellectually void and irrelevant rebuttal, "Who designed the designer"!<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
<b>1. </b>Intelligent Design proponents may or may not care one whit who the designer is. The most important thing to understand is that the question of identity is <i>irrelevant until design has been adequately supported</i> by the evidence.<br />
<br />
This of course assumes that design detection is scientifically possible. Is it? Of course it is!<br />
<br />
Design detection is practiced every day in other fields such as forensic anthropology, arson investigations, genetic manipulation determining and many other fields. No one questions the ability to determine intelligent design in those areas. Only in biology! Only there do we find such vehement, apoplectic fits being had by opponents. This fact alone should get any honest enquirer thinking that something is gravely wrong in Darwinian fundamentalism.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>2. </b>But it gets worse for them. Suppose I have indeed discovered the designer's identity. The question, "Who designed the designer?", is still irrelevant because, hey I've found the designer and I need not go further back.<br />
<br />
Why should I? Only if I have evidence that the designer was also designed and so on ... back infinitely again, and back to logical absurdities again, since it is impossible to determine an infinite regressions' beginning!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgDhNgZNmVqKyriW_XFfStbLHwdZcICJcxcnliP6KWltNuYUCDVNoYtjd1RTdwFkPUQxrXuUBouobeCg1mAfuzOx4KVqvFM4EL7US4Dps1jPy5fFYx3aAX8wX8y-b5uheJ3peK/s1600/dali.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="287" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgDhNgZNmVqKyriW_XFfStbLHwdZcICJcxcnliP6KWltNuYUCDVNoYtjd1RTdwFkPUQxrXuUBouobeCg1mAfuzOx4KVqvFM4EL7US4Dps1jPy5fFYx3aAX8wX8y-b5uheJ3peK/s320/dali.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Darwinian Logic Exposed</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11971243.post-49895147123569246102011-05-28T12:55:00.002-04:002011-05-28T12:57:41.457-04:00Atheism is ‘lack of belief’? Sequel<div class="posttitle"><small><a href="http://en.wordpress.com/tag/theism/" rel="tag"></a> </small> </div>In debates with atheists on the subject I am always being assured that newborns are essentially atheists because they are born without any beliefs. I’m told that atheism, being lack of belief, means that newly born babes qualify as atheists. Of course that is anserine.<br />
<br />
A while back, I came across <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371084/Children-young-educated-atheism.html#" target="_blank">this article</a> on the web entitled <b>Children as young as four to be educated in atheism.</b><br />
<br />
My, but my atheist antagonists ought to be embarrassed at this!<br />
<br />
Surely even the most ignorant and incompetent atheist can see that there can be no need to educate young children into atheism if atheism is truly their <i>inborn</i> lack of belief! They are born atheists, according to them!<br />
Isn’t it amazing how atheists contradict themselves at every turn? If newborns are already atheists why in the world would they need indoctrination in atheism? Surely just being left alone would suffice to leave them atheists. Ah, but the atheist will claim they will be inundated with theistic or deistic ideas during their lives so we must protect that innate atheism! Really? Why?<br />
<br />
Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter. It leads to no good, it helps no one and it tends to either universal anarchy and chaos or totalitarian despotism (remember the more than 120 million killings under atheist regimes in the 20th century alone).<br />
<br />
If, by atheist reasoning, the universe really created itself out of nothing (the atheists only origins option), and if the universe consequently really has no meaning, no purpose, no good and no evil, why should anyone care what anyone else believes anyway? Why are atheists so adamantly evangelistic on making sure all remain, as they allege, “atheists from birth”.<br />
<br />
Obviously they feel they need more. Should theists now start using PANIC HEADLINES of the atheist genre?<br />
<h3>“<span style="color: #e2301d;"><b>Atheists, now they’re coming for your children!</b></span>“</h3>- to mimic the<a href="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece" target="_blank"> Times article on Dawkins’ latest drivel</a> on which I commented <a href="http://borne.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/has-dawkins-lost-his-mind/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
Of course, this kind of headline would be <b>entirely justified</b> in this case, if only because they want to preach their inane religion in public schools (as though they don’t already under the guise of science). These people are fanatically against teaching any kind of religion in schools and even having any kind of religious symbol displayed in any public place, yet here they come! They now want indoctrinate kids in schools into their religion, all while claiming kids are naturally atheistic!!<br />
<br />
Now here I will quote Dr Michael V. Antony, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. Dr. Antony addressed this “lack of belief” argument thus (my bold):<br />
<blockquote>It is often said by atheists that atheism is not a positive position at all – a belief or worldview – but merely a disbelief in theism, a refusal to accept what the theist believes, and as such, there is no belief or position for there to be evidence for. Evidence is not needed for ‘non-positions’.<br />
While the word ‘atheism’ has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew’s article ‘The Presumption of Atheism’), it is a highly non-standard use. <b>So understood, atheism would include agnosticism, since agnostics are also not theists. However, on the common understanding of atheism – no divine reality of any kind exists – atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive</b>. Some insist that this non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ is the only possible sense, because a-theism means without theism. But if that were a good argument, the Space Shuttle would be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself). Ditto for dogs and cats.<br />
<br />
Yet none of that really matters, for even the non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ does nothing to neutralize evidentialism’s demand for evidence. As we saw, evidentialism applies to all ‘doxastic’ attitudes toward a proposition P: believing P, believing not-P, suspending judgment about P, etc. Therefore evidentialism says, with respect to the proposition God exists, that any attitude toward it will be rational or justified if and only if it fits one’s evidence. Now it is true that if one had no position whatever regarding the proposition God exists (perhaps because one has never entertained the thought), no evidence would be required for that non-position. But the New Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism. So insisting that atheism isn’t a belief doesn’t help.</blockquote>Mere absence of belief is not a position. Atheism is, it is a <i>chosen</i> position. Atheism, as denial of reality, is a form of insanity, therefore it is doubtful we will ever cease having to deal with atheist nonsense. Will we ever see the end of this blatant insanity?Gary H.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16324820645215394691noreply@blogger.com