Saturday, September 10, 2005

The Creationist Rants 1-3

Creationist Rant 1:

Creationist Rant 1

He was right. Darwin. All right the whole way. When he said: "I will be the most detested person in history", well, he was right. I hate to say it, but score one for the dude.
But i wouldn't say i hate him because he is against my faith. Heck, a lot of people i know and love are contrary to what i believe in; this IS Sweden after all. No, its not that.

I don't really know where to start on this one. I've been like: "ohh, i just got a blog, i need to write a final thesis once and for all against Darwin and his insult to science!". But whatever i say/type, it will always be incomplete, and will never be perfect in my eyes. I will never meet an end to accusations i can find against this pseudo-scientific theory that is his theory of evolution. As much as i trust God, i don't see any end to whatever mockery for non conformists like myself. And there will never be an end to new arguments to disprove it, even though the arguments that would end it forever are already out there. Just ignored.

Why start typing now? Because im on a roll. Im so ticked off at so many people in my entourage right now, i might aswell profit on this surge in distaste for what this theory has done to human logic, reason, and free thought. Today, and let the record show it is the 20th of April 2005 right now, in history class, in a school that wants freedom of opinion so much as to forbid any kind of Nazi group to form, we watched what i hoped and expected not to be shown, knowing the context of the class: a show teaching the evolution theory as fact, and "exposing" skeptics like myself as people who refuse to see the light, and people who would have made genetics and modern day science a dream.

Bullshit. Im sorry, that's what it is. Genetics was added onto the theory, it did not spawn from it. Modern day science was well on its way before Darwin came around. Total, utter, BS, doing what people at war(which that is where we are at right now, right? war?) do and try to paint the adversary as a "bad" person, who doesn't want the greater good, and who is completely mistaken, forever and always, and must come to see the truth, by force if necessary.
And it is working: separation of church and state makes the theory of evolution the only taught "origins of the world" concept in schools, leaving creationism and any other far out there. People might only have been confronted with it when we are at my level, here in Gymnasium. But by this time, its almost too late: if its the only truth ever taught, then people will already be too indoctrinated to change their view on the world, and let alone listen to any other point of view.

that's the first thing that bugs me: its taught as fact. Not as something that is proposed, not yet proven completely, and really just the anti-religious theory thought up and changed by scientists from Darwins original work to fit a populace still clinging to a notion of God (no, no, no God, but Nature? Yea, that's good, Nature. Sounds better.).
No, its taught as cold, hard fact. And with evidence to support it!!! Really? Because it seems to me that every scientific find is looked at through the evolutionary lens: we adapt fact to the theory, and not the theory to the fact. Which is logically stupid and completely non scientific. Everything we find in science somehow seems to point to evolution immediately, without ever any question be brought against it. So is this proof of evolution then, if everything points to it? No. Because similarity doesn't equal relationship, and because the leaps of faith made to attribute something to the evolution theory are completely absurd scientifically (more on that some other time.).

We live in a world constantly changing, that defies the understanding of man, and that cannot be explained except through cosmic accident and freak evolutionary chance. Or so they would want you to believe. All this why? Because it keeps God out of the picture. Safer, right?

Fact is, there are tons of other theories, but that don't get any funding, are shut down, and the scientists who would want to research other ideas to better help human knowledge are ridiculed and often lose their jobs. Yea, you don't really think about this, do you? I mean, the scientific world looks united behind a solid front in evolutionism, right? Nah, not really. Like i said, anyone who doesn't agree with the established "religion" will lose funding. So people shut up, keep quiet and forget about it. You can't fight the man, he owns your soul already. Wow, where have i heard this before? Oh right, its what people say about the Catholic Church: its corrupt! It doesn't realize when its wrong! New breakthrough people get persecuted! They killed everyone who doesn't agree with them! Well, with a closer look, it looks as if the scientific community does the same thing, no?

Seriously now, if the schools really wanted that goal, to educate the students on how to think, reason and enounce clearly, do you think they would still teach one dogma as fact, only confronting another predominant theory when it gets in the way? No, i don't think so.
But wait! that's propaganda! Brain washing! Huh? that's what they are supposedly preventing when they censor the Nazi group!!!?? Nah, the school doesn't want any trouble with the scientific community, and being a religious school (read: teaches 2 points of view) isn't very attractive to most of these atheist Europeans right? right. So good to see we agree.

But so what is so threatening about 2 points of view? I mean, then the kids can decide for themselves right? None of my friends here are stupid. They can decide for themselves what to believe and know when they are being lied to.
Well, this is what every dictatorship feared: if you give any other point of view, human freedom of thought starts going, and next thing you know, people start seeing holes in the system, glaring logical fallacies in the states truths, and most importantly, they start questioning the establishment and realize this isn't something they need to take intravenously: imagine if tomorrow, all billion and a half of Chinese people get free, unrestricted access to the internet, do you think they will keep accepting the communist government's brainwash and censorship? No, not really.
Its the same here, if the established theory were questioned more often, then the now enlightened populace could decide for themselves what the truth is, what they are willing to be taught, and what the truth actually is. How can anyone disagree with me here: if the evolution theory were to be challenged more often, maybe even in debates, whatever, and it holds water against accusations, then this will strengthen the theory, right? If it can stand up to all adversaries, then by all means let it compete and i will shut up forever if it does indeed win.
Come on Darwin, show the world what you are truly made of, so that any one against your theory will get served his butt with all the trimmings! Hahahaha!

But that won't happen. I know that, and i hope you realise that too.
What took the Berlin wall down and caused the fall of communism? Yes, a bit of the late Pope, but mostly a renewed freedom of expression and speech and a realization of being manipulated and wanting what is rightfully theirs: freedom.
What knocked the French monarchs out of power? The English out of America? The revolution in Ukraine? Yea, the same: a realization of being manipulated and wanting what is rightfully theirs: freedom.

But i doubt that'll happen. This is a very powerful dictatorship to topple, this Darwinian absolutism. Why? Because the population actually believes it, and doesn't want to confront what will happen sooner or later: a realization that this isn't all there is, and that i whish to have a meaning in this seemingly meaningless world.

yea, its a stretch, and the likes of me are reeeeeaaaaally a threat to most people. OOHH BOY! Don't let the kid tell anyone something that might provoke their intellect! Here in Sweden though, they have it figured out: no confrontation, you' re right, im right, lets find common ground and leave it at that, lets not discuss anything i don't want to hear anything about. Basically: don't confuse me with another version, I've already made up my mind.
When my older sister was here, we developed a thing to explain the general European sentiment towards religion, and how they cope with told what they don't want to hear:

It used to be that you could lead a horse to water, but not make him drink. Well, nowadays, its more along these lines: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him believe there is any water. Heck, your water is fine for you, and my water is fine for me, and in the end, its all the same water. What? How dare you insinuate that my water isn't as good as your water?! I've been searching a long time, and this is the water that suites me, its comfortable. Hey dude, you know, you actually can't know that there is any water at all.

Pretty interesting right? But its all there, almost every single reply to me is there, in that metaphor.

Today on the train, i had a discussion with a friend on Darwin, and among other things that i might mention later (rhetoric and the like), there was a thing she said to me that hit hard: " well, you are so sure about what you say! You've already made up your mind on the matter, and you aren't open to anything else." I've heard this before, from many people: keep an open mind! Keep an open mind!

Well, guess what? My mind is open, its just that at one point in time, i decided i won't compromise what i believe in on grounds of conformity and non aggression. You can't keep an open mind on a matter where the 2 main ideas are directly opposite: there is almost no common ground, you have to choose on or the other. And i have chosen. Now, that i don't listen to any other arguments is not true, i listen, but i have an answer for most of them, because they are wrong, wether logicaly unsound or just easily disproven, and that i don't accept them without a fight, that i won't leave anything at that and not disprove it is probably what annoys people the most: i never shut up. I never stop debating when i have a valuable argument, and when i am sure i can WIN. im French, i fight for what i believe in, even if its an unpopular revolution. It appears as if i don't listen, don't keep an open mind, that's only because i have yet to be proven wrong, and that i have answers to the questions and counter arguments that i belive are enough to disprove the arguments that i have heard fom the opposite party: i haven't, and won't, lose in this matter, because a lie cannot win over truth. Ever.

Yea im a cocky self praising sun of a gun, right? Well, whatever dude. If i were to be proven 100% wrong tomorrow, i would of course not believe in this anymore. im not that stubborn. I do recognize when im wrong. But i can't be proven wrong here. Yah, its because it about God, and you can't prove he exists/ doesn't exist is what you are saying right? Well i guess its partly due to that, but also its because your dogma is flawed: it has holes the size of a us truck driver in it, It cannot win against the Truth, and a number of things in it are blatant logical errors and completely unscientific, hypocritical and contradictory. And these aren't just some details im talking about, the whole thing stands in quicksand: the whole thing is a Titanic, looking strong and insurmountable, but that can and will be sunk by the faintest of icebergs.

But that will be for some other time. In the mean time, ponder these Bible passages:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For they exchanged the Truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
-Romans 1:20, 25

peace dudes.

Creationist Rant 2:

Creationist Rant 2

Sudden revelation: hypocrites walk the logic street!
im sick of hearing: "keep an open mind dude", or:" you're just closed minded!". Come on, you don't even know what you are saying.

Could it possibly be that by telling me to keep an open mind on a matter you are simply putting whatever responsibility you put on others to keep an open mind to shame, putting yourself by default among those open minded people? Yea, that just might be it. By telling me to keep an open mind, that effectively disproves anything i have to say, since i'm a close minded religious zealot, and it keeps you from having to listen to what i say because you are so open minded you don't need another point of view.

Or is that not so? Tell me please! I'm so sick of everyone, just because i say something that has to so with a religious and moral standpoint, telling me to keep an open mind. Automatically, when you deal with a Christian person stating some views that just might be well argumented and convicting, he/she is a close minded conservative bent on harming the progress of humanity.

Just once, i would like to go into a conversation where we are all true to what we say. If you say to me to keep an open mind, you are putting the same pressure on yourself: you have to stay open minded, too. It's too easy to say to someone else to do something to keep yourself from doing that same thing.

I have already mentioned this: i am open minded. Believe it or not, i have doubts, more often than not, on what i believe. These doubts are normal for any self respecting Christian, and it shows that you do not believe what you believe purely because someone told you to. These doubts usually don't last long, because through Bible study and self examination, you see why you think that and you realize the evidence is just too overwhelming to doubt.
I find it extremely insulting when people tell me to keep an open mind on a matter where i have a strong view point, because they are doing nothing to prove me wrong, and i want to be proven wrong. No, all they are doing is avoiding the matter and labeling me a dogmatic close minded moron.

What does it mean anyways? Someone tell me. I don't know whether i have ever told anyone to keep an open mind. Remain logical, and follow the argument to the end. If there is no flaw in your logic, then the conclusion of the argument must be true. If you don't accept the truth then, then THAT is when you can say to someone to keep an open mind, and to not recoil onto what you have learned falsely. You cannot say this to someone who has yet to be shown wrong, anytime, because you are just dismissing what he has to say as unenlightened boorish stupidity, and protecting your weak intellect from any attack, since he will never change his mind anyway, right?

Also, when people tell me, you have already made up your mind, and you won't change your mind, well, that's not true. If im wrong, i change my mind, because only fools don't, and i consider myself to be more than a fool. But, and this is where you have to follow the logic: if im not wrong, then i don't change my mind. I'll let that sink in. If i have proven something wrong, or at least doubtful, then YOU should change your mind, and not dismiss me as: "well, you won't change your mind either way!". No, prove your point further, and if it's all the way logical, then you are right. If I am, then i'm right. Accept that maybe the religious zealot can be right, and not say he cannot, since he isn't scientific.

Another thing: logical fallacies. I hate those. im probably guilty of some now and then, but sometimes, man, it annoys me. When you "poison the well", for example, when you dismiss what i say because im young, i don't know everything, i haven't studied it like the scientists have, you are poisoning the well. Because im the one saying it, that makes it less true. Prove the argument wrong, then we discuss my age.
Another is ad hominem, attack the person, not the argument. It goes with poisoning the well. You can't prove me wrong, so say what i have done to a puppy, that i have sexual pleasures with other men, whatever you need to say to discredit me. This happen a lot: well, you are Christian, the Catholics have done a lot of bad stuff, therefore you are bad, i won't listen to you.
Lastly, but not really the end of fallacies, is when you turn the argument around: "well, what do YOU say on the matter?". Sorry dude, you need to prove my argument wrong, i don't need to prove myself right. Think about it.

anyways, i cannot stand hypocrisy like this, and the fact that you people need these tactics to evade an argument proves:
-that you actually don't know what you are talking about
-that you don't really know what you are believing
-that you are trying to not hear what i have to say
-and that you won't change your mind any more than you say i wouldn't, except you have been proven wrong or at least been put into serious doubt, making you a fool.

or am i too harsh?
is this just the rage i feel about being in Sweden right now?
is it the rage that i feel when i realize that no one here upholds the same values talking?

maybe. But this doesn't disprove anything i just said. i hope you noticed this.

peace dudes.
Creationist Rant 3:

Creationist Rant 3
This will be short...

"The central fact of human evolution is a given-humans descended from a primate that lived in Africa six or seven million years ago- and those who would doubt evolution are arguing against the entire enterprise of science."

-"Who knew?" National Geographic September 2005

First off: bwaahahahahahaha.
Secondly: A given? Can you give me evidence from the fossil record of what you advance, do you have all the "missing links" needed recorded to even consider this a possibility; basically, what evidence of your claim have you found to have it be a possibility, NAY, a GIVEN that we evolved form a primate... Oh wait, yeah, you don't have any.
Thirdly: Can you be more vague? Six or seven million years ago, yeah, how the heck can you know? Carbon dating? It's a joke in archaeology, it rarely corresponds to what the scientist estimates it is, and is only stated when it corresponds to an evolutionary timeline. Or is this big number strategy just a ploy to keep the average lay man from doubting it, since it seems researched. Yeah, who's the brainwashed dude now?
Fourthly: So, to doubt a theory makes me a terrorist? I'm sorry, i thought one of the main principals of science was to be critical of itself. What would i say? i would say that those who oppose the evolution theory are those who have not given in to blindness.
Fifthly: So to oppose the evolution theory means i am against research of the solar system? That i do not support the enterprise of science to explore the ocean? Give me break dude, you tried too hard, and failed.

Basically, no one reading this here or hearing me say it to them at school is willing to follow the evolution theory all the way to its logical conclusion, and this at multiple stages, but let's focus on the main one:

let's kill the gays! i mean, we should according to the evolutionary theory: they cannot reproduce, they do not help our species, and no matter whether it is by gene or by choice, by Darwin they do not deserve to live, or have kids via donor systems, because they do not help our species survive!
Same goes for the handicapped, the sickly, the old: they do not help our species out in our evolutionary drive at all! Their genes are weak, they should not be allowed to reproduce!

of course, i don't believe this at all, and neither do you. Yet it's the conclusion no? But if we don't agree, then this means we have an innate greater sense of morality than simple animal's instinct, right? Then this means there is something higher that we want to adhere to, right? That there is a right and wrong somehow programmed in us?

not just simple instincts to propagate our species, which would be only natural on our part as we descend from a primate from Africa?! Of course NOT!

well, that right there is disproof for evolution on a personal basis.

i think this makes utmost sense. So unless you condone the brutal assassination of 6 million Jews, you are a rebel against Darwin. Thus you go against the whole scientific enterprise.

Ahhhh, irony.


Post a Comment

<< Home