The sound of one hand clapping.

DISCLAIMER: This post is a response
to a religious bigot. It will contain profanity, insults, and anti-religious
sentiment. If you are highly religious, overly sensitive, or just stupid, DO
NOT CONTINUE READING.
If however, you think yourself strong enough to wade through the mess, then go
right ahead… and enjoy, if you must.

The following piece was posted on
News24 yesterday. I got about a third of the way into it when I started getting
annoyed. Yet another religious bigot claiming that “ex-Christians” do
not actually know what it feels like to be Christian, but he and his Christian
buddies know exactly what it feels like not to be Christian. The level of
arrogance alone warranted a response, so I obliged…

You can read the original here:

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Is-it-possible-to-be-an-EX-christian-20120807

Prime did not indicate his/her gender,
so to avoid constant use of he/she/it whenever referring to Prime, I assumed
Prime to be male. My sincerest apologies if this causes any offence. The
original is posted below in black, and my response follows after wards in blue.

Is it possible to be an EX christian?

(by Prime)

Can a once Christian become unchristian? Can a convert to
Christianity gain enlightenment and unconvert? Is faith conditional, salvation
temporal, conversion reversible? This is the scope of this article.

No Atheist has ever been a Christian, atheists can’t speak
of Christianity, when they do, by definition they are demonstrating remarkable
faith, because they have never been there. Likewise, No Christian has not been
an atheist, or can claim to have always been a Christian.

I cannot for the life of me understand why some atheists
love claiming or suggesting that they were once upon a time Christian.
Bulldust! Nobody since God sneezed the universe into being has been able to
“unconvert” from being born of the Spirit a new creature in Christ. You cannot
lose your salvation. You cannot exchange it, you cannot give it back, it does
not come with a “14 year life back guarantee” lol

This is what the scripture says about people who thought or
were under the impression that they were Christian and later rejected it.

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they
had been with us, they would have continued with us. But  they went out, that it might become plain
that they all are not of us” Jn2:19

“For we have come to share in Christ If indeed we hold firm
our original confidence firm to the end.” Heb3:14

This is why you cannot unconvert: Lets just dance with a few
scriptures, there are hundreds.

Our names are written in the book of life from eternity
past.

“God chose us in him before the foundation of the world to
be holy and blameless in his sight. In love, he predestined us for adoption as
sons through Jesus Christ.” Eph 1:3ff

 “He has perfected for
all time those who are being perfected” Heb 10:14… beautiful!

“No one can come to me unless the father draws him, and i
will raise him up on the last day”. Jn6:44

Here is one more reason, a logical one. The doctrine of
salvation! The work of Christ comes to question when we suggest that you can
lose your salvation, that is just bad language, you cannot lose your salvation,
but you can realise that you never were saved in the first place. This
unfortunately happens all too common especially in a country that boasts such
high Christian stats while real Christians know that these people who tick the
Christian box are actually “default Christians”

I can’t be any more clear. There is no such thing as an EX
Christian. James Cameron’s Avatar’s and Marvel Incredible Hulk will move into
the northern suburbs of Joburg millenniums before any single individual
Christians becomes an ex Christians. An Ex Christian is not an oxymoron, It is
a confused mistaken identity. Salvation is a gift, a consequence of the grace
of God, undeserved, unearned, unrequested. And a Christian receives The Holy
spirit as a deposit. We all understand the implication of the language “deposit”.
God is the one who gives the Deposit. This is why scripture teaches “Christ in
you, the hope of glory”Col 3:27. and “In Him you also, when you heard the word
of truth, the gospel of your salvation and believed in Him, were sealed with
the promised Holy spirit who is the guarantee(greek – “down payment”) of our
inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his
glory”eph.1:13ff.  How do you lose that?
How do you give that back? A Christian cannot separate himself or herself from
the love that is in Christ. Nothing can, no angel, no demon, no life situation
good or bad, no lack of evidence, no surplus of counter evidence,  no nothing can divorce the Spirit of God from
God! Not even our sin. For those of you atheists who are interested in the
authority of these claims, Check out Romans 8, especially the end, But be very
careful now, you might just see the light. I suggest reading it with ray
ban’s. 

How many people in the world have had a race change? Answer
0! How many people in the world have unconverted from Christ having tasted and
seen that the Lord is good? Answer 0!

How ironic that someone who is not and never was or has been
Christian speaks of what it was like to be Christian, comments on Christianity
without  having known the radiance of his
Glory and the perfections of his person. No wonder they hate Christianity, what
they had known to be Christianity was despicable, and I only concur. AMEN
ATHEISTS! AMEN! It all makes sense now, why they hate God so much, it is not
that they Hate God, they love him, they hate what they perceive to be God, or
what they perceive to be the illusion Christians create and call God, and
judging by some of the comments on news24, I also hate the Christian God of the
atheists, and so does Jesus, That God is so small, He sucks, he needs to prove
he exists to gain followers, what a lame god. Worse still, what lame
worshippers.   The thing they thought was
Christianity, that thing they were exposed to and brought up with along with
all it’s traditions and rules and regulations, I also hate it, but I don’t hate
it nearly as much as what Jesus hates it and I apologise for that. They call it
religion. God hates Religion and fake Christians and fake Christianity and it
is everywhere, it masquerades in expensive suites, it is on posters, bookshops,
masked behind wolves dressed as priests and pastors.! He is intolerant towards
it, It angers Him and He has promised to dish out a can of Holy omnipotent
vengeance on those who have created and preserved a lie in the name of The
God-Man Jesus aka Christ! Atheists love claiming the “Been there, done that,
got the  t shirt.” Line,  RUBBISH! And for those of you who don’t, Well
done! Don’t ever!

I am actually sick and tired of unbelievers saying something
that is spiritually impossible, biblically laughable and theologically
heretical. Perhaps they say it hoping to gain leverage for why they disqualify
the claims of the faith. I will rather believe that there was a poetic snake
with a smooth tongue and a military donkey with attitude well before I believe
that a human being turned his/her back on God having once come to know:
personally, individually, corporately, sacrificially, intimately and
affectionately, existentially, objectively and subjectively, conceptually and
emotionally  the Glory of the God who
hung on a tree like a dog between two criminals in our place for our sin. No,
No, No, Shut Up! That is a lie. The claim is as outrageous as a white man
saying that he was actually coloured during high school, then tried out Indian
for the first year of University but landed on being black due to the lack of
evidence white people pose for a better future south Africa and the leverage of
the equity act regarding potential promotions in the workplace. Really?

So, what is the point of the story? Christians reject what
they know very well, what they have experienced, what they have evidence of,
what they can speak of and today are ashamed of. Atheists however, reject what
they have never known or spent a day experiencing. Thus the atheist makes a
risky call to deny a reality he has never earned the warrant of denial too. How
silly.

Glove up fellas… Lets go a few rounds!

My response:

So let me get this straight: Prime,
who purports to be a Christian, claims that all Christian apostates, both past
and future, (and by extension, all Christians not of the same denomination as
himself – An alternate interpretation to Prime’s would clearly disqualify other
Christians from receiving the “true” tag.) are not “true”
Christians. Prime also asserts that the lot of all apostates, and “true
Christians”, has already been decided, and that the future is set.  Yet the very same collection of supposedly
“holy” writings Prime quotes from appears to indicate that we still
have free will, and can somehow “choose” to change what the almighty
God has already foreseen…

Am I the only one that thinks
this view that Prime promotes absolutely reeks of egotistical hypocrisy?

In fact, the entire piece is
riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. Prime compares choosing what
you do and do not believe with trying to change your race, which is so
ridiculous it’s almost laughable.

Prime also claims that “
Our names are written in the book of life from eternity past.“

Basically, what Prime seems to
be trying to say is that we are either born to be “true Christians”
or we’re not. As simple as that. You’re either born saved, or you’re not. And
nothing will change that. So much for free will then, I suppose.

So let’s look a little more
closely at the evidence that Prime has provided for this rather disingenuous
argument.

Prime starts off by arguing that
leaving the faith indicates that you never had any to begin with: “They
went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been with us, they
would have continued with us. But  they
went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” Jn2:19

Which pretty much states that
anyone that was “with them”, but later “left them”, must
clearly not have been part of “them” to begin with, despite how the
apostate themselves might have felt before the fact. A rather ignoble
statement, to say the least. But I suppose hindsight is always 20/20.

He then backs that up with: “For
we have come to share in Christ If indeed we hold firm our original confidence
firm to the end.” Heb3:14.

Which seems, in the context of
the previous quote – and rather dismissively, to indicate that wavering in your
faith means you never deserved salvation in the first place anyway.

The next part of his argument
seems centered around the idea that such things are pre-ordained, by God
himself, and by definition impossible to change: “God chose us in him
before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In
love, he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ.” Eph 1:3ff

 “He has perfected for
all time those who are being perfected” Heb 10:14… beautiful!

“No one can come to me unless the father draws him, and i
will raise him up on the last day”. Jn6:44 “.

He then goes into some diatribe
about you only being able to “ realise that you never were saved in
the first place.” and then something about
Jo’Burg and the Hulk, followed by some more quoting and warbling about
“hope” and “salvation” and “deposits”… Followed
by some rather onerous plaudits for certain atheists who supposedly
“hate” Christ, bla-di-bla-di-bla…

The whole thing is written in
such a tight, accusatory tone that re-reading it actually makes me feel a
little nauseous. And then he comes to the absolute gem of the piece: “
The claim is as outrageous as a white man saying that he was actually coloured
during high school, then tried out Indian for the first year of University but
landed on being black due to the lack of evidence white people pose for a
better future south Africa and the leverage of the equity act regarding
potential promotions in the workplace. Really? “

Really?

REALLY?!

And this from an educated
person… Shame on you Prime.

First off, Prime contradicts his
very own statements by first stating that you are pre-destined to be saved, and
then quoting something that indicates that Christ somehow offers salvation. How
can Christ save someone who’s already destined not to be saved? How does
“free will” factor into a future already ordained by the very being
who supposedly offers salvation from the punishment he himself intends to inflict
on those who he himself chose not to save? And how can something which can
absolutely not be changed, like race, be compared to something that by its very
definition requires a conscious decision? Believing is a decision is it not?
You are most definitely not born believing in Christ, are you?

The whole thing stinks of self
righteous bigotry of the worst kind. A snub to all the “un-saved”.
The equivalent of a child sticking out their tongue and saying
“Naa-naaa-na-naaa, I aaam saaaved, you were nooot…”

But Prime clearly didn’t think
this through too well. There are consequences to such claims. And they are most
certainly not on his favor.

First off, if it was
pre-ordained by God who would and would not be saved, then any claims that
Christ offers salvation would be an outright falsehood. Because clearly Christ
cannot claim to offer salvation to someone who was not chosen. Basically what
it boils down to is that no amount of religiosity on your part, no amount of
praying, obeying, and repentance, none of it, will make one iota of difference
to your fate. You were not chosen. You’re fucked… plain and simple.

This is also worrying if you
consider the implications it has on the image of God. If Christ claims that all
can be saved, but God’s doctrine indicates otherwise, then clearly one of the
two (who are apparently one) must be lying, which means either God, or Christ,
is clearly fallible, and is therefore not truly omnipotent or omniscient.

Also, if the saved are already
chosen, why bother ordering your followers to spread your word in the first
place? Especially if you know that the vast majority of the people who will
hear it have no chance at “salvation” anyway, no matter how righteous
and obedient they become. Isn’t that the equivalent of rubbing people’s noses
in it?

The whole argument is also very
convenient. “I can’t say whether you were chosen now, but once you go to
heaven, I can say with certainty that you were indeed chosen. But dedicate your
entire life to the cause of being saved anyway, just in case…” Very
convenient indeed. Phrasing an ambiguity like it’s a prophecy isn’t prophetic,
it’s preemptive hindsight. It’s the same as telling someone they can force the
outcome of throwing dice by praying. If you throw the number you wanted, then
you prayed hard enough. If you don’t, then “obviously” you didn’t
pray hard enough. It’s all a phenomenally poor attempt at hedging bets in favor
of Pascal’s wager. It’s nothing more than a gamble.

Also, Prime attempts to use
anecdotal evidence as proof of his assertions. You’re supposed to
“feel” the Holy Spirit. You’re supposed to somehow “intuit”
that you made the right choice, along with a whole truckload of similar
bullshit. The problem with such arguments is that they have the same level of
validity that any other similar claim by any other proponent from any other
religion, cult, or belief-system. Many Muslims claim to experience exactly the
same things. So too many Catholics. In fact, those are exactly the same
experiences claimed by the followers of David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles
Manson, and Deepak Chopra…

They mean nothing to anyone
except the person experiencing them.

In short, Prime’s argument is a
load of crap. It appears to be little more than a lazy attempt at asserting
that apostates cannot claim to have been Christians, based on the shaky logic
that you have to be chosen to be a Christian in the first place, and any
experiences you might have had during that time that indicates otherwise must
clearly have been delusions. Prime arrogantly dismisses the feelings,
experiences, and states of mind of others as delusion, proclaiming his own as
the only true experience, all the while presuming that he, who has absolutely
no idea what being non-religious is like, knows exactly what goes on in the
hearts and minds of others.

His hypocrisy is sickening, and
his arrogance repugnant. But that’s just my opinion…

Now go away and do something
useful.

LJ

DISCLAIMER: This post is a response
to a user letter on MyNews24, and is not recommended for immature readers. It
is not intended to be derogatory, but considering the level of ignorance,
arrogance, dishonesty and  pure stupidity
the letter contains, colorful language and insults on my part are pretty much
an inevitability. (I’m mean, I know. But I honestly can’t help it.) As always,
honest debate is  welcome. Abuse will be
bla-di-bla-di-bla… You know the drill. Enjoy… If you must.

There are few traits humans
possess that can be as repugnant as willful ignorance. Even more perplexing is
the ease with which a bold faced lie can be told by someone who claims to have
moral superiority. But it is something I have come to expect from Creationists
and Politicians. Intellectual honesty is simply not something they seem capable
of.

The following letter is one of the
most amazing examples of the Dunning-Kruger Effect I have ever seen. What
bothers me most though is that there is absolutely no way on earth that a sane person can say what Christo says
below without knowing that he is
lying. I seriously doubt Christo will ever read this, and chances are that even
if he does it will make no difference to him. (He admits as much in his
letter.) But by repeating the lies below he has proven, undeniably, that
“truth”, to him, is a subjective matter based on preference rather
than observable fact, and has little to do with reality. I honestly pity him,
but I have no choice but to accept that he is simply beyond help. But there are
others who might be able to learn from Christo’s mistakes, and I’m hoping one
of them might stumble across this post and at the very least learn something
new about the world, if not themselves. (The original letter in black, references to
the sections of my reply in red, and my responses
themselves in blue.)

(You can read the original here: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Creation-vs-Evolution-20120710
)

Creation vs Evolution

10 July 2012, 15:46

by wwjdrevolution

Truth and lies are forces that can unarguably be witnessed
during the Evolution / Creation debate. Somebody is wrong!  In this case truth needs to be established in
order to discern fact from propaganda, which is driven by lies. The Evolution /
Creation issue is most probably one of the most important studies and has no
place for deceitful statements, peoples worldview is at stake. Somebody is
wrong and I enjoy pointing out who! (1)

First of all before I get started I wish to just say that I
appreciated every single comment that has been aimed towards me and do not take
even one personally.  I know sometimes
things tend to get a little out of hand here in the “News24 Bull ring” but it
just shows you how seriously people can get about their Religion. I have
learned through trial and error that one can’t always refute all statements
made; you have to eat the meat and spit out the bones.  That’s the only productive way truth can be
established. Scientists would surely agree on this, not all tests and
experiments performed in the Lab are performed with a 100% success rate, yet
still in every instance observations can be made and a report compiled. (2)

When we discuss the topic of Evolution and Creation there is
no space for presumptions or personal opinions. People’s worldview is at stake
and ones worldview determines the way you make choices and how you treat
people. Let’s be realistic, if you think you came from an ape…you are most
probably going to act like one, without rules, moral standards or any values. (3)

So let’s begin

When we look at the Debate concerning Evolution vs Creation
we need to define Science first.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”)
is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of
testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[ (4)

There are a couple different meanings or subdivisions to the
term Evolution.

Cosmic, Chemical, Stellar and Planetary, Organic, Macro
Evolution and Micro (variations).

This will then be the basis from which we will then base our
investigation upon.

Cosmic evolution: The origins of time, space and matter (Big
Bang). The Big Bang surely can’t be the origin of time space and matter.
Apparently Something exploded – Where did that something come from? Did nothing
explode? because that’s impossible. Where did the energy come from that caused
the Explosion? The Big Bang does not explain where matter came from and I can’t
understand how Evolution Scientists can even regard the Big Bang as an
Explanation of time, space and matter. It just cannot be called Scientific.
It’s only realistic in the imagination. (5)

Chemical evolution: The evolution of higher elements past
Hydrogen. The periodic table does not allow for this! Cannot be called
Scientific. (6)

Stellar and Planetary: Origin of stars and planets. All that
Scientists see is stars getting brighter and they presume it’s a star being
born. Couldn’t it be dust clearing up? It cannot be called Scientific (7)

Organic evolution: Origin of life. Nobody has made life,
maybe cloned or copied but not made a living cell in a lab. Yet organic
evolution is excepted by all Evolutionists. Another Imaginary case. (8)

Macro evolution: Changing from one kind into another. Now
this is the one that Evolutionists put the time factor on, “millions and billions
of years ago”. Nobody has observed this. The only proof they have is different
fossils and bones being digged up which I’m also not sure how the link works
because the only thing you know of a fossil or skelleton is that it has died…
You surely can’t prove it had offspring it may have been the last of its
species and now extinct but yet they pursue them all being tied together. I
don’t get that! It SURELY cannot be Scientific. Case of Imaganation. (9)

Micro Evolution: Variations within kinds. The only one that
has been observed. Example, Different variations of dogs. A Great Dane and fox
terrier are still the same kind… a Dog. Variations within a kind is limited,
you don’t see dogs giving birth to horses. (10)

The point I’m trying to make, is how Evolutionists can call
Evolution Science yet it’s not Science in the True definition. If Evolution
isn’t Science, it’s a Religion then. (11)

Science in the true Sense suggests more a Creation account
than anything else. The complexity of cells and DNA is proof of a Designer and
creator. Evolution is a pointless and a dangerous religion with its only
purpose being to discredit God. There are only 2 worldviews, the one being
“pure accident” Evolution and the other Creation. The theory of Evolution
suggests that death of man brought life.. Evolving and evolving till you have
the elite breed. I’m very much convinced that Evolution also promotes Racism
and many other forms of Communism. It’s Obvious that the Propaganda of
Evolution is merely an attack on the people of the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob as it is pointless and does not contribute a thing to Science. Yet the
followers of this so called “Theory” get extremely upset and aggressive in
defending this Religion. They go so far as to ignore some common laws of physics
like, “The 2nd law of thermodynamics”, which suggests deterioration instead of
bigger, better, stronger and more intelligent growth which Evolution suggests.
Also Digging deeper into History, major events like the holocaust which was
driven by an Evolutionist Hitler clearly underlines what the Communist theory
of Evolution’s motive was and still is today. Hitler said, “if you control the
Textbooks you control the youth.” I presume that’s why the only place you find
the Geological column are in the textbooks whereas in reality you find
petrified trees in the upright position penetrating the so called multiple
layers and making the illustrations in the textbooks even look more like a
figure of someone’s imagination

I have nothing against Science, I love Science. It’s
beneficial to the world community but don’t call Evolution Science. Evolution
is a religion which only purpose is to discredit God. Its useless and
Dangerous. (12)

As I said in the beginning there are only two possible
worldviews (Pure Chance) Evolution/(Intelligent Designer)Creation. (13)

After looking at the Primary Evidence for the religion of
Evolution I came to the conclusion that In the Beginning God created the
Heavens and the Earth. That’s my religion which as a bonus comes with some
moral values and in addition Everlasting LIFE ! 
The biggest Question evolutionists have to ask themselves is … How do
you Distinguish right from wrong being a Evolutionist? It is so clear, just by
looking at their comments on News 24 that they don’t possess this Gift! (14)

Last Question and closing statement that I would like to
pose at them is: Is it pure Accident that the Bible describes people Scoffing
at the word of God? (15)

2 Peter 3:3-7

King James Version (KJV)

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since
the fathers fell asleep(Flood), all things continue as they were from the
beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word
of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in
the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with
water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same
word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and
perdition of ungodly men.

Because if it is not pure accident like your theory, your
future isn’t looking that promising and evolution stops with you.

God Bless

Christo (16)

1. This is where the alarm bells
should start going off. Not only do you “enjoy” accusing people who
differ in opinion of being deceitful (Oh the irony! And it says a lot about you
as a person. Does the word “petty” ring a bell?), but you treat
Creationism and Science as if they are on equal footing, which is something
that has even been shown to be false in a court of law, and that in the most
religious first-world country on earth no less. But lets give you the benefit
of the doubt for now, and see what the rest of your letter contains so we can
figure our who exactly is really guilty of deceit, and who is really trying to
spread lies as propaganda.

2. True, not all statements can
be refuted, but that does not make a statement more true, or more false, or
mean that we shouldn’t. What does render a statement false however, is
incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. And knowingly ignoring such evidence
is dishonest.

And you completely misunderstand
the purpose of experimentation. Experimentation is merely a controlled way of
observing behavior. There is no such thing as “success” in the
context you describe it. An experiment either produces “results”, or
it doesn’t. It is merely a controlled way of producing data. The same experiment
performed multiple times will always produce the same result. (Changing the
input parameters will change the result, but then it is a different
experiment…)

3. “Presumtions” – and
assumptions – aside, you are correct: “truth” is not subject to
opinion. But a person’s world view is, to a large extent, based on exactly that. Your taste in music,
preferred sports teams, how much sugar you take in your coffee… these are not
things based on fact, but your own preferences, and still they have an
effect on how you think and how you act in a given situation. Science however,
doesn’t care about opinion or preference. Nor does it care what you base your
world view on. It’s all about choice. And that choice includes accepting or
ignoring evidence.

Your statement: “…if
you think you came from an ape…you are most probably going to act like one,
without rules, moral standards or any values.”
Is a prime example of you touting your opinion
as fact. And to make things worse, it can, and has been, repeatedly, shown to be false. So, not only are you not being
realistic, but I can see no way how you can make such a statement without knowing you’re lying. And where’s your
proof? None of the people in the office I’m sitting in, that I  happen to know accept evolutionary theory,
seem to be acting like apes. In fact, they are all upstanding and respectable
people. So the conclusion can only be that you are either lying, or that your
idea of how an ape acts is completely different to the way apes have been
observed to act. Either way, your statement is completely false.

And as far as people
“coming from an ape” goes. Again, you are either completely ignorant
of what evolutionary theory actually states, or you are purposely misrepresenting the truth (Judging by the falsehoods in
your letter thus far, I’m going to bet it is the latter.) No-one (except
dishonest creationists, and a few ignorant journo’s perhaps) has ever stated that we come from “an
ape”. The closest description thus far has been “ape-like”, and
the operative term should be “common descent”. The theory does not
state that we are descended from apes, it states that we and apes are descended
from a common ancestor. In layman’s
terms: Apes aren’t our ancestors, they’re our cousins. Is that really so hard
to remember? Even if you don’t think this is true, at least put some effort
into getting it right.

4. You can research the meaning
of a word everyone knows, but can’t be bothered to research the things you are
trying to debunk? Why am I not surprised?

5. First off, the word
“evolution” has a specific meaning, but simply adding a word to the
front of it does not make that subject part of “Evolutionary Theory”.
Cosmology is not part of Darwin‘s
theory. Neither is Chemistry. Or organic chemistry for that matter. These are
completely different fields of study, and your attempt at trying to blanket
them all under Biology is ridiculous. Clearly you are opposed to more than just
the idea of evolution. You are opposing almost every field of science that does
not strictly adhere to the Genesis account, which is pretty much all of it.

Second, your understanding of
the Big Bang theory appears to be just as warped as your understanding of
evolutionary theory. Have you ever even researched it? Do you understand the
concepts involved? Clearly not. You were simply told it is a lie by someone
else who had no idea what they were talking about, and now you try to spread
that false opinion because you feel it somehow opposes your god. And then you
have the audacity to say: “It just cannot be called Scientific.
It’s only realistic in the imagination.”

Ironically, the Big Bang Theory
is a lot more “Scientific” than you could imagine. Every part of the
event postulated has been proven to be physically possible. And here you state
that “something can’t come from nothing”, yet attribute exactly the
same feat to your god. If matter can’t come from nothing, then how did your god
do it? The advantage of the Big Bang theory is that it would have left
evidence, some of which we seem to have found. And even if the BB theory turns
out to be wrong, it doesn’t make your hypothesis true by default. God made it
all in a week? Prove it. (Someone else writing a book saying it is so isn’t
proof. If it were we’d have to accept comic books as evidence that superheroes
exist)

Your hypothesis consists merely
of a single assertion, with no evidence. “God did it. Just shut up and
believe.” is the best you’ve come up with, and yet you claim that your
argument is scientifically sound…

6. The Periodic table doesn’t
allow for it?! Are you high?! Do you even know what the periodic table is?
Really…

Anyway, the process you’re
talking about here is called nuclear fusion. And the proof of it is simply
irrefutable (and the reason the periodic table is laid out according to atomic
number, duh!). Not only can it be indirectly observed in stars, but it has been
achieved  experimentally on earth. In
fact, scientists have been working on harnessing controlled nuclear fusion for
electricity production for years. Again, you clearly have no idea what you’re
talking about. 

7. Your stupidity is truly
amazing. Again you clearly don’t have the vaguest idea of how stars are formed
or how such processes are observed. Stars getting brighter? Hardly. Gravity is
the main culprit. That same silly “theory” that keeps your cornflakes
in the bowl is what causes those clouds of gas to coalesce into giant balls of
gas that eventually get compressed to the point that they ignite (If you
compress gas, it heats up. You can prove that in a high school science class.)
Next time, do some research before making dumb-ass statements like that. “
It cannot be called Scientific “… really…
you don’t even know what science is!

8. Aside from the fact that
“Evolutionists” actually “accept” instead of
“except” evolution at a cellular level, it has little to do with
abiogenesis, which is the process which produced “life”. Evolution is
the change observed in already living organisms, and at a cellular level has
been repeatedly proven to be true.

This is another misrepresentation
you could easily have corrected had you done even the most basic research.
Clearly the only ting that is “imaginary” in your statements is the
delusion that you actually know what you’re talking about.

9. Aside from the fact that
you’d have to be a complete retard to think that something that takes millions
of years to occur can somehow be “observed” in a few human
generations, you again have very little actual knowledge of the fossil record
and what it represents. And you blatantly ignore the fact that the advances in
technology and science that make it possible to observe such change is itself
not millions of years old. But if that is really what it takes for you to
accept it, how about you shut up for a few million years while that evidence is
being compiled?

And then you moan that “
You surely can’t prove it had offspring it may have been the last of its
species “, but completely ignore the much more
likely scenario that said animal wasn’t the only one of its species. It is in
fact a lot safer to assume that there were many of them, some of whom went on
to reproduce and one of which ended up in the very rare situation of dying in
the right conditions to be fossilized. (This “assumption is supported by
the discovery of a fossil of the same animal in two different locations. That
way there had to be more than one, and both very likely had parents and
siblings who could reproduce.) But of course you don’t get it, because you’re
under the impression that finding a fossil somehow translates to evolution.
It’s the similarities between animals, present and past, on a physiological,
biological and genetic level that supports the idea of biological change via
natural selection. So just because you “don’t get it”, doesn’t mean
it’s not true. I, for one, “don’t get” how you can knowingly lie
about the evidence like this, but yet, here you are…

10. Again… You lie! You lie!
Variations within kinds can be observed almost everywhere. Variety in humans
(Asian, Arab, Caucasian, African – who can all inter-breed), variation in
equines (Horses, Ponies, Zebra, Kwagga – who can also inter-breed, but cannot
produce viable offspring – i.e. their kids are born sterile, and thus cannot
breed themselves ), Felines (Lions, Tigers, various kinds of wild cat,
domesticated cats – I know lions and tigers can cross-breed, but I’m not so
sure a lion and a Ginger can.) In fact, the idea of a Chihuahua and a Great Dane presents the same
conundrum. Is it even physiologically possible? If not, would that not be
enough of a distinction to consider the two dissimilar enough to constitute
separate species? And what about different kinds of snakes? And whales? Can
they even inter-breed at all? They’re obviously all of the same
“kind”, but speciation carries with it the simple requirement that
the animals must not be able to inter-breed. And DNA evidence shows that humans
were able to inter-breed with Neanderthals… Fact is, the more you look at
animals that share major traits and trace their ancestry, the more examples you
get of groups diverging to the point where they are no longer biologically
compatible. And if that trend is the norm then it is completely
“scientific” to state that there’s a high probability that such
seemingly minute variations can, over time, give rise to divergence so varied
that identifying traits once shared could no longer even be recognizable.

So of course dogs won’t give
birth to horses you fuckin’ chop. That is just another lie made up by
Creationists to fool people into thinking evolution is something other than it
is.

11. Clearly, based on all the
lies and deception your letter contains thus far, I don’t believe you are in
any way qualified to make such deductions. You clearly have absolutely no
insight or knowledge pertaining to the things you claim are untrue. You do not
even seem to grasp the most basic tenets of science, yet presume to sit in
judgment of evolutionary theory. And as evidence you produce nothing but
falsehoods and misrepresentations, many of which you most certainly must have
heard the correct versions of, but clearly chose to ignore. And then you add
insult to injury by proclaiming a scientifically proven hypothesis a
“religion” based on nothing else but your egocentric need to
discredit the sciences. And do you not find it ironic that you claim that
evolution cannot be true, because it is a religion, and then try to replace it
with your own religion? You, sir, are scum…

12. And here your true colors start
to show. All the lies and deceit of the previous paragraphs concocted as evidence
to claim that a scientific theory is somehow a cult, just like your religion.
All that avoidance of actual research just so you can claim a bunch of nonsense
about communism, Hitler, and the laws of thermodynamics… Unfortunately for
you I’m not that easily bullied into remaining silent, and I too enjoy pointing
out idiocy – the only difference being that I have actual evidence, and the
intelligence to understand it. So lets take this long winded buffoonery you
call writing apart and correct some of the errors.

- “ The complexity
of cells and DNA is proof of a Designer and creator. “:
FALSE. Complexity does not necessarily constitute proof of a designer. In fact,
what you claim is “complexity” is in actual fact only “storage
space”. When a cell divides it doesn’t split a strand of DNA in half, it
creates two stands the same length as the original. The amount of information
that is stored within the strand is thus preserved. If one of the strands has a
copy error, this amounts to variation, not a diminishing of the amount of
information it contains.

- “ Evolution is a
pointless and a dangerous religion with its only purpose being to discredit
God. “: FALSE. Evolution is merely a
hypothesis that has a lot of supporting evidence. You might as well call a tv-guide
a religion. It’s only purpose is to try and explain something about the life on
our planet. It honestly doesn’t give a fuck about your god, or whether or not
you believe it. And the only danger it seems to pose is to archaic beliefs such
as yours.

- “ There are only 2
worldviews, the one being “pure accident” Evolution and the other Creation. ” FALSE. Evolution occurs via multiple mechanisms:
Natural selection, genetic mutation and environmentally driven adaptation.
There is no mention of “pure accident”. Also, there is a third, and
much more widely accepted world view: Creation via evolution. In essence, that
God used evolution as a fulcrum for creating biodiversity. Accepting
evolutionary theory as true does not make you a non-believer any more than
believing in pink unicorns makes you an astronaut.

- “ The theory of
Evolution suggests that death of man brought life.. Evolving and evolving till
you have the elite breed. “: FALSE. Go study
up on what evolutionary theory actually says.

- “. I’m very much
convinced that Evolution also promotes Racism and many other forms of
Communism.“: FALSE. You have no proof of this.
And Racism is most certainly not a form of Communism. In fact, the vast
majority of racists use the Christian Bible as proof that their bigotry is
warranted. Evolution has never in human history been used as an excuse to
oppress anyone. And communism is a political philosophy that merely tries to
remove religiosity in order to suppress revolt. The same way some religion
tries to subvert science in order to suppress skepticism.

- “ It’s Obvious
that the Propaganda of Evolution is merely an attack on the people of the God
of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as it is pointless and does not contribute a thing
to Science. “: FALSE. It is not propaganda. It
is merely a statement of observed facts. It doesn’t give a flying rat’s ass
about whether or not your god exists, no matter who’s god it is. This is
evidenced by the fat that it never
mentions God in any technically relevant way. And it does contribute much to
science. It is the reason why technologies behind antiretrovirals, antibiotics,
and flu vaccines even work. Studying the way viruses evolve gives us an edge in
protecting ourselves from them.

- “ Yet the
followers of this so called “Theory” get extremely upset and aggressive in
defending this Religion. They go so far as to ignore some common laws of
physics like, “The 2nd law of thermodynamics”, which suggests deterioration
instead of bigger, better, stronger and more intelligent growth which Evolution
suggests.“: FALSE. Many do get upset, but that
has more to do with you spreading lies about us and about the sciences than any
fear of being wrong. We know we’re right, you just don’t like hearing it, and
then decide to vilify us because we scare you. God’s chosen few cowering in the
presence of reality. Pathetic…

Also, you clearly have no idea
what repercussions there are to applying the second law of thermodynamics to
the universe. Doing so essentially disproves the existence of God. And on a
biological level you are misapplying the second law to the point of it being
laughable. In the first place, all the law states is that a closed system tends
towards entropy until it achieves equilibrium. (There’s a HUGE difference between entropy and
deterioration. I suggest you pull out that dictionary of yours again.) And it
does not define what form entropy will take.

- Bigger? Elephants are bigger than us. So are gorillas, whales,
sharks, alligators… Your point is moot. 

- Better? What is better? Sharper teeth? Ours are blunt. Better
sight? Ours is weak. Better hearing? Ours is weak. Better immune system? We get
sick from the most innocuous things… Your point is moot.

- Stronger? Can you beat a chimp at arm-wrestling? Clearly we’re not
as strong as you think. In fact, judging by the amount of people killed by
animals smaller than us, “stronger” is not a title we’re even in
contention for.

- Smarter? That’s about the only thing you can say about us… and
even then it’s tenuous, because even with this supposed massive intellect we
are still the only species that has trouble feeding itself, kills for pleasure,
destroys its surroundings, upsets the natural balance of its habitat… The
list goes on. Smarter? Arrogant is more like it…

- “Also Digging deeper
into History, major events like the holocaust which was driven by an
Evolutionist Hitler clearly underlines what the Communist theory of Evolution’s
motive was and still is today. Hitler said, “if you control the Textbooks you
control the youth.” I presume that’s why the only place you find the Geological
column are in the textbooks whereas in reality you find petrified trees in the
upright position penetrating the so called multiple layers and making the
illustrations in the textbooks even look more like a figure of someone’s
imagination“: FALSE. Hitler was a Catholic,
and believed he was exercising the will of God (Yes, the very same God you
worship.) Also, he was a Nationalist, not a Communist. In fact, Hitler
apparently despised and distrusted Communists. And contrary to what you claim,
scientific theories don’t have political opinions any more than rocks have
wings. You might as well accuse gravity of being Capitalist.

And you espouse only one of a
couple of theories as to how upright fossilized trees can occur. This is
clearly a case of your under-developed imagination being unable to grasp any
concepts beyond “God did it”. You mention the trees, but ridicule the
sedimentary layering around the trees (the very same layering you claim is
“imaginary”) that the pictures in the text-books you so despise
depict. Again you keep only parts of the facts that you like and pretend the
rest doesn’t exist or misrepresent it so you can pretend there’s something
wrong with it.

13. WRONG! See point 12 above.

14. Great, so you’re saying that
an alternate theory being (very poorly) proven wrong by extension magically
means yours is right. Great piece of logic that is… That’s the mental
equivalent of saying “pink unicorns are mean, therefore potatoes taste
yellow.” Your “theory”, and lets face it, that’s all it is, has
absolutely no evidence except a collection of old writings from a very small
part of the populated world. That’s it. Nothing else. Just that. Not a single
shred of concrete evidence.

And in answer to your question:
I can distinguish wrong from right in several ways, and not a single one of
them requires the existence of a god. And furthermore, my ability to
distinguish the difference has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary
theory. Let me explain it to you in terms a 3 year old might understand: Being
poked is not nice. If it’s not nice for me, it’s probably not nice for others,
so poking people is wrong. And nowhere does that simple piece of logic depend
on where polony comes from. And you’re hardly one to judge are you? Not a
single point you made has been truthful, yet you sit there smugly accusing
others of not being able to distinguish right from wrong? Didn’t your god teach
you that lying is wrong?

15. Not at all. If only a
fraction of believers were anything like you, being ridiculed must have been an
accepted part of life throughout the hundreds of years it took to write your
precious little holy book. What better way to prepare followers for the
onslaught than to warn them after the fact by phrasing it as a prediction? Or
are you implying that St. Paul,
the hunter of Christians, lived in a time when no-one ridiculed Christians?

16. Ooh, now I’m scared… A
book who’s authenticity and veracity is already in doubt is saying that I will
be judged and tortured for eternity… really…

My future looks very bright from
this perspective. And barring the looming shadow of oppressive religious dogma
being forced on everyone, the future of mankind looks bright as well. Technology
is opening doors that even a generation ago people could not even have imagined.
We are even managing the first steps of preparation in becoming an
inter-planetary species. Every day that passes brings new discoveries about our
world and our universe, and with those discoveries come understanding and
appreciation. It is good to know how things work. It is good to know how to use
that knowledge to improve our short lives on this tiny planet, and it is
awesome to know that one day my descendants might walk on other worlds and see
things that I could not even imagine. If only the religious right would stop
hindering our progress.

Okay, that last part was a
little more starry-eyed than I intended, but that is the way I feel. And if
someone could be so kind as to maybe post a link to my blog on one of the next
anti-atheist pieces on MyNews24, so Dumbwin and co. might have a chance at
reading an actual reply, I would be very much obliged.

Now go away and do something
useful.

LJ

Okay, it seems in trying to edit my previous post I have inadvertantly deleted it… and now this stupid Letterdash text editor won’t allow me to re-post it… Very annoying…

Speaking of which, when is this whole blog migration thing supposed to happen? I’m hoping WordPress has better functionality than this cruddy thing…

DISCLAIMER: This is a post in reply
to a MyNews24 article and is merely an opinion on an opinion (Did that make
sense?). It’s a relatively nice one though, so I’ll tone down my inherent
nastiness a bit. Comments, as always, are more than welcome. Trolls will…
well, we’ll see what mood I’m in at the time. Enjoy… if you must.

This was one of the better articles
on religion and evolution posted on MyNews24 in quite some time. It’s calm,
relatively rational, and attacks an argument instead of a person. There are one
or two things I feel PoliticallyIncorrect misunderstands though, so I’m going
to attempt to explain them in my own wayward fashion.

Original in black, my replies in blue, (tiny red numbers) represent points
where I would interject. Straightforward enough?

Here’s the original: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/It-is-really-easy-to-be-an-atheist-20120705

Let’s roll…

It is really easy to be an atheist

05 July 2012, 09:36

by PoliticallyIncorrect

Atheism does not require you to think.  All that is required of an atheist is to let
others do the thinking and working out, and the atheist just need to believe
this.  Atheists do not apply logic.  Well not properly at least. (1)

I am a computer consultant. 
In my tertiary education I was taught to apply logic.  Computer systems work on logic.  Programs work on logic: if you change
something in your program at point A, it is logical it will change something in
the program’s execution at another point.  
Everything you believe, should on some level make logical sense.

Here is the crunch: 
There was a big bang, an explosion of sorts, that caused LIFE, fauna,
flora and geographic features to develop into what we have today.  The matter (or dark matter) or Higgs Boson et
al always existed.  All the materials for
life to exist was either already there, or developed unassisted without any
design into what we have today, over many millenia.

Let scrutinize this. 
My wife has all the components needed to bake a cake in her
kitchen.  It has always been there since
the day it was bought.  No matter how
many times I try to blow it up, or throw everything together, I cannot get it
to turn into a cake.  Even if I throw all
the correct amounts of ingredients together, it cannot become a cake without
designed intervention.  Certain steps has
to be followed, and you cannot skip step A, and then remember to apply it after
step B.  You will have to start over. (2)

So the big bang theory is full of holes.  In any event, where did the big bang come
from?  Atheists will say then where did
God come from.  Truth is neither of us
know, and we will never know. Higgs Boson or not. In fact, the CERN Scientists
themselves say it has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. So it
is off to the fossil records… (3)

Now consider this:  In
2000 years some alien race (hypothetically speaking) lands on the earth and do
some excavations.  They dig up the skull
of a housecat, and decides to call it Scientificus Cataclisimus.  A few years later they dig up a skull of a
leopard, and call it Scientificus Leopardius. 
They then pick up several bone fragments over many years, and yes, this
confirms that Scientificus Leopardius is a descendant of Scientificus
Cataclisimus.   Evolution.  Or Not…

National Geographic tells us about the wonder of the first
shaky steps the whale gave on land when land mammals descended from sea
animals.  Really?  This sea mammal starts swimming on to land
and evolve its fins into legs?  Really??
How did this happen, oh yes, over millions of years.  Except for this small flaw, Mr Whale only had
one lifetime.  Presumably Mrs Whale did
not have legs instead of fins.  So Mr
Whale had a good time with Mrs Whale, and their first offspring is born.  With fins, not legs.  What now? 
How many times over and over did this have to happen?  Sometimes human babies are born with what
resembles a tail.  Atheists believe this
is proof we descended from apes.  Yet,
when those babies grow up, they do not produce offsprings with tails. See, it
was an oddity, and rectified by the next offspring.  Mr Whale and Mrs Whale would have had the
same results. 

Eskimo’s have been living in snow for many, many years.  There is NO evidence that their feet or
evolving into something more suitable for walking in snow.  Have they stopped evolving?  I know lots of people making a living out of
swimming, or fishing, or diving.  Yet
none of them, on even the most microscopic level are developing an ability to
breath under water.  Even if they do,
this alien development will be phased out in the offspring. (4)

Now, what about all the inbetween stages of
development?  Presumable the big bang did
not produce beings with a penis or a vagina. 
Now again it happened over millions of years.  It is always handy if you have millions of
years.  Now for offspring to happen, you
need sperm.  How did the creature
reproduce while developing a penis or vagina for a few million or thousand
years?  Did the being produce offspring
that were half born some other way and half born from a result of
copulation?  Really?  And all the while it was still developing
loads and loads and loads of other items needed to be able to live.  Like hearts. 
But what the hell did the heart do without the blood?  O gosh! 
No wait, the blood came first. How did the blood flow without the
heart?  Oops! Oh dear, the heart needed
oxygen.  How did the heart get oxygen
without the lungs?  Oh, the lungs were
there already.  Oh goodness, the lungs
need blood….  But not to worry all the
billions and trillions of interdependencies all happened by sheer coincidence
through processes started by the big bang. 
Without design. (5)

Then, there is the animals with camouflage.  Oh yes, that grasshopper that looks exactly
like the leafs it feasts on, including the veins, happened by coincidence.  Really? 
Yes, it happened because one little baby grasshopper was born that
looked a little more like a leave than the rest of his siblings.  And he survived predation because he was a
little less visible than his peers.  So
he succeeded.  Natural selection.  Oh yes? So Mr. Odd Grasshopper had offspring
from his copulation with Mrs. Normal Grasshopper, and his genes got carried
over and were stronger.  Yet the gene
pool for the entire leaf grasshopper population had the majority of genes from
normal ones.  You do the sums.  And grasshoppers don’t live for many
years.  Nevermind millions of years.  So all this evolution had to happen rather
quickly.  And all the while looking out
that Mr. Odd Grasshopper is not trampled to death by Mr. Dinosaur, who used to
be Mr Whale.

I can go on for years with all of this.  Evolution minus Design equals
Impossible!  Use logic.  I know the kind of responses I am going to get
from atheists.  A lot of them will attack
my intelligence or my person.  Today’s
scientists do exactly what the Catholic Church did before Luther.  Provide just enough evidence to keep the
mystery going, but make all the in between processes seem so complicated that
atheists have to believe them.  There are
2 ways evidence can work:  You can make
your theory fit the evidence, or make the evidence fit your theory.  You be the judge, but please think logically!
(6)

1. The first sentence almost got
my hopes up, but then it degenerated into a badly worded insult. Not a very
good way to start things if you wish to be taken seriously. It’s just an
opinion though. I’ve heard far worse and far more insulting from people far
less honest and far less intelligent, so I’ll let it slide, for now. What you
almost had right though is that atheism does not require you to do anything. I
find it amusing that people tend to assume that not doing something somehow requires effort. Being atheist requires about as much effort as not licking
the underside of your boots, or not purposely pouring coffee in your lap.
Atheism is the lack of belief. And that is all. It doesn’t require you to be
smart, or be well versed in physics or biology or even tying your own
shoelaces. You can just as easily be an atheist street-sweeper or an atheist
housewife as an atheist rocket scientist. So making a blanket statements like
saying atheists don’t apply logic properly, or inferring all atheists are
somehow intellectually lazy is totally untrue and assigns values to the label
that shouldn’t be there. It’s the same thing as saying all Muslims are terrorists.
It’s not just untrue, it’s intolerant, insensitive and dishonest. Not very
attractive traits in any person, never mind a Christian….

2. Like you, I too work in a
technical field. What I deal with day to day isn’t “computer logic”
though, it’s more like “design logic”. Slightly more convoluted than
“if, then” statements. But I get what you’re trying to say, though I
think things are quite a bit more complicated than that. Simply stating that
something makes logical sense does not imply that it is actually true. I, for
instance, can believe that my wife loves me. She married me, and she often says
she loves me, so it makes logical sense that she must truly love me. That does
not mean it is true though. She might secretly despise me, and have only married
me because it was convenient because I’m rich, and not too demanding. It might
also be that she married me because of social/religious pressures, and remains
in the marriage because she fears being judged or being ostracized by family or
friends for social/religious reasons. Or in a mathematical sense I can say that
the sum of two numbers is 6, therefore logically the two numbers must be 3 and
3. But the same holds for 2 and 4, or 5 and 1. Or none of them if you are
allowed to use 0 as a number, or you can work in fractions. So even if multiple
options all make logical sense it is entirely possible for one, or even all of
them (if the premise is found to be false) to be untrue.

Also, you seem to misunderstand
some things regarding the Big-Bang theory. For one, no-one has ever claimed the
Big-Bang is in any way responsible for “creating” life or geography
or whatever. Basically you’re reading the first page and then skipping to the
last page and trying to somehow infer that the stuff in the middle must be
wrong because the story-line doesn’t make sense to you. True, all matter and energy in the universe must have
existed during and after the rapid expansion (Explosion is a bit of a misnomer.
It makes people think fireballs and loud noises when it was in fact a lot more
like an airbag deploying.) but saying it had to exist before would be illogical, because there couldn’t have been a
“before” if time didn’t exist. And as Einstein illustrated, space and
time are irrevocably entwined. No space, no time. Period. And then of course in
the process a lot of matter has been converted into energy in the form of heat
via annihilation, and then a lot of lighter elements have been turned into
heavier elements inside the nuclear furnaces of stars. And then a lot of stars
exploded, creating huge clouds of “dust” which in turn coalesced into
yet more stars, and eventually, planets… and on and on we can go…

Your cake analogy, though
interesting, is also somewhat flawed. First, you, as the baker, most certainly
didn’t make the ingredients themselves before baking the cake, did you? And
surely the yeast you used didn’t act the way it does purely because you wanted
it to, did it? And if it did, then why use yeast? Why not sand? Would it still
be a cake if you did? Obviously not. What you are doing is little more than
rearranging existing complexity and taking advantage of the pre-existing
attributes of each ingredient. That doesn’t quite equate with claiming to have
materialized the already baked cake out of thin air by thinking about a cake.
Or materializing the ingredients out of thin air in order to bake a cake.

3. I don’t really understand
what you are trying to say here. The Big Bang theory is essentially only
missing one part: the beginning. The rest of it does in fact stand up very well
under scrutiny. And no scientist ever claimed that the Higgs had anything to do
with God, or gods. That is a claim only ever made by religious folk, and based
on a very unfortunate (or stupid) mistake in naming the thing, nothing else.

4) Again you seem to completely
misunderstand the concept of descent with modification via natural selection.
First off, no-one (except, again, certain religious folk) ever claimed that one
whale, one day in the distant past, suddenly sprouted legs instead of fins.
Your analogy, if put into the correct context and adhering to the actual
principles of evolutionary theory, should run more like this: Mr. Whale was
born with bigger, stronger flippers. This enabled him to get further up the
beach to get food. This made Mr. Whale better at feeding himself, and thus more
likely to survive, than his weak-flippered counterparts. This made Mr. Whale a
better option as a mate. So when Mr. Whale and Mrs. Whale had little whales of
their own, some had strong flippers, and some had weaker flippers. Again, those
with stronger flippers could survive better, so they were more likely to
survive and find a mate, and produce offspring of their own, each successive
generation getting stronger and better adapted flippers until many, many
generations later, if you compared the original Mr. Whale to this latest
version, the flippers might not even have the same shape anymore. In fact, if
you let such an incremental change continue for enough generations, the latest
version of the flipper might not even look anything like a flipper anymore. And
then we’re not even looking at changes in muscle and bone structure to
accommodate this odd feeding habit.

Same with the “tail”
thing. If having such a tail gave you a better chance at finding a mate, then
obviously at some point two people with a “tail” would eventually
come together to have children who have tails. And those children, having an
advantage, would be more likely to have children than those without. Again,
keep playing the statistics that long, and eventually, finding a person without
a tail would be considered an oddity instead of the other way around.

And you are absolutely dead
wrong about such subtle changes being “rectified” by the offspring.
If that were true then no-one would ever become immune to the flu virus
(immunity is a biological change, is it not?) Also, if we are truly all
descended from Noah, then there shouldn’t be any people with blue eyes (Noah
and his family, we can assume, must have been Arab) because it is biologically
impossible for two people with brown eyes to have children with blue eyes. And
yet here I sit. I’m not dark skinned. And my eyes are most definitely blue.
Same with both my parents. So what gives?

Your Eskimo analogy (actually,
the correct term would be Inuit. All Eskimos are Inuit, but not all Inuit are
Eskimos… Get it?) also misses something important. True, their feet haven’t
noticeably adapted to snow. But then again, why would they? They wear boots and
make snow shoes for themselves. There’s simply no need to adapt in that way.
There is however another adaptation you’re overlooking: Height. The average
Inuit is quite a bit shorter than the average European. Why is that? Again, if
we are all descended from Noah (or Adam, take your pick), and each successive
generation loses the adaptations of its parents, then everyone in the world
should be around the same size… So why the big variety?

As for the breathing under water
thing… Now you’re just being preposterous for the sake of hammering home your
point. Why would they need to develop the ability to breathe under water? Does
their survival actually depend upon it? Do they actually live and conceive
children in the water? Somehow I doubt they do. And again you are basing your
example on the completely ridiculous notion that such a thing can
“evolve” in one single generation.

5) As I pointed out earlier, the
Big Bang can hardly be said to be responsible for any of the things you
mention. You should find whoever fed you that ridiculous story and give them a
good slap for being so dishonest. The development of male and female species is
a subject I have never really looked at in depth, but I’m sure with just a
little Googling you might actually find one or two actual Biologists who can explain
it to you. (Try to avoid religious sites. It’s not that their religious that’s
the problem, but that they tend to be severely biased and generally totally
unqualified to deal with the topic with any kind of honesty.)

And what’s so wrong with millions
of years anyway? Is it because you simply don’t like the idea? Or is it a
religious thing? Do you honestly believe that the light from galaxies millions
of years away only took a couple of thousand years to get here? Are you saying
that we have the speed of light wrong? Or are you trying to say it was
“created” that way on purpose to deceive us into thinking the
universe is older than it really is? Such assertions create more questions than
answers. And to add insult to injury you’re using an ancient text as proof that
we can’t measure things accurately in the 21st century… Either that or we’re
still being purposely and continuously deceived by your “creator”.

6) Alright, I think I’ve
established that you simply don’t understand evolutionary theory or the Big
Bang as well as you might think you do. So I’m not going to try and correct the
misconceptions in the last two paragraphs (again). What I will say though is
that I think you’re wrong. You analyzed the data based on a bunch of false
premises. Also, you make yourself guilty of the exact same thing you are trying
(and failing) to accuse science of: You’re assuming the Bible is correct and
expecting the evidence to fit with it. The mere fact that you are unwilling to
change your mind about your beliefs is evidence enough that you’re being a bit
of a hypocrite by accusing scientists of trying to doctor the evidence to fit
their theories. If you’re not prepared to change your point of view based on
new evidence then clearly you’re the one that has a problem with thinking
logically…

Right. So I’ve given you my opinion
on the matter. And who knows, maybe tomorrow will bring new evidence. If it
does I will gladly change my position accordingly. But until such a time I ask
you to at least pretend to tolerate my view that The Bible and its adherents
are simply not trustworthy enough to base my view of the universe on. It’s not
that I think religious folk are bad people. Quite the contrary. It’s just that
I prefer to at least be able to look at some evidence and if possible, test it
myself, before subscribing to it. My skeptical (some might say cynical) nature
simply doesn’t allow me to believe things “on faith” alone.
Especially not if there seems to be so little agreement among the various
proponents.

Now go away and do something
useful…

LJ

DISCLAIMER: This is another anti-Dumbwin rant. Theists beware… (-Insert echo-ey evil laugh here.-)

Right. So Charles has decided to grace us with another of his, um… “opinion pieces”. (See the original as well as the comments here (if you have the stomach for such things): http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Evolution-Schmution-20120626 ) And, as I have come to expect from Charles, obfuscation and hate-mongering seems to have taken precedence over the purportedly Christian values of honesty, humility and tolerance. But never mind the man’s rather acerbic personality. It’s the reasoning and truth in his arguments we are here to dissect. So let’s have at it then, shall we?

For this piece I have decided on a slightly different format. At any point where I feel interjection is necessary I have inserted a red bracketed number, like so: (x). Each point is then dealt with individually at the end of the post.

Evolution Schmution

26 June 2012, 13:27

by Charles Dumbwin

“How, the hell can we beli-i-i-ieve you? How, the hell can we beli-i-i-ieve you? How, the hell can we beli-i-i-ieve you? You lie, you lie, you lie.”

That song’s usually sung to torment the groom during his wedding speech, but it should rather be sung for the pseudo-intellectites who practice atheistic-science and spew their anti-God drivel. (1)

When the God-haters got together at their first annual atheist convention, they handed our ‘Let’s call it Science’ stickers to all the attendees. From then until now, any idea that the atheists believe adds weight to their no-God theory, they use a sticker and call it Science.

Unfortunately they must have got a bulk discount on the print order cause they don’t seem to have run out of stickers yet. (2)

When looking at our world and studying the biology of the various species, it’s simply not possible to deny the involvement of an Intelligent Designer: (3)

“John Dewey, an ardent 20th century proponent of Darwinism, explained why the intelligent design position – scientifically speaking – was reasonable:

The marvellous adaptation of organisms to their environment, of organs to the organism, of unlike parts of a complex organ (like the eye) to the organ itself; the foreshadowing by lower forms of the higher; the preparation in earlier stages of growth for organs that only later had their functioning – these things are increasingly recognized with the progress of botany, zoology, palaeontology, and embryology. Together, they added such prestige to the design argument that by the later eighteenth century it was, as approved by the sciences of organic life, the central point of theistic and idealistic philosophy.”

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=7846 (4)

Fossils prove that a certain species existed once upon a time; fossils don’t prove that they evolved into, or from, something else. There are thousands of species that have since gone extinct, but with all this ‘evolving’ going on, where are the new ones? (5)

Sharing common strands of DNA with other species doesn’t mean what desperate atheists want it to mean. That’s simply God choosing not to reinvent the wheel – an Intelligent Designer, you might say. (6)

** – Remember, please don’t make the silly mistake of confusing science with atheistic drivel – the two are worlds apart and never the twain shall meet. (7)

1: Ah, yes. That’s the spirit. When confronted by people you simply don’t like, don’t just stick your fingers in your ears and belt out the first Shania Twain song you can think of. Rather try to embarrass them by acting like a drunken lout. You’ll come off looking so much smarter… Anyway… Childish antics apart, what caught my eye here was the following three phrases: “pseudo-intellectites”, “atheistic science”, and “anti-God drivel”.

Let’s look more closely at each of those statements.

pseudo-intellectites: This seems to be Dumbwin’s favorite non-existent term. It’s his own little personal name for the imaginary army of “God-hating” heathens that are supposedly so hell-bent on turning earth into their own little version of hell. I’ve never met any of these beings, but judging by the spelling, they seem to be related somehow to “pseudo-intellectuals”, of which the only perfect example I can think of happens to be Mr Dumbwin himself. (Check out Dumbwin’s use of the Laws of Thermodynamics as pointed out in one of my previous posts: Dumbwin Fail… Pt.1. Rather conclusive proof I’d say.) Looks like Mr. Dumbwin is quite the Tribalist?

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for this term to catch on though. Somehow I don’t think many people would like to subscribe to such shrill hatemongering.

atheistic-science: Barring the fact that this term doesn’t really need to be hyphenated, Charles, for once, almost got it right. It should actually be “non-theistic science”. Science, as a process, is in fact non-theistic. It simply has nothing to say about gods. It never has (unless those gods are claimed to have done something that should have left evidence, like flooding the world with water that has now somehow disappeared without even leaving a single trace of its existence. And even then it only speaks of the existence of the water itself, not the god that supposedly brought it.) And unless gods somehow decide to start obeying the laws of physics (which they never do. EVER. According to their followers anyway) it probably never will.

The sciences, as a rule, do not turn to paranormal explanations for anything. Anything that is not known gets given the very clear answer of: “We don’t know.” It’s actually very elegant in its simplicity.

As for science being somehow hijacked, well, the vast majority of evidence points to religious extremists (a grouping that does actually exist, unlike the highly devout “Atheists” Dumbwin keeps whining about) being most guilty of such foolish behavior. Their favorite tricks being either to assert that any process we cannot fully explain, must by default be guided by the invisible hand of their chosen god(s). Or that any perceived inconsistency (real or imaginary) in any theory they feel somehow goes against their god, must necessarily be a total fabrication perpetrated by haters of their god. They also like to try and hide their dishonesty by claiming that others are guilty of the crimes they are most notorious for. Quite a sad lot actually. You kinda have no choice but to feel sorry for them.

2: Sarcasm is clearly not Dumbwin’s strong suit. Nor is comedy. Or honesty for that matter. I don’t remember seeing any of these stickers either. Are they at least colorful?

3: Oh really? Says who? Dumbwin? That doesn’t mean much more than when a non-believer says the opposite, does it? In this case Dumbwin is clearly trying to pass his opinion off as fact. But lets see what evidence he brings to the table to support his claim…

4: Okay, well the only assertion that this quote could possibly support is that Christian scientists at the time used the variety and complexity of life as support for their belief in God. And nowhere does Dewey himself express any acceptance that these beliefs are in any way true. Also note that Dr. Dewey, a Philosopher and Psychologist, (note the absence of “biologist” or “paleontologist” in that description) is here referring to “the late 18th century”, as in the late 1700′s. That’s more than two hundred years ago. Well before Darwin came along, and more than a little before the field of genetics made its appearance. So how exactly does the analysis (*published in 1910, mind you) of a Psychologist, examining the mindset of scientists in the latter half of the 18th century (more than a hundred years before his own time) have any impact on our view of the world today? Should we believe the same things they did simply because it supports specific religious beliefs? I think not. The personal beliefs of scientists working during the industrial revolution should have little impact on their modern counterparts, who now have access to technology that would look like nothing short of sorcery to someone from the 18th century.

*John Dewey, The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy, and Other Essays on Contemporary Thought (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1910)

5: This is possibly the most inane comment I have ever read. By definition, if we still exist, then we, and every animal alive today, are the “new ones”. Dumbwin acts here as if speciation occurs overnight, and in doing so tries to propagate every untrue myth about evolutionary theory religionists have been able to come up with over the last 150 years. I’m not even going to try to explain all the misconceptions simply because they are so many and have been debunked so many times by so many people that it has become quite clear that Dumbwin and all those who subscribe to the same philosophies as him, are simply willfully ignorant, and will not change their minds under any circumstances, no matter what the evidence says. Yet more proof of Dumbwin’s dishonest nature.

6: Atheists’ supposed desperation aside, claiming, without a shred of real proof no less, that modern biology is wrong in no way makes the creationist alternative true. And the assertion that his god was just being efficient is little more than another of thousands, if not millions, of interpretations of the supposed works of his god. It’s an assertion using ridicule of another hypothesis as proof of its own validity. It’s the mental equivalent of saying “vanilla ice-cream tastes crap, so spaghetti must obviously be the best flavor”.

What was that term again? Pseudo-Intellectite? Hmmm…

7: Another inane comment riddled wit untruth and vitriol. The only person asserting that modern science is somehow related to atheism is Dumbwin himself. And the use of blanket terms like “atheist drivel” are little more than a pathetic attempt at vilifying people based on their lack of belief in gods. Contrary to what Dumbwin would have us believe, atheists do not necessarily even pay attention to the sciences. Each individual has their own reasons for believing (or not believing) what they do. And trying to lump all non-believers into one big group of supposedly God-hating pseudo-scientists is not just preposterous, but a testament to Dumbwin’s bigotry.

Concusion: Clearly this is nothing more than a propaganda piece intended to convince people of Dumbwin’s point of view by manufacturing a make-believe villain (atheists), claiming that these imaginary “villains” are somehow purposefully trying to hide the truth via some world-wide conspiracy (again with no concrete evidence), and then using the existence of this supposed evil “religion” as proof that his own claims, by virtue of some extraordinary leap of the imagination, must therefore be true.

What was that term again?..

Now go away and do something useful

LJ