What if Evolution were True?

Excerpt:

We might also expect to find evolution still occurring today. Why does it seem to have stopped? Geologists think the present time is marked by rapid change; environments are changing, so why are living things not changing? They are unquestionably adapting, but this is not by acquiring new genetic traits as required by evolution. Mutations frequently occur, which damage existing genes, some more than others, but nowhere do we observe new genetic information arise by random mutation. Evolution of any basic type into another would require millions of innovative, helpful mutations which add new information to the genome, but these are nowhere to be seen. Instead of new types, we observe misfits and extinction, the opposite of evolution. Natural selection can only select between variants, it cannot act on its own to create novel types, and certainly is not an intelligent force driving innovation.

In an article of his, he talks about the Higgs boson and completely distorts what the Higgs boson actually is. It's not a particle to prove god. It's something that exists in the insane field of quantum physics. The physics of how things work at a sub-atomic level. Quantum physics is largely theoretical, so we're still trying to directly prove something that we know exists via mathematics.

But what is it?

The answer can be found by doing something called a google search. I found this through a google search that lead me to Wikipedia:

The Higgs boson (sometimes referred to as the God particle by the media) is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, but would help explain how otherwise massless elementary particles still manage to construct mass in matter. In particular, it would explain the difference between the massless photon and the relatively massive W and Z bosons. Elementary particle masses, and the differences between electromagnetism (caused by the photon) and the weak force (caused by the W and Z bosons), are critical to many aspects of the structure of microscopic (and hence macroscopic) matter; thus, if it exists, the Higgs boson has an enormous effect on the world around us.

Source: Wikipedia, Higgs boson

In normal human terms, the Higgs boson is what keeps all matter in the universe together. If you look deep enough, you'll find that everything is made of... nothing! Usually I lose people after that part, so if you're still with me, what we find when we look deep enough in something is that there's empty space. A ton of it. So much empty space that you could essentially equate it with infinity. This, as you can imagine, is a big, big problem. The Higgs boson was calculated mathematically to exist as the force that keeps everything in the universe afloat. Nothing exists, but the Higgs boson keeps all of this nothingness together.

Still with me? No? I'm not either, don't worry.

Quantum mechanics (and physics) is probably the weirdest thing in the universe. Erm, literally. You want to explain something you can't see? Invoke quantum physics to explain it until you can. Most insulting is that Rush trivializes all of the hard work in order to prove these theoretical particles:

"The 78-year-old's original efforts in the early 1960s to explain why the force, dubbed the Higgs field, must exist were dismissed at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research.  Today, the existence of the invisible field is widely accepted by scientists, who believe it came into being milliseconds after the Big Bang created the universe--" there's no way that anybody could possibly know this.

Again, mathematical calculations are central to science. Einstein, before being able to prove the existence of things such as black holes, proved them with mathematical calculations. By the logic of Mr. Limbaugh, there's no way that Einstein actually did this.

Another insulting moment is when he says this:

Snerdley just said to me there are a lot of physicists that believe in God.

In reality, the real world in which we live, there are a lot of physicists who use the term 'god' metaphorically for the universe. Of course Rush will never admit this, because in his monkey brain it's true. There's no reasoning with these people.

Naturally, Mr. Limbaugh continues his embarrassing tirade and trivializes science to everyone who listens. That's a lot. Even though Rush is a gigantic faggot and one of the dumbest people in the world, he has a gigantic following. Conservative fundamentalist Christians love him. As you can see, there's reasons for why they love him. These reasons are mostly bullshit, -- actually all bullshit -- but they continue to follow him.

I think my favorite comedian and philosopher, noted as "Chomsky with dick jokes..." can sum up my thoughts on Rush.

I won't even get into Expelled and Ben Stein, both excruciatingly wrong. But I will say this, we have a new inductee into the List of Creationist Failures!

1. Kirk Cameron (Lying for Jesus: Kirk Cameron Edition)
2. Dr. Jason Lisle (Reading Answers in Genesis: Probably easier when high.)
3. Lee Strobel (Lee Strobel: Ex-Atheist or just ignorant?)
4. Ray Comfort (Banana: Proof of creationism., Ray Comfort has a blog, Ray Comfort: What the fuck, man?)
5. Rhonda Storms (Fuck Rhonda Storms)
6. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (DO SOMETHING IN LOUISIANA! QUICK!, Now the Candle Burns at both Ends)
7. Rush Limbaugh

Give a warm welcome to our number seven! (I should induct Ben Stein some time soon... or maybe Bill ORLY.)

            Dar peliculele cu aceasta tema sunt riscante pentru incasari, caci politicianul este omul opus tipului clasic de erou de film : el trebuie sa vorbeasca mult, in timp ce eroul trebuie sa actioneze; politicianul trebuie sa-si stapaneasca nervii, eroul insa – sa-si dea frau liber pasiunilor; eroul  este trimis de altii in foc, dar politicianul trimite pe altii in bataia pustilor. Oliver Stone, dupa filmul de mare succes „JFK“(1991), a turnat „Nixon“(1995), care a fost un mare flop. Mai recent, filme cu Tom Cruise („Lions and Lambs“) si Denzel Washington  („The Great Debaters“), in care s-a pledat pentru angajamentul politic, au avut incasari sub nivelul asteptat. Dar asta era inainte de inceperea campaniei electorale 2008 si nimeni nu banuia inca in ce masura americanii se vor insufleti pentru duelul celor doi candidati ai partidului democrat. Acum mai toti marii regizori de la Hollywood lucreaza la un film cu subiect politic.

            Oliver Stone va aduce pe ecran, chiar in ajunul alegerilor din luna noiembrie, filmul „W“ cu Josh Brolin (din „No Country for Old Men“) in rolul principal al celui de al 43-lea presedinte al SUA. Ron Howard a adaptat pentru ecran piesa de teatru „Frost/Nixon“, bazata pe patru interviuri pe care Richard Nixon le-a acordat jurnalistului TV David Frost in 1977. In film, rolul lui Nixon este jucat de Frank Langella, iar cel al lui Frost, de Michael Sheen. Gus Van Sant (regizorul lui „Good Will Hunting“) povesteste in „Milk“ despre Harvey Milk, cel care a luptat in consiliul orasului San Francisco pentru drepturile homosexualilor si care in 1978 a fost impuscat de un politician conservator. Rolul lui Milk este preluat de Sean Penn. Steven Spielberg are in lucru doua drame politice : „The Trial of the Chicago 7“ despre procesul din 1968  al unor demonstranti impotriva razboiului din Vietnam, si epopeea istorica „Lincoln“ despre cel de al 16-lea presedinte al SUA. Clint Eastwood isi consacra eforturile asupra unui film despre Nelson Mandela, in care rolul principal va fi jucat de Morgan Freeman. Ca sa nu mai amintim si de filmul de patru ore si jumatate „Che“ al lui Steven Soderberghs despre marele revolutionar cuban Guevarra.

            Nici regizorii europeni nu se lasa mai prejos. La festivalul de la Cannes a fos mult apreciat filmul „Il Divo“ al lui Paolo Sorrentino despre fostulsef al guvernului italian Giulio Andreotti. Britanicul Peter Morgan (autor al filmului „The Queen“, avand in rolul principal pe Helen Mirren) se dedica acum unui film despre cariera politica a lui Tony Blair, personaj pe care insa l-a luat si Roman Polanski, adaptand cartea bestseller a lui Robert Harris in noul sau film „The Ghost“.

            In cele mai multe din aceste filme se doreste sa se arate ca marii oameni politici duc o viata dubla, cu o personalitate mult deosebita de imaginea inghetata a omului de stat. Si, pe masura ce tot mai multi regizori si actori celebri se dedica acestui domeniu, oamenii politici sunt si ei tot mai preocupati sa invete cum sa-si puna in scena comportamentul public. Iar pentru ca omul politic deseori are doua fete (Oliver Stone spune chiar ca ei sunt versiunea moderna alui Dr. Jekill si Mr. Hyde), ei vor deveni poate cele mai captivante figuri ale cinematografiei timpului nostru. 

                                                           *

            AMERICANII SI RAIUL -  In urma unui sondaj organizat de institutul de cercetare a opiniei publice Pew Research Center (www.pewresearch.org) din Washington, asupra atitudinii cetatenilor SUA fata de religie, a dus la rezultate interesante. Peste 50% dintre cei  35.000 americani solicitati considera religia un lucru foarte important in viata lor si 39% se duc cel putin odata pe saptamana la biserica. Zilnic se roaga 58%, iar trei sferturi – odata pe saptamana. 91% cred ca exista in ceruri un Dumnezeu sau „o fiinta superioara“. 70% dintre credinciosi sunt convinsi ca nu numai propria religie, ci multe alte religii, pot conduce la viata eterna. Printre cei ce cred insa ca doar religia lor poate aduce salvarea sufletelor sunt 80% dintre Martorii lui Iehova, 57% dintre mormoni, 33% dintre protestantii evanghelici, si 33% dintre musulmani. 74% dintre cetatenii americani sunt convinsi de existenta raiului, dar numai 59% de existenta iadului. In privinta imaginii lui Dumnezeu, sase din zece americani cred ca el este un om cu care pot stabili contact personal.

            In problema avortului, 51% sunt pentru pastrarea legalitatii lui, dar 43% sunt contra. Chiar si printre catolici 48% sunt pentru legalitatea avortului, in timp ce printre ateisti – 82%. Referitor la homosexuali, cca. 50% vor o deplina acceptare a lor in societate, in timp ce 40% sunt contra. In conflictul dintre creationisti si evolutionisti, ultimii (care sustin teoria evolutiei a lui Darwin) sunt in proportie de 48%, in timp ce cei care nu considera ca evolutia poate explica crearea speciilor sunt in proportie de 45%. Cei mai multi creationisti sunt in randurile Martorilor lui Iehova - 90%.

            Conform studiului amintit 51% dintre americani apartin unei biserici protestante si 24% sunt catolici. Doar 16% au declarat ca nu apartin nici unei biserici. Este cel mai amplu studiu asupra credintei religioase a cetatenilor americani realizat pana acum.  

Textul legii afirma ca intentia este de a incuraja gandirea critica, cerand Consiliului Educatiei sa ajute profesorii, directorii si administratorii scolilor sa creeze si sa sustina in scolile publice un mediu care promoveaza gandirea critica, analiza logica si discutarea "deschisa si obiectiva" a teoriilor stiintifice. Din nefericire, legea este remercabil de selectiva in legatura cu subiectele care necesita "gandire critica", sugerand doar evolutionismul, originea vietii, incalzirea globala si clonarea umana.

(Sursa: Slashdot)

But what does it mean?

The term mutually assured destruction is one that I would reference. The reason why the US doesn't destroy Russia or Russia the US is because they know that whoever made the move first would have started a war that ends in nuclear war. At least, this seems likely. Nuclear war means no more humans. Instead of one losing the battle, they both lose out. That's the basic tenant of mutually assured destruction.

For things like Academic Freedom, a bill which was recently passed by gigantic fuck up, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, it goes a little bit like mutually assured destruction.

Imagine Bobby Jindal as the middleman. He has the power to pass or veto bills such as the Academic Freedom bill he has just passed. He's the center of the candle. But this candle is unique as it has two wicks.

In the case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover, there was a candle, but it was burning from one end. In this case, the conservative fundamentalists were absolutely thrilled, so the fire started when the critical thinkers of Dover spoke out. They ignited the wick and it was, for all intents and purposes, a countdown to extinction for not the law itself, but for creationism itself in the state as a platform. It was simple enough: the creationists formed the base of the candle where they had solidified themselves in schools, the critical thinkers started a fire that would end up destroying the plans that the creationists had.

The concept of the candle burning at both ends is slightly different. As I said, supreme fuck up Bobby Jindal is at the center of a double ended candle. He's a creationist, acting for creationist purposes, but says he's encouraging free inquiry, free thinking, anything with free on it, when it's obvious to those same people that he's doing the exact opposite.

With how the law is defined, both crowds will get offended and one or the other will ignite a fire, and both sides will be fighting. Sadly, Jindal doesn't get his until the case is entirely resolved.

One of these two will happen;

1. Atheistic teachers oppose creationism in class and support the so-called controversial subjects, thus making the consevative fundamentalist crowd mad; or
2. Creationist teachers oppose the so-called controversial subjects, and the free thinkers of the communities get mad.

Either case ends in a lawsuit and a huge legal battle, likely as big as Dover. Not on a national scale, but to an extent where it will define the future regardless of decision or judgment for both Louisiana and other states.

Bobby Jindal has set a horrible precedent for the state, yet when this goes down, neither him or his buddies at the Disco tute will be anywhere to be found.

Apparently they forget not to bear false witness against thy neighbour.

In a nutshell: Bobby is the middle, creationism and free thinking are each their own wicks, one side ignites the fire, then the other, and as they melt down to the middle, both sides lose no matter who wins.

Ieromonah Serafim Rose

Trad: Mihaela Grosu

ASALTUL HINDUISMULUI ASUPRA CRESTINISMULUI

Toti dumnezeii neamurilor sunt idoli

(Psalm 95,5)

5. Scopul Hinduismului: "Religia Universală"

Nu mi-a venit să cred când am văzut ce avans colosal căpătase hinduismul pe teritoriul credintei crestine în timpul cât eu o abandonasem. Eu am descoperit toate aceste schimbări fără efort, tocmai pentru faptul că în toti acesti douăzeci de ani am fost practic izolată din punct de vedere intelectual de restul lumii, pentru că mă subordonasem filtru totul gurului meu. Trebuia să respect cu strictete toate prescriptiile lui, indiferent cât de severe, fără înteles sau absurde mi se păreau. Printre ele se afla si interzicerea de a citi cărti cu continut crestin sau de a sta de vorbă cu crestinii, în pofida vorbăriei lor despre adevărul religiilor, swamii stiu că Hristos este dusmanul lor de neînvins.

Deci, douăzeci de ani nu am făcut altceva, decât să studiez filozofia orientală si să practic ascetismul hindus. Gurul mi-a trasat să urmez cursuri universitare si să obtin o diplomă în filozofie si antropologie. Dar privind retrospectiv, acele studii nu au constituit altceva decât o diversiune, care să-mi dea sentimentul că fac ceva foarte important, adevărata activitate fiind de fapt timpul petrecut cu swami si cel în care puneam în practică învătăturile Vedanta.

Misiunea trasată de Swami Vivekananda s-a îndeplinit te mai toate aspectele ei. Un singur punct a rămas încă nerezolvat: instaurarea unei religii universale. Iar instaurarea unei astfel de religii în lume va echivala cu victoria finală a diavolului, pentru că "Religia Universală" nu are voie să contină "nici o idee individualistă si sectară", ea nemaimentinând din crestinism decât o terminologie goală.

Instaurarea "Religiei Universale" va trebui să echivaleze cu conflagratia totală a crestinismului. Si aduc aici, spre ilustrare, opera preotului iezuit Theillard de Chardin, care deja fundamentează "Noul Crestinism" tocmai în termenii în care Swami Vivekananda îsi specifică propria sa "Religie Universală".
Theillard de Chardin constituie un caz special tocmai pentru faptul că, spre deosebire de teologii catolici traditionalisti, el este foarte apreciat de clerul catolic academic, care însă, după părerea mea, fie nu au nici o idee despre ceea ce este de fapt opera lui Theillard, fie că se prefac că nu văd.

Această operă plagiază în mare parte doctrincle Vedanta si Tantra, pe care le combină în liantul unui jargon de sonoritate crestină si le prezintă apoi sub masca de mare efect a evolutionismului.

Iată un citat: "Lumea în care trăiesc devine dumnezeiască. Si totusi focul ei nu mă arde, iar apele ei nu mă topesc. Căci, spre deosebire de formele false ale unui monism care să mă împingă spre un inconstient al pasivitătii, eu descopăr un pan-crestinism care mă conduce printr-un proces intens de disociere, la o unificare finală. Voi ajunge la spirit doar prin cea mai adâncă si totală dezlăntuire a fortelor materiei... Mărturisesc că, urmând exemplul Dumnezeului întrupat, Care mi S-a revelat în credinia catolică, nu pot să mă mântuiesc, decât unindu-mă cu Universul".

Aceasta ce nu este altceva decât cel mai pur hinduism! Are câte putin din toate: un vers din una din Upanisade si bucăti din câteva sisteme filozofice împreună cu practicile lor.

Într-o conferintă de presă a prelatului Arrupe, generalul "Societătii lui Iisus", care a avut loc în iunie 1965, lui Theillard de Chardin i s-a luat apărarea pe temeiul că "nu este teolog sau filosof de profesie, si, deci, poate să nu fie constient de toate implicatiile teologice si filozofice pe care le pot căpăta intuitiile sale". După care, respectivul prelat l-a lăudat pe Theillard de Chardin, astfel:

"Părintele Theillard este una din marile voci ale gândirii filozofice contemporane, iar succesul său nu trebuie să ne mire. Marele lui merit este acela de a fi reusit să reconcilieze stiinta si credinta religioasă". Iar modul în care a reusit el aceasta, adaug eu, este prin fundamentarea unei noi religii.

Iată ce spune Theillard însusi: "Noua religie nu va fi a altceva decât vechiul nostru crestinism, dar îmbogătit cu un suflu nou ce provine din evolutia firească si legitimă a dogmelor sale în contactul lor cu noile idei ce apar în societate". Să examinăm în această lumină "Religia Universală" a lui Vivekananda, alături de "Noul Crestinism" al lui Theillard. Asa cum este ea propusă de Vivekananda, "Religia Universală" trebuie să aibă cinci caracteristici.

În primul rând trebuie să fie stiintifică si construită pe principiul legilor spirituale, adică va fi o religie adevărată si stiintifică. Căci într-adevăr, atât Vivekananda, cât si Theillard folosesc scientismul teoretic ca articole de credintă.

În, al doilea rând, fundamentul său este , unul evolutionist. Sau, în cuvintele lui Theillard: "O formă religioasă necunoscută până acum, una pe care nimeni nu a putut până în prezent să o imagineze sau să o descrie, Pentru că universul nu era destul de larg si de organic să o încapă. O nouă formă de religie ia fiintă acum în inimile oamenilor, dintr-o sământă semănată de ideea de evolutie". Si în continuare: "Păcatul originar... este un concept care ne leagă de mâini si de picioare si ne goleste sângele din vene" pentru că ,"asa cum este el formulat acum apare ca un concept static, ce reprezintă un anacronism pentru sistemul nostru evolutionist de gândire".

Este locul să afirmăm aici că acest concept pseudoreligios de "evolutie" pe care Crestinismul l-a respins întotdeauna, este de milenii un concept constitutiv al gândirii hinduse si el nu lipseste din nici una din aplicările ei practice.

În al treilea rând, "Religia Universală" nu prezintă în centrul ei nici o personalitate unificatoare, ci ea este fondată de niste "principii eterne". Theillard este în mod cert pe drumul spre un Dumnezeu impersonal, când scrie: "Hristos îmi devine din ce în ce mai indispensabil... dar în acelasi timp, persoana istorică a lui Hristos îmi devine din ce în ce mai lipsite de substantă si mai indistinctă". "Viziunea mea despre El mă poartă din ce în ce mai sus pe axa ortodoxiei".

Ne pare rău să spunem, dar acest spirit al unui "Hristos" nonistoric este "ortodoxie" hindusă, nu crestină.

În al patrulea rând, scopul principal al "Religiei Universale" este acela de a satisface nevoile spirituale ale diferitelor tipuri de caractere umane; lucru ce nu poate fi oferit de asa zisele religii individualiste si sectare. În viziunea lui Teillard de Chardin, Crestinismul însusi este o astfel de religie, pentru că el nu răspunde tuturor tipurilor de aspiratii religioase. Iată cum îsi exprimă el nemultumirea sa: "Crestinismul rămâne în continuare oarecum un refugiu. E1 nu mai îmbrătisează sufletul, nu-l mai satisface, sau, într-un anumit fel, nu mai este în stare să călăuzească viata omului modern".

În al cincilea si ultimul rând, în cadrul "Religiei Universale", sau al "Noului Crestinism", noi ne îndreptăm cu totii către aceeasi destinatie, indiferent de traditia religioasă din care provenim. Pentru Teillard de Chardin această destinatie este "Punctul Omega" situat dincolo de posibilitatea oricărei reprezentări. Pentru Vivekananda această destinatie este întruchipată de "OM": "Întreaga umanitate se îndreaptă către poalele acelui loc pe care se află înăltat simbolul care nu este simbol, numele care este mai presus decât toate sunetele".

Unde se va sfârsi această deformare a Crestinismului si triumful hinduismului? Vom avea pe "OM"[1] sau vom avea pe Omega (adică pe Hristos)?

OK, in his defense, I'm not sure whether or not he used the micro- vs. macro- evolution save. If the opportunity presents itself, I'm sure he did. After all, he knows viruses evolve and wants to use our medicine to extend his very valuable life, but doesn't believe in that heathen part where humans evolved from monkeys.

God damn it man, I'm almost at nerves end reading this guy's blog. Before someone decides to defend him, let me just say that I'm sure he's a completely normal and cool guy if you know him, sinner or not. No, really. But for all intents and purposes, Ray Comfort is a douche like no other, with the possible exception of his partner in anti-crime, Kirk "Dumbass" Cameron.

Anyway, I decided to check up on his website for Way of the Master. There you can view some clips, or more appropriately, here. The Pink Hair/Plane Talk got me, because, you KNOW if someone has hair that is of an alternative colour they're a hell-bound sinner, NO EXCEPTIONS! Let me just say this: if I were stuck on a plane with him, I would probably jump from the plane.

But that's all besides the point. The point isn't really a point, but the point is, guy has a blog. Don't click it if you're not ready to have your faith in atheism as well as evolution tested to the limit! lol. Faith. I've dealt with fundie whackaloons before, but never someone as vehement as Ray Comfort. Go to his blog and you'll become a Christian, I swear it, thanks to the completely logical points he has. The man that brought us the banana argument couldn't do any wrong, after all. Besides the sinner part.

Top Ten Predicted Atheist Ojections to the Below Statement:

"Water is wet." -- Ray Comfort

1. "You know nothing about water or science!"
2. "This is hateful and judgmental and is an example of circular reasoning."
3. "I suppose you believe that your imaginary friend made it wet."
4. "You know very well water molecules are dry. You liar!"
5. "Darwin knew that it was wet years before you did."
6. "Jesus would be ashamed of this statement! You are quote-mining."
7. "You are saying there was a world-wide flood. You are such a hypocrite."
8. "So, how old do you believe that this 'wet' water is?"
9. "There is no evidence that it is wet. The burden is on you to prove it!"
10. "This statement proves that you are viciously anti-Catholic."

Saying "water is wet" is nothing like saying that everything around us needs a creator. A creator who watches us all the time, has ten commandments that he wants us to follow, and if we don't, will send us to a place that burns with fire and smoke and you will suffer for all of eternity... but he loves us all very much... and he NEEDS MONEY!

Which reminds me, everyone watch some of George Carlin's shit on Youtube, it's spectacular.

Then there's this:

The Atheist Worldview

"There've been several hundred gay marriages enacted in California in the past few days. Maybe a couple of thousand by now, I haven't checked the numbers. And in the non-gay-marrying Midwest, they're fighting floods, while in California it's fair and dry. How is The Golden State managing to escape the wrath of your imaginary friend, I wonder?" Weemaryanne

Maryanne. At present there are 840 wild-fires that are burning at once in California, destroying many homes. The fires were started by lightning strikes. Guess who’s in charge of the electrical department? These are from thunder storms that have no rain. Guess who gives the rain? You said "while in California it's fair and dry." We are having the worst drought in our recorded history. Last year 1,155 homes were destroyed. You live in an imaginary world. I suggest you get out more.

Because there is no way in blue hell wildfires happen, and just because it's the worst drought in recorded history (is that even true, anyway?), he'll assume it's god doing it. Hey, here's an idea: why don't he send down fire from the sky like he did on Sodom? That'll get our attention instead of doing something which, y'know, happens naturally and yearly.

Either he's thinking too big or his god is too small.

Then Ray decides to go on a tirade declaring light, the only thing that is truly visible, to be invisible:

Thank God for Science

The essence of "white" light is invisible. We can’t see it. Despite this, science has taught us that it's actually made up of seven beautiful colors that are undetectable to the human eye until they are refracted through a prism. Of course, we know that the seven colors are the amazing colors we see in a rainbow--red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.

What the hell, Ray? Darkness is invisible, not light. Darkness doesn't exist anyway, it's just the absence of light.

You say thank god for science, but you know nothing of science. You never have. You never will. In fact, by reading your god forsakened blog, I have lost at least 100 points off of my IQ, leaving me at about 26 now. Yes, I saw the jokes coming and decided to clear that up right off.

Ray Comfort: if god exists, he's going to hate you for your distortion of the reason and logic you seem to throw to the wind.

I assume god put evidence for evolution, the big bang, and global warming here to test your faith? No dude, I've figured this out. God put you here to test my faith.

So sometime in the next few days expect a write up, some pics, and possibly a vid or two. Shall I buy any merchandise? Shirts? Hats? Seriously -- I want opinions! I'd love to walk around in Creation Museum garb for fun.

Almost here!

It's another "Academic Freedom" front, which, as I've stated before, is not about Academic Freedom at all. Again, these policies that allow teachers to confront controversial issues are solely about making evolution seem like a fairytale and pimping their imaginary friend as the cause for everything. You don't believe me?

This bill would allow:

• Teaching of "holes" and so-called "gaps" in evolutionary theory which are really unresearched parts of evolutionary theory that will be tackled by scientists at some point in time. There are no "gaps" or "holes" in evolutionary theory.
• Teaching that evolution is imperfect, and thus qualifies as a belief, similar to Christianity. Evolution, like any scientific theory, runs on data gathered through true research such as geology, archaeology, and genetics.
• Teaching that evolution is controversial, and that there are really two sides, one side being creationism. There are not two sides on the scientific spectrum, as creationism, and furthermore, Intelligent Design, are not science. 99.9% of all scientists in related fields agree in full with evolution.

And much, much more nonsensical bullshit that the far right have become very successful in. The art of "Lying for Jesus."

For everyone that doesn't think this is a real threat, the reason you can survive tiberculosis, bacterial infections, the flu, even the fucking common cold, is due to knowledge gained by evolutionary biology put in motion by other fields of biology that rely on evolutionary knowledge. In other words, without evolution, you would probably be very sick or very dead.

Which is why this type of thought is not only the opposite of good science education, but downright dangerous, as I've outlined many, many times prior.

Even worse is that Gov. Bobby Jindal, possible Vice President candidate for John McCain, is a creationist, exoricst, anti-science, pro-creation buffoon who supports this stuff. I can't see him denying it, so this bill or act looks as if it will make it into state legislation. I wish someone would step up and challenge it, but since it is fundamentally against the constitution, it will take one of two things:

1. Someone picks on Creationism and creationists go on the offensive, believing that it would promote evolution, the big bang, and science over their imagination and 'beliefs'. This would be the most pleasing part, due to the tables being turned on this dubious piece of legislation.
2. We see another Kitzmiller vs. Dover case in the making when some idiot decides to bring creationism into the classroom in any form and forces it on the unwilling children, and then some smart Louisianian decides that enough is enough. This would be the most destructive; supporters of the act as well as creationists could then use it to substantiate the claims made in Expelled about "Big Science" silencing opponents to evolutionary theory. This, as you can imagine, would be bad.

That's our special bullshit alert of the day, but it's not over yet. One last thing...

1. Kirk Cameron (Lying for Jesus: Kirk Cameron Edition)
2. Dr. Jason Lisle (Reading Answers in Genesis: Probably easier when high.)
3. Lee Strobel (Lee Strobel: Ex-Atheist or just ignorant?)
4. Ray Comfort (Banana: Proof of creationism., Ray Comfort has a blog)
5. Rhonda Storms (Fuck Rhonda Storms)
6. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

Newest Creationist Failure on our list.

This, my friends, is just like intelligent design.

The Disco tute (cue the song "We Run This") is the group behind all of this intelligent design controversy, and even though they're not quite masters at hiding their fallacies, hypocrisy, and blatant intellectual dishonesty, they're quite the sight.

The disco tute's tactics are, quite frankly, easy to spot.

1. Make up a false controversy and tell people to teach it;
2. When asked what to teach, you give the name of intelligent design;
3. When asked what intelligent design is, you say it's a theory and an alternative to evolution;
4. Undermine theory in scientific terms to mean an ideal;
5. When rejected from classrooms, claim it's because of big science and academia;
6. Introduce academic freedom bills into several states to "question" evolution;
7. With enough doubt on evolution, you'll be allowed to teach ID, even though there are no real problems with evolutionary theory;
8. Make movie to support academic freedom;
9. When movie is flop, use it to lobby senate and likewise;
10. When your plan fails, continue to call ID a theory.

If only that's where it ended. These people are such absolutely pitiful hypocrites that they will never stop the nonsense that they push and will continue to try to undermine evolution until something goes their way. Maybe some day we'll seen a holocaust against "Darwinists." Never know...

Also, insert the following somewhere in those ten steps.

1. Deny that ID is creationism;
2. Lobby it to creationist groups;
3. Continue to deny that ID is creationism

Yeah. Disco tute, we've got your number.

atheists are ignorant

...what?

Oh my yes, atheists ignore the facts of god's creation and cling to that evil evolution and the big bang, both of which are just silly theories. Atheists also ignore the wonderful works of Answers in Genesis, and most importantly, Gensis itself. Genesis being the scientific explanation for the universe.

Fuck.

Hitler was a Darwinian racist.

Christianity, however, leads to reconciliation.

Read Acts 17:24-26

Just musing...

Setting: Fourth period French class (Note: This is only an abridged version)

Bao finishes showing Madame Weiss his finished APT hwk. Some time passes.

Saurav: Oh Bao, Bao!

Bao: Yeah?

Saurav: Check this out. I can totally make Martin do whatever I want!

Bao: (Laughs) what the hell? Really?

Martin: (In a voice filled with despair) Oh my god Saurav no. Hella messed up! (Reaches under Saurav's desk in an attempt to grope him)

Saurav: What the hell was that? That's it Martin. Slap yourself.

Martin: (glares...) Damn it Saurav I'm sorry. PLEASE!

Saurav: Do it!

Martin: (mock cries, gives himself a slap)

Saurav: Wtf, that's not a slap.

Martin: (Slaps himself harder)

Bao: (Laughs) Woow, Saurav.

Saurav: Martin, stand up, then sit down.

Bao: (thinking) In the middle of Weiss's pronounciation sessions? THIS I have to see.

Martin: (whispers) Omg, Saurav, Pleaaaase!

Saurav: (smiling) C'mon Martin, you have to do it.

Martin: (stands up and sits down as fast as his "physique" can handle)

Bao: Martin. Wtf was that? You call that standing?

Saurav: Stand taller. Sing Can't touch this and slap your ass.

Martin: SAURAV PLEASE I BEG YOU!

Bao: Martin, you're a friggin disgrace!

Martin: (Cries) I know Bao I know!

End scene

---

Now for my title. I came across an entry in my book of weird things about Christians defending Creationism. For those who don't know, Creationism, nemesis of Evolutionism, is the theory that the creation of the universe told in the book of Genesis in the Bible, is literally true.

You know... LET THERE BE LIGHT!

So, in order to combat the theory of evolutionism, one must provide evidence that contradicts evolutionism, which is exactly what we, as Christians, try to do. However, some of these claims embarass me so much for one or several of these reasons: They overlook basic scientific facts, they hide it from you completely (and intentionally), or they "plant" the evidence, also called hoaxing. Here are some I got from the book. Claims and proof (some by me, but sadly all are found in the book)

1. Earth creates helium (radioactivity) which builds up in the Earth's atmosphere. The small amount of helium proves that Earth is still young. It doesn't match the rate at which Earth generates helium through radioactivity or otherwise.

PSH! Okay, well, why do we use helium in balloons and blimps? Because they're lighter than air. Soo, helium would simply escape into space. The sun releases helium every day and isn't it much heavier than our little Earth? HA! AP CHEM at work!

2. Earth's magnetic field decays and calculations show the Earth to be approximately 10,000 years old.

Yes, but doesn't the magnetic field renew itself? (after research... YES)

3. There are instances where primitive fossils lie above advance fossils.

Um, hello.... landslides!!!!! :D

4. Chances of proper molecules assembling randomly into a living molecule is tiny.

... It does NOT assemble randomly! (AP CHEM FTW)

5. Current rate of shrinkage of Sun would assume through calculations that the sun's surface would've neared Earth's orbit several million years ago. (Shrinkage... huh?

But each stage in the sun's life occur at different rates. See? A simple scientific fact ignored.

6. THERMODYNAMICS (I've actually used this for fun.. and with much success) Evolution violates 2nd law of thermodynamics: Entropy (disorder) is always increasing. (AP CHEM!!!! and a bit of physics)

Yes, BUT! You can get order out of disorder... if you add energy! Take note kids and AP Physics bound people. [ahaha, sounds like Mr. Redillas talking] in the example shown by the book, let's say you ordered and received an unassembled bicycle. Very disorderly, yes? Nuts and boats and frame here and there... but you apply energy through work and voila, you have a bike! Your energy comes from the food you eat, which ultimately grows because of the sun, which provides tons and tons of energy!

There are 8 other claims and truths found in the book "The Weird 100" by Stephen Spignesi but I'm way too lazy, plus it would be considered major plagiarism (gosh I hope this isn't now... but I listed the source!)

Why did I spend time to write all of this? I just think that Christianity, like this, deliberately takes advantage of people's lack of knowledge in certain areas and I think it's just low. Don't get me wrong, most of you already know I'm die-hard Christian. But religion (as Chris said) is based on faith.

 A little patience wouldn’t hurt.

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of
evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination." (N. A. Takahata, “Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans", Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , Vol. 26, ( 1995 ), p. 343)

Yes, we noticed.

"Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

Ah. If the data derived from the scientific process points to a conclusion that is not in accord with the a priori philosophical underpinning of our world view, then we reject the results. I thought that this was the criticism that evolutionists level against creationists?

The quote above was written by ths man Charles Mackay you can read more about him at wikipedia . While all the reviews of his book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds are not totally backing up his book I do believe he is touching on a point that is sweeping the mentality of most today Crowd Mentality.

This article may make my point for me from the WALL STREET JOURNAL

Answer: Not if you needed to call him a Cro-Magnon so as to maintain the fiction of evolutionary proto-homo sapiens sapiens ancestors.

"Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, coming from Africa. A group of geneticists, coordinated by Guido Barbujani and David Caramelli of the Universities of Ferrara and Florence, shows that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically.

The Cro-Magnoid people long coexisted in Europe with other humans, the Neandertals, whose anatomy and DNA were clearly different from ours. However, obtaining a reliable sequence of Cro-Magnoid DNA was technically challenging."

So "Cro-Magnon" was simply a modern European. Similarly, Neanderthal's differences in anatomy and mtDNA are not as "clearly different" as the article portrays. Neanderthal was actually pretty much like us, in everything from brain size and anatomical adaptation to cold climates, to the ability to use language, to the capacity for abstract and symbolic thought. Even the mtDNA evidence isn't as supportive of the evolutionary framework as they'd like to think.

"Based on the comparison of modern human mt DNA and that taken from the Neanderthal, evolutionists have argued that the "Neanderthal line" diverged from the line of "hominids" leading to modern humans about 600,000 years B.P. without contributing mt DNA to modern Homo sapiens populations. This strongly implies that Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans.

However, the above noted interpretation is not scientifically justified. Lubenow ( 1998 ) has pointed out that the use of a statistical average of a large modern human sample (994 sequences from 1669 modern humans) compared with the mt DNA sequence from one Neanderthal is not appropriate. Furthermore, the mt DNA sequence differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24 substitutions, with an average of eight substitutions, whereas, the mt DNA sequence differences between modern man and the Neanderthal specimen range from 22 to 36 substitutions, placing Neanderthals, at worst, on the fringes of the modern range."

So why does the fiction that these were "evolutionary ancestors" of modern humans continue to be perpetuated?

"Instead of letting chance factors dominate reproduction decisions, Hitler proposed that the scientists use the power of the state to influence these decisions so that the gene pool would shift to what "informed conclusions" concluded was the desired direction. Consequently, Hitler encouraged those individuals that he perceived as having Aryan traits to mate, and discouraged "interbreeding," supposing that this policy would gradually cause the Aryan race to evolve "upward". He believed that the Nazi race programs would further evolution by intelligently deciding which traits were not beneficial, and preventing those with them from reproducing.

"An important argument that Hitler used to support his programs of racial genocide of the Jews, Blacks and other groups was that they were genetically "inferior" and that their interbreeding with the superior Aryan race would adversely affect the latter's gene pool, polluting it, and lowering the overall quality of the "pure race."

"From the ‘Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life' [that is, Darwin's subtitle to Origin of Species] it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes or nations - and from their preservation to their glorification....Thus, it has become a portmunteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race....recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here." - Gertrude Himmelfarb, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1962"

I've no doubt at all that Darwin himself would have been appalled at Hitler. But, it's not hard to see the progression from "the survival of the fittest" as a neutral, natural principle to "the survival of the fittest" as a purposeful directive implemented by a mad eugenicist. While I don't buy into the notion that Darwinism was directly responsible for the Nazi holocaust, the combination of Darwinism with the rejection of the traditional Judeo-Christian underpinnings of German society proved to be lethal.

So what's going to happen in America if the secfundies ever stop ripping off Judeo-Christian morals and ethics, and start pursuing the logical conclusions to their God-rejection? I don't want to find out.

Take the church questionairre or audit your footprint size here . From this link .

Check out the list of DIOCEAN ENVIROMENT OFFICERS

You will become a human resource for the common good to survive a meager existence THROUGH COMMUNITY to live. You will be a part of the community! Let me explain. To have friends and connections for food and any other goods for living is one thing but conditions allowed to become third world through laws and regulations ultimately fulfilling a "vision" like saving the planet really is different. This is not you deciding to plant a garden this is your rights diminishing in the name of something else in this case utopian world views such as living with less and thinking, believing it is more.

I shudder at the innocent sound of all the rhetoric today like "community" "organic" "buy local" "support local" because it does not mean what we think it means. For all of those words just put this thought "YOU WILL CHANGE!" 

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CUBA?

Watch this video about the effect of Peak Oil Crisis and the "power" of community

Men with degrees (an education) BELIEVE this is progress? 

The link I am going to encourage you to look at does not portray a voluntary alternative change, no, this is a forced lifestyle to survive. All based upon PEAK OIL USE, PEAK OIL USE QUESTIONS ANSWERED HERE.

Somehow the calculation wizards have information so therefore they can dictate to us the proper response we need to have all in the name of the future of our planet the future of our children etc.

STEWARDSHIP AND CHANGE

The information at the link I will give is from 2005 but it is being implemented and proof is provided if you watch this current questionairre for teens, FIND OUT WHEN YOU SHOULD DIE it is actually a game and the player is portrayed as a pig. Questions are how often do you eat meat, family income, size of car, family size, rooms in house.

So here again I find a struggle with this twisting of works and religion in all of this. It is good to be a steward of the land and to know how to provide for your family. On the surface community seems to be the same as good stewardship but it is not it is about control. And to take our lessons from Cuba not only is it a third world nation, its people fleeing into our country all of the time but it is also harboring a different gospel founded in Liberation Theology, a works based gospel that would validate this new way of life. Consider the following quote from this link from a priest ;

As for the author, 41 year-old Brother Betto, he says he is not certain what Castro's political intentions were, but his purpose in meeting him was to show points of convergence between Marxists and Christians as there is no fundamental antagonism between believers and unbelievers who fight for justice."

You would be led to believe that all this change would be for more independence and less dependance upon industry to provide food for yourself but if you look into the  NATIONAL ANIMAL ID SYSTEM and consider the stringent controls purposed throught the NAIS. Every animal you have they want to track to control disease outbreaks you need to ask the question, is all in our best interest?

First it will be controls on animlals could it then be just as the Russian Revolution when they not only took the farmers food but his seeds as well? People were reduced to eating their shoes and anything else.

I do not have a problem with farming, but forced farming to exist, that is slavery and oppression and it fits quite well with population reduction. The link I am citing at the end of my thoughts also suggests community, eat less meat to reduce energy use, of course smaller homes and cars, less obesity (heard alot about that in the news) making use of organic means to raise food. Sound familiar? Remember the Q&A for teens?

ORGANIC COMMUNITY

I also support organic vs. chemicals but I will not participate with the community for the COMMON GOOD. Overall I am considering this movement to be a direct attack upon americans and a free nation but more importantly an attack upon my walk with the Lord. This is a form of forced pagan beliefs upon christians and it is not the gospel it is not a biblical foundation. You will never save yourself through good works. The work has been done already. Fruits are from the work which is belief that is the fruit of the work.

Truly some of us just think we are making better "greener" choices because we thought of them originally as just good ideas but we are moving into a time where the lines are drawn for us. We are  approaching conditions that will not allow for children. Growing for the community the common good would be an democratic vote to have any children because of the need to plant for them to eat from shared urban farming in the parking lot amongst other "community" members.

Do we really believe in a system like this? That man is just going to share when he is starving? Some controls will have to be instituted upon the growing of food. And if we are living in a society that values the land more than the people then land use to grow food may be restricted. Really, I mean good grief where will the creation worship end in a GODLESS SOCIETY?

I am not happy about my childrens future with perverted thinkers influencing our future and churches embracing it!

I suppose one could characterize Agnosticism as a “belief system” in the sense that Science is a belief system. But it is based on Reason, rather than on the superstition or mysticism that defines conventional organized religions.

I think it is a basic misunderstanding of religious people to classify the rationale of those who don’t believe in their Gods as a “belief system.” Whereas some devout religious folks are willing to die in suicide bombings to stick up for their God-of-choice, we agnostics are slightly less hardcore about our worldview. Answering the question of God’s existence holds a much lower priority for agnostics than it does for theists. We look at it the way one might look at the unsolved mystery of whether or not aliens exist. If you do not believe in extraterrestrial life forms, would you define yourself according to that non-belief? Probably not. The issue cannot be answered one way or the other, so you recognize that your position is an Opinion, and that those who say aliens do exist simply hold an opposing Opinion. For alien-believers to lash out at alien-skeptics (or vice versa) is pointless, as the truth is impossible to know without first traveling to each of the trillions upon trillions of solar systems in the universe.

However, those who believe that extraterrestrial life currently thrives on the Moon can and should be refuted; reason and logic have debunked such theories by providing scientific evidence to the contrary. Those who believe in life on the moon subscribe to a “belief system.”

As with the belief that aliens live on Mars, evidence that Jesus is the son of God cannot be found in any book that respects Logic and relies on Reason to reach its conclusions.

Yes, there is the Bible. There is also the Torah and the Qu’ran. Each, by itself, presents a case for a particular deity. But in order to Believe in Jesus or Allah, one must privilege their religious texts over all other books. That requires being hostile toward enlightened scientific proof, such as archaeological and geological findings that Earth was not created a mere 6,000 years ago, or biological evidence that Jonah could not have survived for three days living inside a fish’s stomach. To be a Christian, one must believe that, at its core, the Bible is a more reliable source of knowledge than all other books combined, because God wrote it. That is a “leap of faith.” And it is faith—not reason—that allows one to make excuses on God’s behalf when inexplicably horrific events like the cyclone in Miramar or the Chinese earthquake cost hundreds of thousands of human lives. So the typical Christian, unable to justify God’s complicity to prevent such horrors, simply concludes that they are part of “God’s plan” and that mortal humans are too stupid to understand it.

That is a Leap of Faith, based on a Belief System. If we apply the worldly gifts of enlightened thinking, the only logical conclusion is that not enough evidence exists to prove or disprove His existence. With regard to the Bible being the word of God, or even a reliable authority on how to live our lives, reason overwhelmingly suggests otherwise.