Posted on 06/27/2002 9:54:14 PM PDT by Festa
Atheism is stupid---and has no foundation in science
"The only atheism is the denial of truth." Arthur Lynch
If one were to listen to the media, science and religion cannot go hand in hand. Science inevitably proves God cannot exist. Darwin and his crowd showed how life evolved from a simple organism into a complex series of rational animals which were able to organize themselves and think beyond anything else in the universe. But atheists and their elite allies have it all backwards: Science does not refute God, it proves God. Atheism is the stupid, unthinking and illogical way. God is logical, thinking, and makes sense. Lets prove it.
The foundation of all life is contained in microscopic detailed instructions that thinking individuals can act on logically. DNA and/or RNA are these specific instructions upon which all information for a life form is based upon. In order to think logically a problem must first be presented:
I give you a one celled organism. First, I want you to assemble the ribosomes so that they can properly interpret the DNA. Now make the amino acids (CH2 for the laymen which is a part of the carboxyl group COOH). Seriously, go get the material. Devise a means by which these ribosomes and amino acids only act at a specified time without error to create an organism. (No not a human, just a simple organism). Now make sure that the cells can properly replicate themselves without fail and sustain themselves. Then watch it develop into a human.
Ok so where is the dilemma you ask. Here. I want you to do this, without intelligent thought at any point. You see something go wrong, you cant interfere. Whether that means hiring a monkey to randomly type at the keyboard for billions of years. Do not enter a goal for the computer. Phrases like create life or make a living organism are forbidden. Simply set it up, press start and watch.
Wait! But this experiment will not work. There is no way that these organisms randomly developed on accident. I know. Sorry, find a way around it. Have you solved the problem that has taken mankind centuries to even touch upon? Ok, now subject your experiment to climate and other x factors and see what happens then.
Didnt work? Thanks for helping to prove the existence of god. Oh, it did work? Thanks for helping prove the existence of God. You did help to change the code into a readable form. That required intelligent thought.
You see, atheism is actually stupid when it is thought out logically. The foundational problems inherit in creating any simple organism that it is simply impossible that a random accident caused it. Atheism is an untenable and stupid position because it says precisely that: it was all just a random accident.
Genius scientists such as Albert Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton all believed in the existence of God. (For the laymen out their, Einstein invented the theory of relativity and Sir Isaac Newton invented physics and Calculus (Yes an entire complex form of mathematics barely even touched upon until college: and even then only pathetically.) Atheists like to gloss over this fact. They also like to claim that religions are fanatical because they refuse to accept evolution into their teaching. This is a complete lie. The Catholic Church (along with many others) say that evolution is completely kosher with its teachings. No, atheism is fanatical because it simply refuses to recognize an inherit problem in science and since it cannot prove it, it refuses to use logic to explain it. They have not a single shred of evidence to prove their case.
The idea that scientists in general reject God because they are smart is the most absurd and indefensible argument ever heard. Sure there were some. But they didnt think hard enough. For all the great things Darwin did, he was never a philosopher. He asked the question once (paraphrased) that some people are so dull as to think that everything was not created by a random accident, because to think such a thing is illogical. EXACTLY. Sir. Thomas Aquinas noted this almost centuries before Darwin, and said precisely, it is illogical to think such a thing.
It is.
If the earth was one degree more off its axis, we would have no seasons. If there were no Himalayan mountains, there could be no agriculture. If we were just a bit more close to the sun, life would be untenable. If there was a bit more nitrogen in the air, say bye bye. To believe that all of this was a random accident is an absurd blind leap of faith because it has no basis in fact, thought, or reasoning. It is more than fanatical belief.
What is even scarier is that these are the smart atheists. God help the dumb ones. Atheists try and claim the high ground when they have no basis to do such a thing. They rant about how they are being mistreated when they have to listen to under god during prayer when they havent even begun to think about whether or not He exists.
What are we hear for if not a purpose? Is everything simply a random accident? Fine, then I am stealing your 100 dollars. Why? Because I can and if I am smart enough, I can get away without any punishment. Hitler sure got away with a lot. How fair is it that in the end we both end up in the same way: as dust. Scary isnt it. But this is the belief system of the atheists.
Atheism is an untenable and fanatical position. Many atheists are so blind they are blinded as to what they are blinded about. The next time you come across an atheist do two things, one ask him to use his brain a little more. Two, pray for him. Pray not because he doesnt have a religion, but pray because his has one.
Not in my universe.
What does nonbelief in the existence of God have to do with socialism, i.e., the economic and political theory of collective or government ownership and control of the distribution of wealth and goods?
What does a theory about the origin of life have to do liberalism, which has evolved (well, maybe there's the connection) from a noble concept to demogoguery, control of the masses through lies and deceit, divisiveness, class warfare, economic predation, and suppression of free speech?
I'm sure you don't want public schools to tell your children there is no God or that Christianity is evil. If so, you have the same basic objection that the California atheist has to the indoctrination of his child in public school. He doesn't want your religion forced on his child, just as you don't want his forced on your child. Therefore, public schools should stay silent on the issue.
Your home, your church, your internet site, your letters to the editor and congressmen, or even the street corner are appropriate places for expressing your religious ideas. You have that free speech right that cannot be abridged. You can pray at a public school on your own or with a group of others -- just don't get the school to sponsor it because that steps over the line to the government indoctrination of children (something practiced by Hitler and the Communists).
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some aspect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
| . . , , | ____)/ \(____ | _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ | ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. | ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. | |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| | ` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
Given standard theories wrt the history of our solar system and our own planet, nobody should be finding cities and villages on Mars, 2100 feet beneath the waves off Cuba, or buried under two miles of Antarctic ice.
That'd be cool, eh? But apparently he loves them since there are some many of them ;^D
Logically, you only have to think about it a little bit to realize how stupid it really is.
You are starting out with apes ten million years ago, in a world of fang and claw with 1000+ lb. carnivores running amok all over the place, and trying to evolve your way towards a more refined creature in modern man. Like:
HEY! Ya know, I'll betcha if I put on these lace sleeves and this powdered wig, them dire-wolves an sabertooth cats'll start to show me a little bitta RESPECT!!!"
What's wrong with that?
The problem gets worse when you try to imagine known human behavorial constants interacting with the requirements of having the extremely rare to imaginary beneficial mutation always prevail:
Let's start from about ten million years back and assume we have our ape ancestor, and two platonic ideals towards which this ape ancestor (call him "Oop") can evolve: One is a sort of a composite of Mozart, Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson, Shakespeare, i.e. your archetypal dead white man, and the other platonic ideal, or evolutionary target, is going to be a sort of an "apier" ape, fuzzier, smellier, meaner, bigger Johnson, smaller brain, chews tobacco, drinks, gambles, gets into knife fights...
Further, let's be generous and assume that for every one chance mutation which is beneficial and leads towards the gentleman, you only have 1000 adverse mutations which lead towards the other guy. None of these mutations are going to be instantly fatal or anything like that at all; Darwinism posits change by insensible degree, hence all of these 1000 guys are fully functional.
The assumption which is being made is that these 1000 guys (with the bad mutation) are going to get together and decide something like:
"Hey, you know, the more I look at this thing, we're really messed-up, so what we need to do is to all get on our motorcycles and pack all our ole-ladies over to Dr. Jeckyll over there (the guy with the beneficial mutation), and try to arrange for the next generation of our kids to be in better genetic shape than we are..."Now, it would be amazing enough if that were ever to happen once; Darwinism, however, requires that this happen EVERY GENERATION from Oop to us. What could possibly be stupider than that?
Would like to hear more about this. Physicist, would you comment/can you confirm?
The nation was founded on the premise that there is a Creator, with no attendant requirement that there be belief in any specific doctrine or dogma. The State is not permitted represent or promote any particular sect, doctrine or dogma, which is not at all equivalent to the fundamental premise that there is a Creator. If that premise is denied or overridden or finally declared unlawful, it will tear this nation apart because it is fundamental. The rights and the concerns of the vast majority are far superior to the ultrasensitivities of the few who are already exempt from reciting the Pledge. I do believe that the very unity of the nation is at stake. In God We Trust, as our currency declares. From Many, One.
I not a QM physicist, and even if I played one on TV, noone would watch that stuff, but I do know a thing or two about fluid mechanics.
All laws relating to fluid dynamics that I know of derive from the 1st and 2nd LOTs and Newton's 2nd LOM (redundancy intentional), neither of which require any strange new geometrical idealogy, AFAIK.
I would be interested in hearing more about this, specifically with regards to fluid mechanics.
Thanks!
Hitler was evil and crazy and would cite whatever suited him at the moment. He sometimes cited social Darwinist-type arguments in favor of eliminating "subhuman races," but on other occasions, to other audiences, he cited Christianity in support of his antisemitism. In Mein Kampf, he said, "by fighting against those who murdered our Savior, I am doing the Lord's work." [Not an exact quote, but pretty close IIRC.]
Hitler's rantings don't discredit Christianity or Darwinism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.