Sailors Are Stupid, Scientists Are Smart!
I am offended. Not as a Christian, but as a scientist and mathematician. Probability & Statistics are my closest friends. Science is my lens to God. In my own intellectual quest to find God in this world, my emotions play only the role of admirer. They do not rule me, nor my approach to religion or science. The two, to me, are one. I fear no scientific discovery and welcome Solomon’s encouragement to seek knowledge and wisdom in this human life of mine. Science merely uncovers the greatest Scientist’s fascinating methods- just as humor reflects the greatest Comedian and poetry, the greatest Poet. Nothing more. All human discovery is, to me, a further reason to worship.
That being said, I am offended by the lack of good science and logic in today’s overwhelmingly atheistic science community. In all ways but one, this unique community follows good, basic, sound scientific process & thought to learn more about the universe in which humans live. They are naturally, and rightfully, a skeptical bunch. A claim must be proven to be taken seriously. That one exception is their approach to God. This is where Hubris, their true god, stands directly in their way. It stunts their minds and their science. It makes fools of them and their ideas. The only barrier against exposure to mockery is the success of the myth that Science, somehow, is always ‘right’. That scientists are somehow smarter or more logical than any other human. That they, somehow, are immune to human frailties like selfishness, power hunger or arrogance. And lastly, that science today is somehow ‘much more advanced’ than in the days when scientists claimed the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth.
"Ooooohhhh, radiation is Gooooood!"- Madame Curie
People have been bamboozled to believe that humans have actually changed from the ‘old days’. That scientists, in particular, have changed. That the only reason the mainstream scientists dismissed and censored ‘new’ discoveries ‘back then’ was because they were, well, primitive in their ways. That somehow, science today, is championed by a different, more superior breed of men who only care for the ‘Truth’. The Modern Man-pure in his quest for knowledge.
This is patent horse poop.
The nature of man, like the nature of science, has not changed one iota from the ‘primitive’ days of science. Real human beings pursue knowledge- the minority of which will always be the ones seeking Truth. The vast majority of men seek only selfish recognition for selfish reasons. Scientists are nothing more than fallible humans with their equal share of heroes and villains. They reflect the normal population of mankind. And as the very term, “hero” must indicate, the virtues of man come only once in a long while in humans. Who would believe that any “hero” of any culture of any time in human history could be defined as a selfish, power-hungry, self aggrandizing, money lusting fool? No, heroes, no matter who defines them, always embody the highest of human traits: honesty, goodness, kindness, selflessness, generosity and love of man & God. And no matter who defines a hero, we know this person to be ‘special’. Why? Because they are so rare. Because almost no human can really meet their standards.
"Ooops! Radiation is Baaaaad!"- Albert Einstein
So why this blind faith in an entire community of humans? Why assume that because a majority of them say something, (like the earth is flat), we plebeians must accept their ideas without question? Further, why assume that all scientists are even intelligent? Like all fields, there are smart people and there are unintelligent people. There are smart lawyers and really dumb lawyers. Again, considering human nature, true intelligence is rare- just as rare as real honesty of intention. So, why this abnormal trust of scientists, their motives and their intelligence?
Science has also proven itself completely wrong- over & over again. First, eating liver is great for people. Now, liver is ‘bad’ for people. First, using gas was great for people. Now, using gas is bad for people. First, calcium pills were great for people. Now calcium pills are bad for people. First, drinking wine was bad for people. Now, it is good for people. We needed fluorine- now it will turn your teeth grey! First, mercury was great for helping sick people. Now, mercury is bad for helping sick people. Leaches, anyone? How about a big knife to ‘bleed’ you to death when all you had was a virus?
"Giant squids are the creations of drunk, ignorant sailers!"- Western White Scientists
In fact, Being Wrong is at the very heart of the proper pursuit of knowledge: the assumption that we know nothing yet. And that we wish to know more. The only good scientist is the extremely humble one. Not the idiot who actually believes they know anything at all. To believe you know anything is to snuff out the purpose of the pursuit- to KNOW is to deny the very motivation of science. It is the squelching of motivation & direction. Only the truly humble can see the magnificent wonder of all that we have yet to uncover. It must be at the heart of all Good Science to assume that anything is possible. At the heart of ill intentioned science, is the will of bad men. It is there that the ugliness of human nature lies with the claim that only certain things are possible. Sin resides in that heart- but also the lack of pure reason, logic and proper science. The scientist who actually believes that human beings, who can not even begin to understand aging, time, space, disease, psychology, genetics, or anything else for that matter- can define what can NOT exist is just plain stupid. These people make me laugh- and many times, make me scorn. They are the antithesis of science, these definers of what can not be. They work in the negative and so are stunted from the beginning.
"Oooooh, look! How fascinating! We scientists found a giant squid that attacks boats in packs! Which of us shall we name it after?"
A good scientist looks about them and sees what they see. They wonder about it. They seek answers to it. They accept the things they find. Fear does not rule them. They do not reject actual phenomena, nor do they quickly dismiss it. They seek and seek and continue to seek. They use words like, “Thus far, I have found…..” and “Based on what I have found, I propose that this might be the reason….” and “All evidence seems to point in this direction which I will continue to investigate until further proof says otherwise…” etc, etc. What a good scientist NEVER says is, “Because I , the Great Western White Scientist, have never personally seen it, and because my cadre of like-minded Western White Scientists haven’t seen it, it must not EXIST.” Kind of like the little fish that swims up penises in the Amazon. The little brown people have known about it for hundreds of years. They protect themselves with bits of fabric & twine. But until a Western White Scientist has one swim up his, and have it eye-witnessed by a panel of Western White Scientists, it will remain Non Existent! And when it is finally acknowledged, it will surely be named after the poor white fellow who, unfortunately for him, ‘discovered it’.
I would ask these rather dumb scientists, “Did people (scientists, even), in Abraham’s day see air molecules?” Did they even conceive of them? They must answer, “No.” Then I will ask, “Does the fact that ancient people couldn’t see the molecules or conceive of them make them non-existent?” Did the earth only begin to rotate around the sun when Galileo saw that it did? Of course not. The people simply didn’t have the knowledge or technology to see these facts. But they do now.
Science is no different today. There is an infinite world which we humans, in our primitive state, simply can not conceive of, measure or see in order to ‘prove’ its existence. And yet, like the air molecules thousands of years ago, they still exist. To assume otherwise is just plain arrogance and foolishness.
To assume that mankind has somehow gotten a good grip on knowledge is just plain comical. We can’t even cure the cold.
And these same scientists who claim that they will not believe in something they can not prove, believe in speciation (the very bedrock of Evolution)- though not one species out of the hundreds of thousands that exist or have ever existed has left a fossil trail that would prove them correct. Instead, they resort to genetic gymnastics to prove the improbable! (The same guys who can’t cure the cold because they can’t understand the genetics want us to believe they can use genetics to explain the ENTIRE creation of life! umm hmmm- how about some land in Florida?) These same scientists who claim speciation, not as a theory, but as a FACT, somehow can throw probability & statistics out of the window when one considers that only the bones of separate species seemed to survive time, pressure, moisture and heat. Not one trail of bones out of the tens of thousands of specimens of any one species morphing over several millenia (thus making the number of specimens in the millions) into another species survived? Really? Were those millions of transitional states/specimens between one species and another somehow cursed with bones that disintegrated while actual, defined species were blessed with superior bones?
Where are those pesky fossils?
If man’s head began with the Neanderthal and ‘morphed’ genetically over time to increasingly intelligent forms of man, where are the millions of bones of all those morphing beings? Where are the bones that show the human brain growing? The frontal lobe expanding? Where are the bones that show a little less slope, and then a little less slope and then a little less slope until Homosapien was born? There should be, literally, millions of fossils! Speciation can’t just spontaneously happen, can it? One generation of female neanderthals didn’t just give birth to straight headed people did they? No! Thousands of generations of neanderthals would have needed infinitesimally small genetic changes over millions of years to accomplish the proposed speciation! So, where are all the millions of bones from those in-between humans? Did only those transitional bones between one species of man and other species of man have a different bone composition? Forget man- is there any trail of bones for even one species that would verify the claims of speciation? What? Not one trail of changing bones to back the incredible claim that all life stemmed and morphed in this way- all the way back to some single-celled organism in primordial ooze? There should be billions of fossils to prove this! What are the odds (the mathematical probability) that the only bones that survived the same identical forces of nature are bones of clearly demarcated species with no bones to prove their obvious transition from one species to another? Improbable to the point of impossible! And yet, these atheist people of knowledge will readily and with great enthusiasm jump right on board, skip the proof and claim it as FACT!
From every study of man- math, logic & science included- it simply is more mathematically probable to believe in Intelligent Design than some kind of ‘orderly’ chaos (never observed in real life) that produced the tight, astounding, self refreshing, self renewing design that stares in our face every moment we live. Especially in light of the fact that Man, himself, has just created ‘life’ in a test tube.
It took energy & design to make this. Without continued energy & design, things 'naturally' fall apart. They don't spontaneously order themselves again into beautiful, perfect designs, do they? Sooo.... how did the amazing order of creation 'spontaneously' make itself?
This incredible jumping to conclusions- as concerns evolution & God- by an overwhelmingly atheist science community speaks more to their own rejection of the bended knee than to good science. If God used speciation to bring about man, what would I care? But the math is all wrong. This is what ails my mind. That, and they way they attempt to use science to discredit Genesis and hence, God. Of course, they deny this (as they mock behind their hands) publicly, but then add statements like, “Whales were once bear-like creatures” in my children’s science book without one shred of evidence to back it. Why attempt to shove bad science on my kids when you are otherwise so skeptical and proper in your pursuit of knowledge? Why state speciation & evolution as fact and yet deny the complete viability of God-driven creation? Answer this question and you will find the heart of evil, my friends.
So when ‘scientists’, and I use the terms very loosely, say that to believe in an intelligent God who designed the universe with intention and purpose is to be ‘unscientific’ and ‘uninformed’, I know which kind of scientists they are. These same arrogant scientists that would make the claim that belief in a God who created everything is illogical are the self-same scientists who have already created ‘synthetic’ life themselves. It is possible for them to create a lower order life form, but it is impossible for there to be a God who can create a lower order life form. These same scientists that claim that to believe in angels & demons (invisible creatures among us) is to be ignorant are the self-same scientists who point their billion dollar telescopes into space looking for hyper-intelligent, invisible life forms. These same scientists who mock those of us who believe something can be invisible and yet exist in real, concrete form are the self-same scientists who have already developed stealth technology as well as the beginnings of an invisibility cloak.
DNA: God's Radical Technology
These same scientists who claim the impossibility of a God that knows the past, present & future- all at the same time- are the self-same scientists who have now ‘discovered’ that computers can actually predict the future. These same scientists who dismiss the idea that God can exist in all time periods are the self-same scientists who have just ‘discovered’ that alternate realities can exist at the same time and thus have pointed the way toward time travel.
They are the exact same breed who laughed at Aristotle when he claimed the earth was round.
These so-called scientists have not yet grasped the fact that biology & life itself is a radical technology of God’s making. That DNA is the most powerful technology known to man. That life itself is so powerful a technology that it is impossible for mankind to destroy. Biology was created by a Life Form greater than us. Even the nuclear bomb (or all them going at once) could not stop it. No, some small DNA would escape and begin its ruthless replicating all over again. These ‘men of knowledge’ can only conceive of steel, concrete and feeble computers as ‘technology’. Even movie directors have better imaginations than atheist scientists!
How Today's Technology Will Look Tomorrow
The logic of Christianity is 100% sound. Because we do not claim to PROVE the existence of God. We state only our belief in Him. If man can create life, certainly Someone Else can do it. If there are other sentient creatures in the universe (their ‘aliens’), then mankind can not possibly put a limit on just how intelligent or advanced those life forms may be. To search for aliens to is admit the 100% possibility and probability of One so advanced, so knowledgeable, so technologically advanced as to have created the ‘everything’ we know. If we designed computers to predict the future, certainly Someone Else could have even better technology to predict the future. Or even contain the ‘technology’ within Himself as a pure capability. If mankind can eventually travel through different dimensions, then certainly Someone Else can be doing it now. If we can make things undetectable by stealth technology and invisibility cloaks, then certainly Someone Else can do it. And there is no reason that Man should be able to define just how advanced a Being may be. Or what His ‘technology’ or ‘science’ looks like. These terms are merely words humans use to define our pursuit of knowledge.
Just because we currently see these terms as microscopes & particle accelerators does not mean that technology of the future will be seen in this light. No, it could be something quite fantastic- unimaginable in 1000 years! Today’s labs & equipment will stand in museums someday as barbaric relics of the past. By logic alone, it is feasible for us and our universe to be the product of Another’s test tube. It is 100% possible and probable, based even on our limited experience, that what appears to be ‘magic’ by primitive creatures is actual very real ‘science’ of Another. Any good scientist will admit this to you. You can trust that scientist’s work.
The lack of logic lies in the evil hearts of bad scientists. Atheist scientists. Logic, good science & all real knowledge will forever reside in those unafraid of the Truth. And those unafraid to bend the knee to It when they find It.
SLR: I enjoyed the article, but I have to agree with some of the sentiment expressed by Gordon. If writing a piece that is intended to be relatively objective (with the author also specifically claiming to be “respectful”), certain expectations are formed. If someone is posting a rant after having some frustrating experience, we can consider the context and move on with our lives. Trolls will be trolls, but one would hope we could expect more from somebody writing a “respectful”, supposedly objective, scientific piece.
Based on my own interpretation, you became further entrenched in this somewhat hostile attitude in your responses to Sara. Any person who sincerely, honestly, and rationally confronts the difficult questions in the universe should be willing to accept criticism, be willing to accept the possibility of self-error, at any time. But rather than “respectfully” asking Sara to clarify her point, you began to call into question her credentials as a scientist, arguing (essentially) that “any idiot can become a so-called scientist”–all before even knowing what she was even criticizing! In case you don’t think that this is something you did, please go back and take Gordon’s advice and re-read your post, pretending it was written by someone else. Or perhaps ask a third party whom you trust to review your comments as objectively as they can. Maybe remove the names. You might be surprised.
Lastly, in case you care (which you seem not to), it seems to my fairly rational mind that the most sincere and realistic approach would be agnosticism, and not Christianity or atheism. If you even attempt to explain the “reasons” why you believe in Christianity, you’ll perhaps state a few reasons, each one of which will have an explicit first premise that you already believe in this faith. For a non-believer, your reasons will fail to be reasons at all! They are only logical to a person who agrees with you. You believe, and because you believe, you find other reasons to believe. This isn’t to say that it’s bad to believe, but it’s merely a choice, and has nothing to do with science. It boils down to nothing but faith.
David, you and Gordon seem to lack understanding of what ‘respectful’ means. When did I claim that my articles were ‘relatively objective?’ Further, what does ‘objectivity’ have to do with ‘respect?’ My articles are, by nature, completely subjective! They are 100% my opinion, my analysis, my ‘take’ on world events and human culture.
Respectful also doesn’t mean being a door mat- sorry. Respectful doesn’t mean a lack of passion- sorry. Respectful doesn’t mean a lack of opinion or strength- sorry. Respect doesn’t mean never providing a counter argument or not providing proof to refute foolish statements. Respect does not mean a lack of negative emotion. A judge in a courtroom can state his/her opinion about the defendant’s crime and be quite scathing and disdainful- but still express themselves in a respectful manner. “Mr. Smith, I find you guilty of the most horrible of crimes. You systematically stalked and planned to murder Mr. Yuan and brutally killed his family. You are one of the worst offenders to pass through my courtroom in 20 years and I find your attitude completely remorseless and reprehensible. You deserve the harshest punishment possible. I can only hope you find regret in your heart as you remain imprisoned for the rest of your life…..etc.”
Respect means allowing someone to post on my site- as long as they are following my posting rules. When they fail to do so, I will block them. Nothing disrespectful there. Respect means not responding to my commentators with obscenities, disgust, arrogance or horrible disdain. You can despise someone’s opinion and still be respectful when you tell them how you feel. .
People like you and Gordon WISH that respect meant that you can spout uneducated, foolish, hateful, disrespectful & evil opinions on my (or anyone’s site) and not get plastered to the wall for it. You and people like Gordon WISH that Christianity meant sheepishness. But it doesn’t. God has gifted me with the skill of eloquence. Specifically for picking apart the foolish arguments of atheists and/or evil people. I do it, in His service, most happily. And while I am most certainly not always perfect, I CAN claim to skewer atheists with much more respect that they can ever feebly attack me disrespectfully.
You have posted two more comments, both just reiterating your opinion that I am disrespectful. That is two too many. You are officially trolled.
Wow you got em stirred up this time huh?
John
[...] the 50 Greatest Atheist Minds of all time. Pauling proves the point I made in my previous article, “Why Atheists Make the Worst Scientists’, to a tee. Good science is not, nor ever can be, based on what can NOT be. It must always keep [...]
[...] the 50 Greatest Atheist Minds of all time. Pauling proves the point I made in my previous article, “Why Atheists Make the Worst Scientists’, to a tee. Good science is not, nor ever can be, based on what can NOT be. It must always keep [...]
[...] the 50 Greatest Atheist Minds of all time. Pauling proves the point I made in my previous article, “Why Atheists Make the Worst Scientists’, to a tee. Good science is not, nor ever can be, based on what can NOT be. It must always keep [...]
[...] Why Atheists Make the Worst Scientists [...]
“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” – Matthew 5:11
Thanks, Dave. See my next article! It will make you laugh. When I read it, I shouted, “Thank You, God!” Such a sad blow for those arrogant atheists…sniff, sniff, I really am weeping for them….(:-D).
You are a great defender of the Faith SLR. Good job.
I wish I would have said what Dave the Sage did–I thought it, but didn’t voice it–sorry about that.
No problem, Dr. T! With God on my side, I feel quite invincible. Also, since God made everything, I know there are NO contradictions to fear from science. He is the greatest Scientist in the universe, is he not? These punks can squirm all they want. Their squirming says loads more than their weak arguments.
try to remeber it does say ‘respectful’ at the very top of your blog
Does ‘respectful’ mean I have to tolerate trolls? I don’t think so, Gordon. I am respectful to those who deserve respect. Further, I am quite respectful to trolls. Look to see who attacks whom. ‘Respectful’ doesn’t equal ‘doormat’. Sorry.
You can define respectful however you like, and you can do whatever you like to those you consider trolls (a label I think you apply rather too liberally). And you should absolutely not be a doormat. Perhaps you don’t see it; perhaps I’m reading too much in to your tone; perhaps it’s got nothing to do with me, but the tone of your article is quite inflamatory, which is inevitably going to lead to some angry responses… as it’s something you’ve said a few times in the comments section, I’d like to suggest that your responses to their responses say something about you. Perhaps you aren’t as respectful as you could be (note I don’t say should, or ought).
Hi Gordon,
If I have been disrespectful to my trolls, please show me where. Especially considering the complete lack of the same from them! I do, however, find it interesting that you focus your disapproval on me!
It’s not disapproval, or judgementalism. I have no right or interest in criticising you for saying anything you like, right or wrong, nice or nasty, you’re totally entitled to say it. I focus on your words only because you choose to define yourself as respectful at the top of your blog. Since none of your trolls have chosen to define themselves as respectful I cannot pick them up on such a failing. I could judge them on being disrespectful, which some posts blatently are, but I have no interest in judging them or you for being disrespectful.
With that said, I would like to repeat the only comment I really wanted to make, but have respectfully been asked to explain… Please try to remeber that your blog does say ‘respectful’ at the top.
I’m not going to point out individual examples, but might I suggest you read back through some of these comments, and pretend you didn’t write any of them, and that this isn’t your blog, but you’ve just stumbled upon it.
Well, Gordon, thank you for your comments. As a writer of a very opinionated blog (I will never deny that!), I know that my articles will no doubt offend those at whom I take aim. I have an opinion and am very critical of certain groups of people. I feel that they are doing incredible damage to our country, which I love. I hate hypocrisy, lies and evill intentions. There is no way to address the people who do these things in other than a straightforward way. I won’t pussy-foot around. Attention must be drawn to them and their activities. I strive to back every article with facts and with sound reasoning. I invite all to address either of those things in my articles if they are offended. I will not, however, allow people to wander around picking fights with me or any other commenter. If they don’t actually have a point to make, then they get booted. Calling me names, attacking my faith, or generally attempting to redirect the conversation to something other than the points in my article all qualify for ‘trollism’ in my blog- as is clearly stated in my Rules for Posting.
I appreciate your feedback, however. It is never easy dealing with people who attack you personally. Especially if it is clear they are frothing from their mouths with anger. There are times when I find myself angry and feel that I have lowered myself to their level. But not with this article, nor with my comments therein. I will keep your warning in mind, however. I pray every day for wisdom. I pray every day that I might be an instrument of God. But never kid yourself about Jesus and God, Gordon. They are both quite firm with people who do evil. They never sugar coated their words. Remember Jesus whipping the vendors that set up shop outside the temple? Every day I need to ask myself, “Did you write that for YOU, or did you write that for God?”
Gordon, I visited your Facebook page and saw your statements on Religion, as well as other topics. What I saw is that you have trouble committing one way or the other to the deeper questions of the day. You seem to believe that there is some honor in your non-commitment. That to say, “It’s all good” is somehow superior to saying, “This is good and this is bad”. You are incorrect in this assessment. You are hiding behind what I call pseudo-intellectualism in order to hide a general cowardliness to take a side. What you won’t admit to yourself is that you HAVE taken a side by default. You have chosen against Christianity.
You see religion as a means to make war. Not a very positive attitude, I must say! I must interpret your warning from that standpoint, as well. Also, your need to address me, and not the trolls who have so clearly attacked me and my faith. You state that you can’t judge trolls for their disrespect simply for the fact that they don’t CLAIM to be respectful! Really? What kind of way is that to judge people? People are either respectful- or they are not. What difference does it make what their claims are? Right is right and wrong is wrong. If I said, “I will never kill someone,” and then kill someone, is my crime worse than someone who never made such claim and yet kills someone too? Of course not! Gordon, you are being a little disingenuous in this matter.
You also changed your focus from your first to your last article. First, you addressed my article as ‘inflammatory’ and therefore, disrespectful. This last comment, however, focuses on my comments as disrespectful. You also refuse to point to any disrespectful thing I said. That is quite telling, Gordon. If I said things so disrespectful as to warrant a warning from you, you would think it would be quite easy to just pick a sentence to demonstrate your point.
Here is a fact, Gordon: Respect doesn’t mean weak. Respect doesn’t mean that your words will not offend someone. Respect doesn’t mean that your words don’t condemn people or their actions. Respect means giving each and every person a chance to speak. It means not calling names, not taking cheap shots, not being cruel. It means taking a person seriously- at least until that person proves themself unworthy of being listened to further. Your statements to me are respectful. My statements to you have been respectful. And yet, both our statements disagree with one another and even have criticism of one another. Respect is a separate matter than truth. It is a WAY of expressing the truth. It is the MOTIVE of the speaker. It is the HEART of the speaker.
If you examine your motives for singling me out, and if you are truly honest with yourself, I think you will acknowledge the fact that you have grave doubts about God & Jesus. That you have a distaste. The fact that I champion those things automatically puts me on your bad side. You align yourself more with the atheists that I condemn so thoroughly in my article and in my comments and so feel personally attacked by me. THIS, and nothing more, is why you criticize me. You attempt to hide behind a flavor of intellectualism and a mantel of ‘fairness’ by attempting to create a new sort of morality that can justify your criticism: someone is immoral because they claimed to be moral. Those who never claim to be moral in the first place have no responsibility to be moral.
It is not an argument that can ever hold up. Not from a religious standpoint- nor a pragmatic societal standpoint. Laws could never be written and enforced with that type of moral code.
Gordon, you are taking the cheap way out. You fear commitment- do you fear to be mocked as I am? Do you fear that your friends would condemn you if you actually took a stand and said what is true? That these trolls were indeed wrong- even though they attacked a Christian- someone you & your friends don’t like? Are you controlled by people’s opinion of you? To take a stand takes courage, Gordon. To sit in ambivalence takes nothing at all.
I think you’re reading an awful lot more in to what I said than was intended. I chose not to mention specifics because I feel I have learned the most about myself by being challenged to re-assess something I have said or done, and make my own judgements, rather than being picked apart in huge detail. Having said I won’t be specific, I will say that the comment that pushed me towards commenting was the one I replied to – “These punks can squirm all they want. Their squirming says loads more than their weak arguments.”
“You align yourself more with the atheists that I condemn so thoroughly in my article and in my comments and so feel personally attacked by me. THIS, and nothing more, is why you criticize me. You attempt to hide behind a flavor of intellectualism and a mantel of ‘fairness’ by attempting to create a new sort of morality that can justify your criticism: someone is immoral because they claimed to be moral. Those who never claim to be moral in the first place have no responsibility to be moral.”
I haven’t criticised you. I’ve made no judgement at all. My motive for commenting was, as you rightly judge, due to feeling offended; but I didn’t criticise you, I just asked you to look at how you define yourself and how you present yourself. Everything else you’ve said in that paragraph only makes sense if you believe I’m judging or criticising you for stating your opinion, and it’s an even bigger stretch to then suggest I claimed anywhere that those who don’t claim to be moral have no responsibility to be moral, or vice versa.
I felt offended because you went beyind attacking the idea of atheism, to attacking these squirming atheist punks.
Thanks for the character assessment. I’m a little surprised you would take the time to anayse my personality, and I have to say I think you have misjudged me with regards to committing to beliefs / fear of being mocked for standing up for what I believe. I’m not sure how I could be more clear about how I feel towards religion than what I have on my Facebook page: Dogmatic, fear-based prescriptive clap-trap peddled by charlatans. great for starting wars, repressing progress, and thwarting the pursuit of knowledge. That’s a bit different to ‘it’s all good’. And politics: Politics is for do-gooders, medlers and crooks. I love it. I love the fact that almost all politicians fall in to one of these categories because it makes it so much more fun to criticise them for their liberal do-gooding stupidity, their nanny state meddling, or their hypocritical moralising while being criminally corrupt… and so on. Again, nothing like ‘it’s all good’.
“I haven’t criticised you. I’ve made no judgement at all. “
Gordon, Gordon…
“It’s not disapproval, or judgementalism. I have no right or interest in criticising you for saying anything you like….Please try to remeber that your blog does say ‘respectful’ at the top..Perhaps you aren’t as respectful as you could be (note I don’t say should, or ought)… you can do whatever you like to those you consider trolls (a label I think you apply rather too liberally)…the tone of your article is quite inflammatory….”
Gordon, again, you are hiding behind words! You are employing a technique I like to call, Jargon Juggling. Of course you were criticizing- and judging! AND you disapprove of my article and my comments! You can do all the linguist gymnastics you want, but it won’t change the facts. ALL humans make judgments every day! As they, indeed, need to in order to survive. As you did here. Only for you, in this instance, you judged wrong, unfairly and baselessly. Your atheism blinded you. Does this method of obfuscating work with other people? I mean, grown adults?
“…it’s an even bigger stretch to then suggest I claimed anywhere that those who don’t claim to be moral have no responsibility to be moral, or vice versa.”
“…I focus on your words only because you choose to define yourself as respectful at the top of your blog. Since none of your trolls have chosen to define themselves as respectful I cannot pick them up on such a failing..”
When I said that you take the ‘it’s all good’ mentality, it was to address your attempts at deflection. The atheist commenters weren’t wrong and I wasn’t wrong. You’re not wrong. NO ONE is wrong! We are all free to say what we think- no judgment, man! BUUUUuuuuut….You just think I should ‘think’ about my disrespectful attitude! You make me laugh!
The trouble with being dishonest is that it will always come home to bite you in the butt. I speak plainly. You have yet to present an example of my disrespect -other than me applying the term ‘punks’ (not ‘squirming atheist punks’ as you claim above) to people using obscene & rage filled language against me- which, if that is all you have- a woman protecting herself against guys calling her a ‘cunt’ and an ‘asshole’, I’m afraid you have lost this argument. Sorry, ‘punks’ are exactly what they are. Plain & simple. Further, you take this ONE word of mine ( a rather mild one, I think!) and go on to claim that I don’t live up to the ‘respectful’ in my blog title? Ha! Certainly, you have no reason to claim disrespect in my article or comments. That, my dear, is why you can’t provide them.
Gordon, why don’t you just admit it: you didn’t like my article because apparently, you claim to be an atheist- or at the minimum- a religion hater (is that the same thing?). You are just less honest than the foaming-at-the-mouth atheists attempting to assail my character because you can’t assail my logic or facts. You prove again that atheists are blinded in their judgment & logic due directly to their atheism. You give name-calling, illogical ‘punks’ a free ride for the simple reason that they are atheists like you. Some sense of morality you possess, huh?
I thank you for your participation, Gordon, but I think we have gone around this circle quite enough. You have had three chances to say something concrete and have failed miserably.
“You won’t see me foaming at the mouth, I guarantee you. Whether or not speciation pans out is a non-emotional issue for me. It doesn’t matter.”
If this truly is an non-emotional issue, why do you immediately dismiss strong evidence for evolution on the flimsiest of pretexts? The difference between the skulls of human beings and the skulls of some of our pre-human ancestors are not that large. You can find greater skull variety within dogs. If you compare babies with adults, you can find greater skull variety within modern humans.
“Either the sky is blue or it is not blue. If I say it is pink, would you HATE me and my statement?”
(Let’s not go with sky color–after all, it can be pink–well, pinkish at least–at sunset. I’m going to substitute “water is wet”.)
How would you react if people were actively campaigning to make teachers teach that water is not wet? Would you find it acceptable if people insisted that all school textbooks included the statement, “Half of all Americans believe water is dry?”
How would you react to an essay titled “Why people who believe that water is wet make the worst scientists”?
C, I don’t reject evidence on flimsy pretexts. My only point was that there is no fossil proof for speciation. There is not. At least, not yet. But that was not even the point of my article- it was just one example of many about atheist scientists. My point was that atheist scientists are so emotionally blind to the possibility of God’s existence, that they wrongly put so much faith on the precepts of speciation. For THEM, not me, speciation has become a god, in and of itself. As if by proving it correct, they can reject and ridicule Genesis and hence, the entire Bible. I never said speciation is NOT true. Go and look if I did. I said atheists put so much emotional investment in it that normally skeptical scientists jump on board the FACT train before it is warranted. I also point out logical contradictions of atheist scientists in the creation of life, extra terrestrial life, alternate realities, perceptions of reality (making real things invisible) predicting the future, and time travel. Speciation was just one idea among many.
The most telling thing about the atheist comments is their obsession with Speciation. Don’t you think? Why do they only get so angry about that one example in my article, C? Ask yourself why YOU are focused so tightly on that one subject. You won’t like the answer- if you are an honest person- to yourself, I mean. God is a prickly topic for people. The other examples I gave don’t bother atheists- why? Because they don’t center on what THEY consider to be ‘proof’ that God doesn’t exist- or that the Bible is all a bunch of hooey. Right? Atheists NEED speciation to be true. Most Christians accept science and fact for what it is. We know God is the ultimate Maker of all- of course he could use speciation as a way to make humans. Why not? But then again, maybe he didn’t. We are still on that road of discovery, are we not? It doesn’t threaten most of us one bit. It is academic.
As for teachers, there is no teacher in the United States who would even dare to teach Christianity. The converse is true. They teach speciation as FACT, which is one of the sources of my greatest indignation. I see the WILL of atheists in that. If they said, “theory of evolution” or “many scientists believe a process called speciation resulted in the incredible number of species today…” I would be most satisfied. Unfortunately, they don’t. Which gives erroneous info. to kids.
As to how I would react to the article, “Why people who believe that water is wet make the worst scientists”, I would think it was crazy and not read it. Or, I would think it was a joke and then read it. And if I read it, depending on how good or stupid it was, I would either be interested or amazed at its stupidity. Rage and anger would not play any part, other than a slight irritation of wasting my time for a little while. I would just throw it away.
Started to read the article but (not surprisingly) there were no references to back up the author’s illogical claims. This article perpetuates the stereotype that Christians are stupid and bad at science. Well done.
Sara, and you prove the stereotype that atheists are always pissed off- who knows why? Not me! My article is 100% sound. I’m sorry you couldn’t understand it. Unlike your comment, it is backed by fact and flawless critical reasoning. I’m not sure what you need references for, but let me know and I will be happy to find them for you.
Actually, I’m a Christian. But I’m also a scientist. I work with several atheists who are fantastic scientists and faith is never an issue for our work. I fail to see why it would be. However, according to you, I’m too stupid to understand your “100% sound article”. Your arrogance blinds you from accepting any other viewpoints and is not very Christian like. You and the Sarah Palins of the world irritate me which is why I even bothered to post a comment. It doesn’t take much intelligence to annoy people and get their attention, just some controversy and an audience. This article supports my claim.
Sara, I have grave doubts as to either your intelligence or your motives- one of the two is faulty. You may have a job as a scientist, but really, anyone who finishes a four year degree can become one. You don’t even need good grades. How do I know this? Because I was a Biochemistry major. There were an awful lot of dummies doing the same degree. Labs hire lots of technicians who style themselves as scientists. In any case, even if you got your PhD, it wouldn’t matter. Degrees & job titles say nothing about skill or inherent talent. It is your emotion, not mine, which blinds you. My article is 100% sound, darling. That is why you don’t actually reference any part of it. All you can do is call me ‘stupid’ and ‘bad at science’. Whoa, girl!
I’m not sure what viewpoints I can’t accept, but I guarantee you, Christians don’t and can’t accept many viewpoints. That is inherent to being a Christian. We can’t worship idols, we can’t kill, we can’t commit adultry, we can’t covet, etc, etc. So your statement that it is unchristian to not to ‘accept’ ALL viewpoints is in error. That is called judgement- good judgement. Which is absolutely necessary for wisdom.
What exactly do you mean when you say ‘the Sarah Palins of the world’? I am at a loss. Is that an insult?
Sara, what I really suspect is that you don’t like my politics. You are a bleeding heart liberal. Or perhaps a progressive. I doubt very much that you have made any commitment to Christ or you would not defend atheism. That is for sure. Atheism is odious to God. It needs to be exposed for what it is: self worship. That is a form of arrogance and idolatry- which not only makes it anathema to God, but also creates a mindset that leads to faulty thinking. I am correct when I say that it is not the job of scientists to say what can NOT be. Look at poor Linus Pauling turning in his grave! Once a person heads down that road of self worship and arrogance, they will forever repeat the mistake and make huge mistakes in their science.
Now, if you weren’t a troll, you would have addressed my article. Any part of it. But because you ARE a troll, Christian or no, you just want to call names and make unfounded accusations. Therefore, this will be your last post.
As for Genesis, nor were you there. However, considering the difficulties with the text, and the fact that no-one else was there neither, I’m sticking with metaphor. All the more so, as it only mentions ONE species of human being created (so where is neanderthal from?). What a tragedy that you can’t continue with a discussion that challenges your limited vision and intellect. Truly, you are a cunt.
scherben, although I had trolled you, I will allow your last statement as proof that there are no atheists. A true atheist would just feel sorry for me and walk away. Clearly you and all your other pissed off atheist friends are intimidated and frightened by my article. You are threatened and so feel the need to put up your dukes. Your ANGER says so much more than your sad lack of reason.
“Why state speciation & evolution as fact and yet deny the complete viability of God-driven creation?”
Both you and the evolutionists are wrong. The world was personally created last Thursday by a magical raccoon dog. This mode of creation is completely viable, because the magical raccoon dog is magical and very clever. Our apparent memory of events before last Thursday are just proof of its cleverness.
“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.”
― Oscar Wilde
Based on your wit, I have to doubt your intellect.
I’m assuming you have never and will never use technology that those ignorant scientists created right? Oh no wait, you use cellphones, computers, cars, digital cameras and the list goes on. Oh and let us not forget all the medical technology you have undoubtedly used to birth your children and potentially save your life or theirs. If not yet, definitely some day. You can pray all you want, pray to your choice of god, pray to a lamp, pray to your dog… but at the end of the day science and those crazy ignorant scientists you denounce will have extended your ignorant life. I look forward to the day when people stop worshiping magical zombies in the sky. Accepted mass delusion is disgusting.
Where’s the love, Chad, where’s the love?
Chad, chad. This article is aimed at one type of scientist. Your anger is interesting, however.
So God made DNA, but it ruthlessly replicates ITSELF? Sounds like evolution.
By the way, fossils are not corpses, and homo sapiens sapiens didn’t evolve from Neanderthals, they were a entirely differnet human species that eventually went extinct – our own eventual fate.
Yes, all DNA can be obliterated; only the Earth’s magnetic field prevents sterilisation by cosmic rays.
Nobody’s has made a computer that can predict the future. They can only calculate probabilities.
Is God an alien; a corporeal being? That’s what’s implied.
Nobody’s ever believed the earth was flat, not until about 200 years back, when it was retrojectively applied. The ancient Greeks even knew the circumfrance and the distance of the moon.
Genesis is a metaphor, as is Abraham. They represent humanity and the mythical father of nations, that is a common trope all over the world in many variant forms. If you think Genesis is history, where did Cain’s wife appear from?
Evolution has been observed in action (see the Lenski Paper)
So God made DNA, but it ruthlessly replicates ITSELF
Sure, why not? Mankind would love to create a self driven system. Unfortunately, we can’t at this time. If God exists, why wouldn’t he make a great design?
By the way, fossils are not corpses, and homo sapiens sapiens didn’t evolve from Neanderthals, they were a entirely differnet human species that eventually went extinct – our own eventual fate.
I agree. The fact that they coexisted is another point against speciation. Don’t get the ‘corpses’ point
Yes, all DNA can be obliterated; only the Earth’s magnetic field prevents sterilisation by cosmic rays.
How do YOU know, smarty pants?
Nobody’s has made a computer that can predict the future. They can only calculate probabilities.
Um, eventually that probability can become 100% or close to it, can’t it? Hence, the word ‘prediction’. Read Isaac Asimov’s books & his theory of psychohistory- a writer thought of this a long time ago. Computers are just making it more & more possible.
Is God an alien; a corporeal being? That’s what’s implied.
Sure, why not? But by ‘corporeal being’, I don’t think you or I can state what that means, exactly- unless you know what the bodies of non Earth life forms must be like? Real is real. Of course, if I think God is real, then he must have a body and a real existence. What that ‘body’ looks like is anyone’s guess. Matter/energy, Baby.
Nobody’s ever believed the earth was flat, not until about 200 years back, when it was retrojectively applied. The ancient Greeks even knew the circumfrance and the distance of the moon.
Check your history books. Also, is ‘retrojectively’ a word?
Genesis is a metaphor, as is Abraham. They represent humanity and the mythical father of nations, that is a common trope all over the world in many variant forms. If you think Genesis is history, where did Cain’s wife appear from?
A nice declarative statement! Were you there?
Evolution has been observed in action (see the Lenski Paper)
Answer:
If speciation was the incredible force that took a string of DNA to the incredible number of species that have existed and that still exist today, you would not need a Lenski Paper to ‘observe’ it in action. It would be self evident. It would be everywhere- observable every day, in every species, in today’s world. It would still be action and there would be tons of bones (did speciation stop millions of years ago?). Young bones. It would be so easy to just dig them up everywhere. I would go so far as to say that is would be 100% evident in all living creatures today. Why have species at all? Why not just one big, morphing cornucopia of interbreeding species? why any demarcation between species at all? Why would a species, in transition, ever move to the point where it couldn’t ‘mate’ with its ancestors? Why would the ‘ancestor’ specie necessarily die off? Why not coexist with equal shots at survival? why not have tons of living creatures that demonstrated speciation in action today? Why not have lizards with feathers? Why would the flounder decide to lay in the mud? Why did it’s eye move 1mm around the bend of its nose? Did that 1mm really help it see better in the mud?
Sherben, mock as you will. Speciation is an idea. A concept. A working theory. It may or may not pan out scientifically. But it certainly is not proven today. Science can never disprove God, despite atheist desperation to do so. In addition, your comments show that you are a troll and nothing more. You are completely uninterested in commenting on the content of my article and want to discuss the existence of God. Or want to do some ignorant, desperate mental gymnastics to say what no ‘real’ scientist would say: that speciation was proven in the fossil record. As neither of these things has anything to do with my article, you are officially booted.
All science–any logical argument–is based on assumptions. Bad assumptions yield bad science. The pseudoscientific argument you present here is undermined first by the flimsy assumption that the great majority of scientists are atheists. If you decide to offer statistics, make sure you exclude Europe, where only the populations of Italy and Turkey remain overwhelmingly religious–The rest have rejected contemporary religion as they did the old mythologies. As for the rest of your argument, it is sadly saturated with a lot of the same old intelligent design hullabaloo to which no reasonable scientist would subscribe. Finally, your title doesn’t really fit your essay. Try “Why Atheists make bad Christians” or “A Summary of the Antiscience Behind ‘intelligent design.’”
“The pseudoscientific argument you present here is undermined first by flimsy assumption that the great majority of scientists are atheists. ”
“it is sadly saturated with a lot of the same old intelligent design hullabaloo to which no reasonable scientist would subscribe.”
Clearly, you agree with me that most ‘reasonable’ scientists would reject religion. But didn’t you just say that my assumption that most scientists are atheists is ‘flimsy’? Which is it, Mr. Logical?
Atheists truly struggle with critical reasoning & logic. Normally intelligent people become so blinded by their NEED to reject God that they can’t even see their outrageous contradictions. This demonstrates my point exactly: atheists make the worst scientists. Their thought process is prevented from accepting what may be possible because they don’t WISH it to be so.
This is sad.
“Exactly. It is completely illogical for a science community, whose only function is to assertain the positiveness of an assertion, to say what can NOT be. That is exactly my point! It is completely illogical. And yet, the atheist science community continues to make just these negative claims. You are circling on the whole point of my article. Gee, I thought I made it quite clear. Funny how only atheists don’t ‘get’ it on first reading…
Now, as for scientists who know better than to say what can NOT be, all kudos to you! Those scientists are sticking to their job!”
um, no. it is not illogical. if you think it is you don’t understand logic. science finds answers in the natural world. science isn’t concerned about supernatural answers because that doesn’t solve anything. you thought you made it clear but you are wrong.
your article just regurgitates typical creationist claims, nothing more. you don’t have a grasp on what the scientific community does. you can’t be taken seriously when you say that the logic of christianity is 100% sound.
i’m embrassed for you.
Jeff, are your cheeks blushing for me? How cute! However, cute that you are, I can only say you have officially become a troll. Why? Because you can not seem to make a point and support it whatsoever. You simply assert, “It is NOT illogical [for a science community, whose only function is to assertain the positiveness of an assertion, to say what can NOT be]”
Are we babies? Are we to shout across the room, “yes it is!”, “no, it’s not!”. I’ve laid out my case perfectly in my article. It IS completely illogical for atheist scientists to say what can NOT be! I am deeply sorry that you can not grasp this concept. Most people can. The fact that you either refuse to acknowledge this truth speaks either to your intellectual ability (which I doubt) or to your unwillingness (which I believe) to admit it.
To claim that “science isn’t concerned about supernatural answers because that doesn’t solve anything” shows your basic lack of understanding about my article. If ‘science’ isn’t concerned with so-called supernatural things, then it shouldn’t make claims about God at all, should it? And if you are saying that atheist science does not make claims about God (like it is ‘unscientific’ or ‘illogical’ or ‘irrational’ to believe in Him), then my article doesn’t apply at all, does it? So why are you all up in a tissy? The reason you seem to fail to see this is due to the same reasons in my first point. Again, I think the second cause is more to blame.
Whoever said science doesn’t help provide answers to ‘natural’ things? Not I!
In any case, you have had plenty of time to address my article and chosen not to do so. Instead, you wish to direct anger & nastiness at me. But worse of all, you haven’t furthered the conversation one bit, which makes you are bore and a troll. You are officially booted!
ATTENTION ALL ATHEISTS!
Listen, people, you really need to get a grip.
1) My article never claimed speciation could never be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It simply says it has not been achieved through the most obvious method yet: fossil records. And it hasn’t. Otherwise we would have a Nobel Prize winner, ok? What I point to in my article is the mathematical improbability that only bones of clearly demarcated species survived the billions upon billions of bones that existed thus far. I simply find that incredible. Accept that and move on. In my article, I also state that if it is proven in this way, well, that is just fine with me. Makes no difference at all to my religious beliefs.
2) My article is aimed at one class of scientists: atheist scientists that would claim that it is ‘unscientific’, ‘irrational’, ‘illogical’ or ‘improbable’ that God exists. Any scientist who does NOT make those claims is immune to my criticism. Asking for quotes, then, is silly. If only a tiny fraction of scientists do this, well, hallelujah! Then why are you getting your panties all up in a wad? I guess my article addresses no one, right?
3)This article is not about evolution or speciation. It is about bad scientists who attempt to use their position as ‘scientists’ to ridicule religious people. It is about exposing their character & their motivations.
Now, if you can all understand these points and can actually address these points for what they are, then we can have a nice little chat. But if you can’t, you will get trolled and booted.
Please oh please don’t boot me.
Check your e-mail for the password for the re-vamped Cheers site.
Sam said he sent e-mails out to the members, and some haven’t responded.
Just lookin’ out after the members.
Don’t worry- you won’t get booted. And I will check it out. I don’t remember seeing the email, though. Can it be resent?
“My article never claimed speciation could never be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It simply says it has not been achieved through the most obvious method yet: fossil records. And it hasn’t. Otherwise we would have a Nobel Prize winner, ok”
1) Well over 99% of biologists accept evolution as the underpinning theory of biology. Darwin figured out the general idea of how evolution works before the Nobel Prizes existed. There’s not going to be a Nobel Prize for proving evolution. You have to figure out something new to win that prize, not rehash stuff figured out in the 19th century.
2) Here’s a educational homework-type question for you:
A group of scientists went to a very remote section of northern Canada. Northern Canada is not a hospitable place–it’s cold, it’s snowy, it has polar bears that can rip your head off if provoked. The scientists were looking for a fossil of a previously undiscovered species of fish with rudimentary legs. They found such a species and named it Tiktaalik.
Here’s the (two-part) question:
Why did they have to go to a remote section of Canada to find that fossil and how did they know that they were supposed to search there?
If you can figure those two parts out, you’ll learn how the fossil record actually works (and you’ll learn why your previous statements on the fossil record are wrong.)
Yeah, I got trolled. You asked me to point at least one error. I did so. You denied that I did, posted another straw man about fossils (really, the fossil record does not work like you think it does) and pissed me off. Well played, Queen of Trolls, well played.
C, you officially ‘un-trolled’! Your comment made me laugh so hard that I decided to let you back on. Now, if you can behave yourself, I will let you stay. Try to avoid calling me a scumbag or otherwise try to highjack the conversation to a topic that was not on my article and we can have a civil discourse.
Thank you for your humor, though. You don’t sound half bad.
Here’s your picture:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/Hydra009/hominids2.jpg
Jimmy, while I find the picture interesting, I can only say that the skulls look quite different from one another. The jaw shapes, eye wells, size, etc are so different from one another that I am left with the question: what makes anyone think these creatures have anything at all to do with one another? I have seen similar photos. They usually also include remarkably tiny skulls as well. As apes and monkeys have incredibly similar head shapes to humans, what makes anyone jump to the conclusion that all these skulls- so different from one another in so many different ways, present a logical sequence of development in humans?
Take a human mother and its baby. Take your own words and apply them to that pair.
“I can only say that the skulls look quite different from one another. The jaw shapes, eye wells, size, etc are so different from one another that I am left with the question: what makes anyone think these creatures have anything at all to do with one another?”
Seriously, take a good look at human babies. Itty bitty fingers. Huge heads that more closely resemble the skull of a chimpanzee baby than that of an adult human. (http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Neoteny_in_humans.htm).
Using your own criteria, human babies and chimpanzee babies might be related, but human babies would not be related to their own mothers.
C, I know you want to make this a discussion on evolution & speciation. All the atheists do. While I mention speciation, which isn’t proven through the fossil record, my article isn’t focused on it. It uses the way atheist scientists jump to the conclusion that it (among other concepts) is FACT when they do not have the proof. I am not incorrect when I say that although still only a working theory, it is proposed as FACT in school books- while the Theory of Relativity is still referred to as a theory. There is something very indicative about that. My point was to point out the NEED & motivation of these atheists to disprove God, while it is completely illogical to work in the negative supposition. Good science doesn’t attempt to predict what is NOT true. It presents an idea, a supposition, and then attempts to see if it can be ‘proven’ through experiments, etc. As you can see by the atheist foaming-at-the-mouth comments (most filled with bile and anger), there is some emotional component to speciation and evolution that seems rather….strange. And it only goes further to prove my point concerning the MOTIVES of atheists as concerned evolution.
You won’t see me foaming at the mouth, I guarantee you. Whether or not speciation pans out is a non-emotional issue for me. It doesn’t matter. While I am interested in the subject (and the type of evidence- like predicting the location of possible specimens- you proposed), it doesn’t consume me in and of itself. I am a studier of human nature before anything else. If ever I write a paper on speciation (which I never will because I am not qualified to do so), we can have a deep discussion (hopefully, rage free) about it. But I do wonder at the rage of atheists whenever anyone questions the idea of speciation. It is just plain weird. Would it infuriate atheists if I said something like, “gravity doesn’t work”? No, I don’t think so. They would just scoff and think I was a complete idiot. They certainly would not engage in a heated debate over it! I doubt they would even read the entire article, let alone leave a comment- let alone a comment filled with vitriol.
They would just feel sorry for me, C. And that is a fact.
C, I assume you are an atheist. If I am incorrect, please correct me if you feel so inclined. But atheists need to examine their anger as concerns speciation. Why the hate? Why the rage? Either the sky is blue or it is not blue. If I say it is pink, would you HATE me and my statement? Would you call me names? No. Atheists have an EMOTIONAL investment in speciation. You know this is true. It is YOU who need it to be ‘true’. Why, I do not know. I suspect, however, that this need stems from the need to ‘prove’ that God doesn’t exist. To me, there is no emotional, spiritual or intellectual component in it. I know that God made all things. Now, if you want to know WHY I think that- well, now that would be an interesting conversation, would it not? But interestingly enough, no one has even asked me that question!
My article takes aim at the emotion, the will, the intent of atheist scientists concerning speciation (among other things). To me, an emotional investment in science leads to bad science. It is dangerous and can lead to forced conclusions. That would be the equivalent of me, a Christian, NEEDING to prove that God existed through science. Would not that NEED and will, and emotion on my part lead me to potentially bad analysis, bad experiments, bad procedure, and bad conclusions? Yes, it would. All the atheist attacks on my article only prove my point. My article stands.
Oh, and I thought of something else related to skulls (and skeletons) after I made my last post.
Under your skeletons-must-be-alike criteria, pugs (skull’s too stubby) and beagles (spine’s too long) would not be dogs.
Ooh…wait. Since pugs and beagles, despite skeletal differences, remain dogs, has anyone cross bred them?
…Google search…
People have! And they’re SO FREAKING CUTE. I should end now (Who’s a cute little hybrid? Yes, you are, puggles, YES YOU ARE.). I should debunk anti-evolutionary claims more often if the research into those claims can end up being this awesome and SO SO CUTE. YES YOU ARE, PUGGLES! YES YOU ARE!
I agree wholeheartedly about puggles!
You write:
“Just one, Case. If they are so available, just pull one up for me. Show me one fossil trail that shows a creatures legs getting one inch shorter and one inch shorter and one inch shorter and then morphing into a small fin and then a bigger fin and then a bigger fin… get the idea? Anything like that. I went to the sad website in Wikipedia. You are free to go there too. Not one series of photographs showing slow changes over time.”
As a scientist yourself you must know that what you are asking here is more than likely impossible. There is no natural law (thank goodness) that says all bones from dead animals, humans, fish, etc are to be preserved. You must know that conditions are hardly ever good for bone preservation and the ones we do have are precious. Do you REALLY expect a full line-up of all transitions for things that probably existed 250,000,000 years or more ago.
You say you are a scientist, but I seen no real indication of it in your screed. And, I have noticed that anyone who disagrees with you TOO much is banned.
How about some thoughtful exchange of ideas, theories, and information.
Word, incorrect that I bann based on agreement. I bann people who have been given ample time to make a point that has anything whatsoever to do with my article. I have clarified myself over and over again. If a person can not ‘hear’ me and stick to the point rather than attempt to make this about proving God’s existence- or evolution, for that matter, I can’t help them. I have been more than generous with my blog space. As for thoughtful exchange of ideas, I haven’t seen anyone but me interested in that here. Sorry. Word, you are on probation too. Please stick to the article and have a point. A logical, valid, well thought out point that doesn’t include frothing at the mouth, ok?
Word, did speciation stop, somehow, 250,000,000 years ago?
You may find some transitional fossils in this list…it’s from Wikipedia, but you can check the real world references
Whoops!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
and?
its a bunch of pictures…
Find something in the post that is wrong? Well, this is going to be tedious, but I’ll point out some of the worst of the errors.
“A claim must be proven to be taken seriously.”
WRONG. Proofs are only found in mathematics. You can’t prove that bowling balls will always fall down when dropped. You can demonstrate that floating bowling balls are highly unlikely.
“The only barrier against exposure to mockery is the success of the myth that Science, somehow, is always ‘right’. That scientists are somehow smarter or more logical than any other human. That they, somehow, are immune to human frailties like selfishness, power hunger or arrogance. And lastly, that science today is somehow ‘much more advanced’ than in the days when scientists claimed the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth.”
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and, oh, yes, WRONG.
Scientists are very aware of errors. That’s why you have margins of error, 95% confidence levels, repeating tests, etc. You have no idea what science is or how it’s done. And if you think that science hasn’t advanced, well, when you get a bad infection, you can forgo the antibiotics.
“Scientists are nothing more than fallible humans with their equal share of heroes and villains.”
Ding-ding-ding! (Psst. Scientists know this too.)
“So why this blind faith in an entire community of humans? Why assume that because a majority of them say something, (like the earth is flat), we plebeians must accept their ideas without question?”
WRONG. Scientists, for the most part, like answering questions. Ask your friendly neighborhood scientist and (s)he’ll tell you why scientists have concluded that the earth is not flat.
“Science has also proven itself completely wrong- over & over again. First, eating liver is great for people. Now, liver is ‘bad’ for people. First, using gas was great for people. Now, using gas is bad for people. First, calcium pills were great for people. Now calcium pills are bad for people. First, drinking wine was bad for people.”
MISLEADING. First, as the saying goes, “The poison is in the dose.” Water is good for you, unless you drink too much, then it kills you. Second, liver/calcium/wine/etc. are good for people AND bad for people. Human nutrition is complicated that way.
“The only good scientist is the extremely humble one.”
WRONG. There have been many scientists that were anything but humble. Einstein, the stereotypical brilliant modern scientist, had a long, long string of mistresses.
“To assume that mankind has somehow gotten a good grip on knowledge is just
plain comical. We can’t even cure the cold.”
MISLEADING. “The cold” is not a single malady, but a rapidly evolving set of several similar diseases. You don’t blame a rifle marksman for not being able to shoot at targets traveling at Mach 2.
“And these same scientists who claim that they will not believe in something they can not prove, believe in speciation (the very bedrock of Evolution)-though not one species out of the hundreds of thousands that exist or have ever existed has left a fossil trail that would prove them correct.”
WRONG and MISLEADING.
Speciation has been observed repeatedly in the wild and laboratory settings. Also, while we have much more fossil evidence than you know about, the genetic evidence for evolution is so strong that we have two options:
A) Animals evolved.
B) Animals did not evolve, a creator with OCD manipulated their DNA in many highly detailed ways to make it seem that animals evolved. (E.g., Human DNA, is slightly changed ape DNA with two of the chromosomes jammed together.)
Most scientists go with A.
“Instead, they resort to genetic gymnastics to prove the improbable! (The same guys who can’t cure the cold because they can’t understand the genetics want us to believe they can use genetics to explain the ENTIRE creation of life!”
WRONG and MISLEADING.
If we ever figure out all of what makes life goes (unlikely), all biology researchers will be out of a job. Oh, and the reason we can’t cure the common cold? Evolution!
“If man’s head began with the Neanderthal and ‘morphed’ genetically over time to increasingly intelligent forms of man, where are the millions of bones of all those morphing beings?”
JUST PLAIN SILLY. First, If McDonalds served billions and billions of hamburgers, why isn’t the world covered with cow bones by now? There’s not a care-keeper that’s saving all the bones. Most bones don’t get persevered. (That said, we have more fossils than you think we do.)
Second, Neanderthals were not the main ancestors of mankind. If your ancestors came exclusively from Africa, you probably don’t have any Neanderthal DNA. If you’re of European ancestry, only a small part of your DNA is of Neanderthal origin.
“Where are the bones that show the human brain growing?”
Have you even *bothered* to look at the fossils we do have? The change of the shape of the human head over time is very well documented in the fossil record.
“It took energy & design to make this. Without continued energy & design, things ‘naturally’ fall apart.”
We have an outside source of energy that gives life as we know it the powerneeded to change an grow. You may have heard of it, it’s called the “sun”.
-Your comment about ‘Proof’ is funny. Very atheist of you. I find that atheists have a special place in their hearts for jargon juggling.
-Note I said the ‘myth’ that scientists are always right. Of course I know scientists are always wrong! (wasn’t that my whole article?). Good to know they know it too! could’ve fooled me though.
- the ‘blind faith’ I mentioned is on the part of society, not scientists
- your comment about the ‘cold’ is funny. Ok, then let’s replace it with ‘aging’, ok?
- on speciation: who said you don’t have some bones? But you just can’t find the bones (there should be billions of samples!) to prove speciation. You McDonald’s comment is hilarious.
-about man’s head fossils, just show me the money, ok? You only have fossils of separate species of what you consider to be ‘man’. Not the in-betweens. You are a bald faced lair, sir.
- comment about the sun is dumb. You only prove my point by mentioning the sun. Why is that ‘external’ in your mind? In any case, yes, the sun added energy to plants, which then added energy to animals (humans) which then added energy to creating that building. But, without sustained energy (in this case, Man’s energy, the building does indeed wind down. In obedience to entropy. The universe is expanding when it should be winding down. You just re-iterate my point about energy. Question: what/who provided that first jump start of matter/energy that supposedly fueled the Big Bang? Also, who/how did those pesky laws of nature come into existence? You know, things like gravity, relativity, mathematics, etc. Or, I should properly say, ‘those laws as we currently understand them’?
As for Einstein, he agrees with ME. he was indeed humble and funny. And he knew better than to say that a belief in God was unscientific. He was smart enough to say, “I don’t know.”
” You ask me if I keep a notebook to record my great ideas. I’ve only ever had one…” - Albert Einstein
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”- Albert Einstein
“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” - Albert Einstein
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”- Albert Einstein
“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”- Albert Einstein
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”- Albert Einstein
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”- Albert Einstein
I rest my case.
Taking a bunch out of context quotes from Einstein doesn’t fix the gaps in your logic or misleading information…
Not addressing my points at all doesn’t prove anything for you, James.
Of course, but I didn’t want to steal C’s thunder :p
But make a point fast, James, or you will be just taking up valuable space here.
You don’t understand what proof is (and why science doesn’t deal in proof).
You don’t understand that almost all animals completely rot and leave behind no bones at all.
You don’t understand what entropy is (and why it has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe–that’s a complete non sequitur).
You don’t understand what a transitional form is (and why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution is chock full of ‘em).
You don’t understand that Einstein did not agree with you, denied any belief in any god that took special interest in mankind, and found religions like Christianity to be childish. (Yeah, I know he hated on atheism, but I find his pantheism to be my atheism with a “god” label slapped on it.)
You don’t understand that I also say “I don’t know” all the time (Funny thing about science–it leaves you confused–but by more complicated unknowable things than ever before!)
And, worst of all, you don’t have the background knowledge to even know that you actually don’t know many things that you think you know. You have no idea how modern science works and you don’t even know that you don’t know that.
What you are, when you talk about science, is like a typical fourth grader talking about sex. You have strong opinions, but you haven’t the background knowledge to know what you’re talking about.
C, what you don’t understand is that while most bones may rot, many survived- as it pointed out so vehemently by your fellow atheists. The problem is that no bones are found that can show the infinitely slow morphing of a species over millions of years- this would mean that there are millions of bones for just one species ‘morph’ out of hundreds of thousands of millions of other bones that should have survived throughout all the millions of years that ALL species have been morphing. One would think that at least ONE species could be shown, through fossil records to have done this amazing speciation. Further, C, you have ‘morphed’ into quite the troll. Your rage amuses me, but doesn’t interest me. C, rather than tell me what I don’t understand, why not just point out where I was wrong in my article. If you know so much, that is. As you can not or will not do this, you are officially deemed a troll and are booted. I didn’t expect much more from atheists. Science & logic will never favor you. As you have demonstrated to a tee.
lol! Desperation at it’s best- how about a little break? You are gasping!
*The Gish gallop*, spouting so much effluence and demi-truths at such a rate that no single human being could possibly keep up without giving up their job, their personal lives, and ridding themselves of the monkey-on-their-backs that some people call “sleeping”. http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/
*The Gish Gallop* is an informal name for a debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised. Usually this results in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles just to decide where to start. It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Um, is that your excuse for copping out? Just wanted to make sure.
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever – this is a somewhat new kind of religion. –Albert Einstein
I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. –Albert Einstein
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. –Albert Einstein
I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. –Albert Einstein–This represents a Deist viewpoint–twom
Did he say he knew there was no God? Or that it was unscientific to believe there was a God? No. Instead, he defines what God is to him. I never claimed Einstein believed in the Christian God. What I said is that he was humble. Also, that he would never, ever say what could NOT be. All his comments about imagination point toward his firm belief in all that is POSSIBLE. He believed in the imagination of anything at all. Which is exactly my point. He was a good scientist because he never attempted to use ‘science’ to disprove God. Nor to even hint at it.
“He was a good scientist because he never attempted to use ‘science’ to disprove God. Nor to even hint at it.”
Few scientists do. Sure, you might could point to Victor Stenger, who wrote _God: The Failed Hypothesis_. But that is very few. The vast, vast vast majority of scientists spend much more time doing actual SCIENCE. Take my brother for example. He’s really the smart one in my family, with doctorates in physics and math, and a masters in computer science. He’s what is sometimes called an “apatheist”. He has no God belief, but, he isn’t like me. He wouldn’t be bothered to post on a blog like this. He simply has no interest in religion at all. Most scientists are like my brother.
Case,
My article is a defense against the arrogance of atheist scientists who would contend that a belief in God is ‘irrational’, ‘ignorant’, ‘unscientific’, ‘illogical’, etc. Ones who use their position as ‘scientists’ to mock religious people. If your brother does not do these things, then he doesn’t fit my definition, does he?
Further, if so few atheist scientists mock, then I guess my article only condemns a very few people, right? So, why all this angst among my atheist readers?
Could you explain why your beliefs are right and that those of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jainism, Sikhism, and Neoshamanism faith are delusional?
Adam, I don’t recall where I ever made the claim that other religions are delusional.
Well you said that you KNOW your god is real. That would imply the others are fake.
Adam, as I guessed before, your intention is not to learn anything whatsoever, but to carp. Please don’t say I imply anything. I either said it or I didn’t. Can you stick to facts? Also, if you have a point, make it. If you don’t, why are you writing?
Did this article seriously suggest that radiation can be called good or bad? That is equivalent to saying physics is inherently good or bad… something that no serious scientist would ever say. There are plenty of agnostic atheists, Muslims, Christians and Jews in the science and engineering community. Most of them are far, far too overworked and preoccupied to deal with petty bickering and semantics like this.
Rojas, get a sense of humor. Those were meant to be amusing captions in my photos. Clearly the point of the entire article escaped you. Either that, or you didn’t read it. Perhaps if you weren’t so “overworked and preoccupied to deal with petty bickering and semantics like this”, you would have seen that my article takes aim at atheist scientists and by no means discredits all scientists. Try to find some time to READ an article next time before you make a comment. It will save you from some eggs on your face.
Rojas, I also love the names and emails atheists always use when they comment. I find cowardliness to be a common trait among them. See, I put my name & face to my writings. I fear nothing and no one. Because I know God is with me. Only rats scurry under the table- have you ever noticed that?
“I find cowardliness to be a common trait among them. See, I put my name & face to my writings.”
There are plenty of public atheists. You do, no doubt know of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens being among the “household names”. But, you see, we live in a predominatly Christian society. Atheists regularly get death threats. You have heard of YouTube Christian Anthony Powell (Tony48219) who killed a YouTube nonbeliever? Look it up. Now, of course I know that not every Christian is going to do that. But, we get enough death threats that many skeptics would prefer to remain anonymous.
Further, this is blog! Anybody posting on ANY blog, religion related or not, is reasonable to use nicknames. Have you ever gone to a Christian forum? Do you notice most Christians use handles? Did Denise or Adam or anybody else give full names/addresses? Of course not. You are just using personal attacks, that which you complain that we do.
Death threats? lol! Now I have really heard it all!
You said, “please just pick a fact, any fact, that I got wrong.” That is easy, but, okay, here is one ‘fact’ you got miserably wrong:
“not one species out of the hundreds of thousands that exist or have ever existed has left a fossil trail that would prove them correct”
First, we must address the word ‘prove’. Literal “proof” DOES NOT EXIST in science. Proof is only found in mathematical constructs because they defined as such. So, in one sense, your claim is correct, no fossil “proves” evolution correct, for literal proof could not ever be had.
On the other hand, if we define “proof” as “sufficient evidence to be beyond ‘reasonable’ doubt”, well, then you are completely wrong. I will give you for starters, this article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
So, you asked for one ‘fact’ you got wrong, there you have it. Are you honest enough to admit your error?
Um, which ‘fact’ was wrong again? Are you saying that these fossils exist? REALLY? Wow, where can I find them? Pray tell. I need further explanation on the ‘fact’ in question….
Did you spend even 5 seconds looking at the FAQ? How many fossils do you want? How many transitional species would be sufficient for you? If you would like to see some for yourself, have you tried going to a museum?
Several of your posts you complain that atheists don’t back up our claims. And, truth be told, most of the comments in this section don’t actually provide any evidence. But, the reason for this is pretty simple, when we do provide you evidence, experience tells us the theist will ignore it. Like I just gave you a FAQ that lists hundreds of transitional fossils, and, your response was just some smarmy response that you accuse of of giving.
Prove me wrong. Prove that you actually want to know the truth. That unfortunately entails some work on your part. Not too hard, just reading. Going to a museum if you want to see it in person. Go to a university if you want to talk to someone doing paleontology. There is an old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. This applies to knowledge. I can point you to resources, but, I can’t make you use them.
You demand evidence, when in fact you have the Internet, universities, books, etc all available to find all the evidence you want.
Please point me to one species that has a fossil record proving speciation.
Just one, Case. If they are so available, just pull one up for me. Show me one fossil trail that shows a creatures legs getting one inch shorter and one inch shorter and one inch shorter and then morphing into a small fin and then a bigger fin and then a bigger fin… get the idea? Anything like that. I went to the sad website in Wikipedia. You are free to go there too. Not one series of photographs showing slow changes over time.
But all this is besides the point. My article was not about evolution. Or about proving God’s existence. Can any atheist stay on point and comment on my article? If not, you will officially become trolls. As per my posting rules, trolls are booted. You can either add to the conversation with real points or you will ‘cease to exist’ on my blog! No freedom of speech here! ;-D
“Please point me to one species that has a fossil record proving speciation.”
Fossils are dead. No matter how many fossils I provide, I cannot PROVE that they weren’t individually created by God. Or Satan or the Tooth Fairy for that matter. As I said, PROOF is for mathematics, not science. Now, you want examples of fossil lineages? I’ve already given you a link to an article with hundreds. I’ve pointed you to the museum if you want to see some in person.
If you want evidence of speciation, speciation events have been observed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I’ve given you everything YOU have demanded, and as my reward, you call me a troll and refuse to even look at it. You even lie about your own article, which uses the word “evolution” 3 times and “fossil” four times. Who is the troll?
no, I asked for one fossil trail. You couldn’t provide it. Hence, you are done commenting. It’s been fun- but if you can’t stick to the article, then you are no more than a troll. You are officially booted. Atheists, while they amuse me with their mental gymnastics, can simply not address the point. As I have stated repeatedly, this is not an article on evolution. I said that speciation has never been proven (to any level of reasonable satisfaction- for all you jargon jugglers) by the most obvious way: bones. That is true and continues to be true. But it was not the point of my article. If you don’t understand my article, I am very sorry. If you refuse to comment on the article, then you are gone. Sorry.
I’m a troll on my own blog?? lol! Oh, how droll…
As you can’t seem to prove anything at all, I would never challenge you to prove that anything was created by God- or satan or anybody. Even I can’t do that!
How on earth do you get that I want you to do so?
I went to your FAQ website and found:
“GAP: Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can’t get much detailed information. So, we don’t know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can’t be identified.
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody’s found one yet.
These statements are riddled throughout this paprer. I am surprised you would send me somewhere that would so clearly illustrate my point. Also, it explains that most of their assumptions pertain to whole groups of species and more rarely on species to species. And clearly the bones are teeny, tiny fragments that they wish they had more of. So get a grip and accept the current truth. Speciation is nowhere NEAR proven via fossil records. And anyway, if it can’t be ‘proven’ (as only math has ‘proofs’, why are YOU trying to do it?) In any case, if and when speciation ever is ‘proven’ through fossil records, I will be more willing to accept it. As it stands too much remains unknown. Never said speciation couldn’t be proven either . Wasn’t the point of my article!
All you did was prove why science is great. Yes, scientists have been wrong in the past. The point is, when they come upon new evidence, they acknowledge it and adjust their opinion. Religious people are the complete opposite. They would rather blindly defend their original opinion and defy what knowledge is currently known. If God came down from the heavens tomorrow, proved his existence and identity, and proclaimed that evolution is a myth, then scientists would accept it. But no matter how much evidence we find that proves the theory of evolution is correct religious people will deny it.
YOU make the worst scientist. The job of scientists is to come to a conclusion based on evidence. Unless you can prove tangible evidence supporting the existence of God you’re coming up with a baseless conclusion, which is the complete opposite of what a scientist is supposed to do.
Adam, you are correct that the role of scientists is to conclude based on evidence. So why do atheist scientists conclude that there is no God? Where is their evidence for that?
I never said scientists didn’t discover amazing things, did I? No. I said that the nature of science is to be wrong. There will always be more to learn. So why would any scientist say they KNOW God doesn’t exist?
Also, it is not the role of science to say what can NOT be, is it? Further, you are mistaken in your notion that science’s role concerning knowledge is to dismiss anything that can’t be proven as NON EXISTENT. Didn’t you read my article? Did air molecules NOT EXIST because mankind hadn’t proved their existence yet? No, they still existed. Your logic is flawed. You say, scientists gather data and based on that data, they make conclusions. (thus far, you are correct). But then you seem to believe that the following is also true: if scientists can not find proof of something, then it must NOT exist.
It is exactly this logically flawed idea that I deal with in my article.
As for evolution, I never said it was a myth, did I? Atheists always get hopping mad when I say that there is no fossil record to back speciation. There isn’t. That’s all I said. (I also expressed amazement at seemingly intelligent people jumping on board the FACT train when the most obvious way to prove their theory is mysteriously missing! pssst! wouldn’t a few fossils be nice?***) ;-D
Wouldn’t phase my Christian belief in God if those billions of lost bones ever got found, by the way. I just find it statistically improbable that they are all hiding in some Amazon basin (you know, ALL of them) and will one day be dug up to prove that we all actually came from an amoeba. Just sayin’! But if they DO, against all probability, find that giant cache of bones that prove speciation, I will tip my hat and say, “Oh! That IS the way You did it!” and laugh with delight.
If I ran around, as a Christian, saying I could prove the existence of God, then you would have a point. But as it is, I never made that claim. As far as I know, no Christian has ever made that claim. In fact, we accept the idea that because we cannot prove his existence, we take it as a matter of faith (ie, we don’t need proof- at least, not the kind you would consider proof). We do not say what can NOT be, do we?
As for being a scientist, I guess I only know enough ‘science’ to stand at awe at the Greatest Scientist’s work. All I can say is that the more I find, the more amazed I become. Also, the smaller I feel. Any scientist who cannot say this is a bad one- because they are very in love with their own intellect. Always a dangerous business.
Scientists don’t proclaim that they know beyond all doubt there is no god. They proclaim that there is no evidence to support that one exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe one exists.
I can write a book that says that Bill Clinton is the reincarnation of a pink elephant who built a 100 mile long bathtub on the invisible planet of Bleetopia. Should you believe me simply because you can’t prove I’m wrong?
No, air molecules did exist despite humans not knowing of their existence. But what you fail to explain is why it would have been reasonable for them to accept it as a possibility despite having no evidence to support it. The belief of air molecules only became existent once there was evidence to support it.
Can you explain why you believe Christianity over all of the other religions?
Atheist scientists go as far as to say it is ‘unscientific’, ‘illogical’, ‘improbable’ and/or ‘irrational’ to believe in God. Good scientists know better than to make those claims. Because they know they leave themselves open to attack- like mine in this article. When did I say ALL scientists are that dumb? There are lots of good ones out there, but as I said, they are in the minority. Good scientists know better than to claim to know what can NOT exist. It would leave them open to mockery.
Yes, air molecules did exist. What is the preoccupation of atheists with finding out if it was ‘reasonable’ or ‘rational’ to believe in their existence back then? Does it matter one iota if the caveman was ‘rational’ or ‘reasonable’ to think there might be little particles around them? The molecule was there! Are you interested in reality or not? I am. Based on my personal observations & thoughts, I find it more probable Intelligent Life created everything than to believe that matter/energy + the laws of nature just ‘happened’. Nothing in my experience would support that idea. Everything does the opposite- it falls apart. But that is another topic.
I think atheists get all wrapped up in whether they are ‘reasonable’ or ‘rational’ to dismiss God. They are simply not comfortable with their decision to ‘NOT BELIEVE’ in Him. Why? Because they are not very sure they are right. And being wrong about a powerful GOD who could do with you as He wills would be disastrous. How uncomfortable! So they look to the ‘scientific’ community- trusting in its larger than life myth of knowing stuff- to help them reject God. Atheist science bascially comforts them. Hence their need to defend it though they know nothing about it!
It is always the atheist who becomes furious about the topic- not Christians. I am cozy and content in my belief in God. It simply is logical as can be to me. No human on earth can prove me wrong- I can say that with confidence. But then again, I do not hate the bended knee and bowed head. I love to worship, yes, worship my God. I am happy He is there- a wise and good force that keeps eye on his creation. My belief comforts me as much as your belief in the accuracy of science comforts you. Your problem lies in the fact that your ‘belief’ is always wrong- by nature! So, your confidence is always shaken- hence your constant irritation with another opinion. On the other hand, my belief in God can NEVER be disproven. So my comfort is secure and unchanging. Hence, my coziness.
You can say God doesn’t exist a million times and I will only feel for you. I sense where you are coming from- and it is not a place of confidence or pleasure. I often say that I have never met an atheist- because a true atheist wouldn’t even bother with me or my claims. They would just have that deep inner ‘knowing’ that I am deluded, stupid, or illogical and carefully step around me. But it never goes that way. My love of God and my reasoning always burn atheists’ butts. Why? Because they NEED something. They NEED their precious science community’s validity to stay intact. Why? Because if that falls, then they are left in the exact place they used to be at: uncertainty. And a God who may not look kindly on their rebellion. And a God who insistently calls for them to bow down before him. And worse of all, a God, if he exists, that will damn your soul to hell. Wow. Quite a decision. I KNOW this is irritating. But only to those who refuse to do it. Once you do, the greatest relief and joy spread through your body and you wonder why you feared it so much to begin with.
I have spoken mostly from the standpoint that it is not illogical, unscientific, unreasonable, or irrational to believe in the idea that a Higher Life Form created our little test tube. This article also did not focus on all the reasons why a belief in a Higher Being’s creation of us is indeed logical, scientific and rational. I have defended religion from the false claims of bad scientists. If you are looking for my ‘rational’ or ‘scientific’ reasons for believing in the Intelligent Design model of creation, that would be an entire article in and of itself. I try not to focus so much on that part because what I know for a fact is this: no matter how good my science, math and logic may be, I cannot ever prove the existence of God. Never said I could. I also know that He cannot be disproven. It can go either way if you have the intellectual honesty to go down that road. That being said, I think it more probable that God exists and if that were all atheists were looking for in order to believe in God, I would be happy to provide my reasoning. But I know that atheists are looking for nothing of the kind. Scientific proof, that is. They WISH to be atheists- as their refusal to acknowledge the simple logic in my article demonstrates. No amount of ‘proof’ can penetrate a willful mind. Therein lies the trick: is it even worth it to give good scientific reasoning to a person who really doesn’t want to hear it? In my old age, I have come to think the answer is, “no”. God speaks to every human. That much I know. They either open the door or they don’t. That is why I don’t write an article talking about the scientific ‘pro’s’ of God. I stick to defending it from easily squishable accusations of ‘unscientific’ or ‘illogical’ flung from the atheist science community. See, I have a conundrum: atheists would reject any ‘proof’ I came up with and Christians don’t need my ‘proof’. So where is the benefit?
I have not really spoken specifically to Jesus and Christianity. If I felt you were truly looking for my thoughts on that, then I would be happy to answer. Do you really want to know my thoughts on Jesus?
“Adam, you are correct that the role of scientists is to conclude based on evidence. So why do atheist scientists conclude that there is no God? Where is their evidence for that?”
Becuase there isn’t any evidence to conclude there is a god. and…did you just ask where the evidence is for no god? Think about what you just asked.
Jeff,
Exactly. It is completely illogical for a science community, whose only function is to assertain the positiveness of an assertion, to say what can NOT be. That is exactly my point! It is completely illogical. And yet, the atheist science community continues to make just these negative claims. You are circling on the whole point of my article. Gee, I thought I made it quite clear. Funny how only atheists don’t ‘get’ it on first reading…
Now, as for scientists who know better than to say what can NOT be, all kudos to you! Those scientists are sticking to their job!
Amusing use of straw man arguments.
So amusing that you can knock them down?
Scumbag blogger: Accuses scientists of ignoring evidence and jumping to conclusions. Ignores tons of evidence for evolution and jumps to conclusions.
If you’d get off your high horse and studied evolution (instead of bashing strawmen), you’d know why scientists say that the evolution of whale from earlier legged creatures has been proven well beyond any reasonable doubts. All you’re doing is plugging your ears, shutting your eyes, closing your mind, and accusing everyone else of being close-minded.
C, lol! When you can’t take the heat, call names? Next?
C, can you please, please, please show me the money? If you can show me where I am “plugging your ears, shutting your eyes, closing your mind, and accusing everyone else of being close-minded” it would make me most happy, dear. Also, the ‘tons of evidence’?
Yes, tons of evidence. Every last cell of your body bears unmistakable evidence for evolution. The same biology behind paternity tests links us as distant relative of every other living thing on earth.
I’m not going to try to list all the evidence here because 1) others have already done a very good job at this and 2) you don’t have the background knowledge to understand it even half of it. I might as well try to explain calculus to someone who hasn’t learned addition.
But, if you want a good introduction to what you’re missing, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY for some background information.
tell you what, C, why don’t you do something very easy here. Just respond to my article. Pick a line, any line – OR- if it makes things a little easier, please just pick a fact, any fact, that I got wrong. This should be incredibly easy to do as you clearly have the superior ‘background knowledge’ with which to do it. Further, I never said ‘evolution’ wasn’t ‘true’. I said it was unproven through fossil records. The mathematical probability that only the bones of transitional specimens (between one species and another) is astoundingly small. Whether they remain to be found is anyone’s guess. If they are, then Hallelujah for yet another piece of God’s method. My point, since you atheists really struggle with focus, was that I highly doubt the credibility and true intention of ANY scientist who 1) jumps to such remarkable conclusions when they are missing the most obvious piece of the puzzle (fossil records) and 2) think that mankind can determine what is NOT possible.
Did you understand that concept, or must you re-read the article? I can’t state it any more clearly than that, C.
well beyond reasonable doubts? lol! Can I sell you some condos? Got a really good deal on them!
The trouble is, your thinking on how your belief is 100% logically sound is so misguided that you will never understand why belief in a god(s) is a pointless, meaningless endeavor. Regardless of your genius IQ!
Oh, Wayne, why does it hurt so much to actually address my points? If you are an atheist, please, please, please show me the way! I am sitting here waiting for the light! Atheists claim to know so much more than I- I want to learn at your feet! I am but a humble little girl waiting for instruction! So, misguided that I am, would it hurt you to please actually address my article and the points I made rather than just point out my flaws? I breathlessly await……
Again….Lee Strobel was a hard hitting atheist journalist in Chicago who covered brutal stories and asked the toughest questions. His wife became a Christian and he wasn’t overtly happy for her. However, he noticed something different about her so was inspired to dive into his own investigation of re: Jesus Christ. His intention was to disprove it all and document his findings. He does indeed ask the toughest questions in his research. He has since written several books, put dvd’s together and now helps teach a bible class to youth. As a matter of fact, there are student versions of his books. So before anyone enters into personal attacks on Susan why don’t YOU be brave enough to read The Case for Christ and open your mind to his archaeological and scientific evidence as well as his well thought out theories and consider rethinking YOUR position if you dare.
Hi Denise,
Thanks for your sweet defense of me, but I truly welcome these attacks. They simply prove my article to be true. Not one person who has, um, disagreed with my article has provided one iota of actual information to refute it. Their anger, frustration and lack of come-back leaves them naked and exposed to ridicule. They make me laugh with pleasure because I know why they squirm like they do.
Denise,
Debunking the nonsense of Lee Strobel is one of my personal agendas. I have on my site, caseagainstfaith.com, detailed refutations of all of the “Case for…” apologetics series. And I give it away for free. I am quite convinced that Strobel knows he is a charlatan and just rakes in the bucks from his books from the gullible public.
Generally speaking, if you’re going to condemn people for saying something, you should actually quote and cite them actually saying it. Putting words in their mouths and then criticizing those words is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
“Who would believe that any ‘hero’ of any culture of any time in human history could be defined as a selfish, power-hungry, self aggrandizing, money lusting fool?”
Your education in the humanities seems seriously deficient. Almost all the good heroes are deeply flawed.
Of course heroes are seriously flawed! Does their very humanity make them less of a hero? Do you mean to say that the fire fighters on 9/11 were not heroes because some of them drank too much or left their wives for a younger woman at some point in their lives? Attaining the ‘higher virtues’ is not only rare in society, but they are rare in one individual. Being a hero rarely means that the person is a hero at all times. But does that negate my POINT about heroes? That they are rare? No! Your point only enhances my point: ‘good’ men are rare. And thus, ‘good’ scientists are rare!
Thank you for proving my point even more.
“Generally speaking, if you’re going to condemn people for saying something, you should actually quote and cite them actually saying it. Putting words in their mouths and then criticizing those words is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.”- YOU
Answer: I didn’t quote a single soul in my article so I don’t know what you are talking about!
In the end, my article had zero to do with quoting. My points were based on critical reasoning- flawed critical reasoning on the part of atheist scientists. And if you can please point out where I am in error in any part of either my reasoning or my facts, I would be happy to address them.
But as it is, you are doing nothing more than calling names (really, you were left with no other choice, were you?). No wonder you consider yourself a bum.
“My points were based on… flawed critical reasoning on the part of atheist scientists.”
You have not demonstrated that any atheist scientist has engaged in flawed critical reasoning. When you attribute a position to an individual or a group, you have a positive obligation to ensure that you are characterizing that position accurately. To fail in this obligation when the position attributed is strongly negative is an egregious failure of the basic standards of scholarly intellectual integrity. It is not my job to correct your failures of scholarship and intellectual integrity.
Larry, are you saying that atheist scientists think it is scientifically sound to believe in God? That it is logical to believe in God? That it is ‘rational’ to believe in God? If so, then I will withdraw my comments and article altogether!
You want some kind of quote from these people. Why? Every atheist on this post says the same things I have accused the atheist scientists of saying.
Now, if you want quotes because you don’t believe they say those things, then you must think they believe the converse of my statements, right?
Just let me know…..
“Not as a Christian, but as a scientist and mathematician.”
What degrees do you have?
Brian, do my ‘degrees’ make me either a scientist or a mathematician? This is the thinking that kills innovation and science today. And here I always thought that every human was a scientist or a mathematician! If Albert Einstein lacked a degree that could satisfy you, would it make him less of a scientist, physicist or mathematician? Is good reasoning & knowledge only REAL the moment a person gets a degree from a Western White University? Your question alone proves my central point perfectly: things are only REAL if they are approved by the Western White society. Thank you for that illustration, Brian!
If you really want to question my ideas, why don’t you question THEM, on their own merits? Or do you need a degree to do that? By the way, my ‘degree’ is in Biochemistry, dear. Not that it matters. Do you want my IQ too? It’s 152. Do you want my current job? Mother. Do you want my resume: it is on Linked In. Will you then answer my points, or must I submit more ‘credentials’ to you before you gather up the courage?
lol really? listing your IQ as a credential? anyway, it’s not that things are only real if approved by the WWS (as you call it) but it certainly helps. i’m getting a phd in neuroscience and i couldn’t do nearly as good of research without my scientific training. not everyone is Einstein (or has 152 IQ’s lol) but the scientific training makes many great scientists.
Um, I wasn’t listing my credentials. I was responding (with irony) to someone asking for my degrees. I have nothing but respect for education and training. Never said I didn’t. You atheists are so tied up with emotion that you missed the entire point of my article. Did you guys even read it? What I will not do is make this comment section into a play ground for babies. Either you understand the article and can comment on IT, or you don’t. Attempting to co-opt this discussion into proving God’s existence (which I have made plainly clear that I can not do) or about evolution (which is not really part of my article other than the speciation aspect and the fossil proof for it- which does not exist) will not be tolerated. Sorry. So, thus far, James, you are one of the only surviving atheists allowed to stay. Stay reasonable and you will continue to remain.
Susan….not that you need proof but if you have not read them yet, two excellent books by Lee Strobel. A case for Christ and The case for faith.
agreed, science answers the question, ‘how?’ faith answers, ‘why?’
Hi DrT! Welcome to my blog. Science has not even begun to answer the ‘how’. They, we, have a long, long way to go to even make a tiny scratch on the surface of knowlege. Good science and scientists understand this notion and hence, make the most trustworthy of scientists.
Neither has religion settled on the actual reason of why. In order to be certain, we would have to hear it from God–and to do that means we can’t really relay that message back. Understanding that makes good theologians
[...] Why Atheists Make the Worst Scientists Posted on September 28, 2011 by short little rebel Why Atheists Make the Worst Scientists. [...]
[...] Why Atheists Make the Worst Scientists Sailors Are Stupid, Scientists Are Smart! [...]