Anyway, at the end of the test I received the answer that I was not religious at all, and that religion did not control any part of my everyday life. How the test turned out if you say, believed in god and believed that homosexuals are not allowed to marry I don’t know, but the answer was obvious: either you were religious or you weren’t. And this is where I reacted as well. How can the humanists attack the religious people, and stereotype them to such a degree that they all sound like they were extreme fundamentalists? This was my very first contact with the humanist movement, and it certainly wasn’t all that pleasant, and I got sorely disappointed with their approach.

So, what about the humanist movement? The humanist movement is pro secularism, that is, seperation of church and state, and aggressively work for it to remain so. So far so good, I don’t really see this a bad thing in itself. Humanists also believe in the empowerment of the human being, and that is one of the reasons why I disagree with humanism. It focuses too much on human life, and it puts the human into the center of the universe. While I agree that human empowerment is much better than believing in a skydaddy to rely onto, I can’t quite agree with something that almost sounds derivated from Nietzsche’s idea of the übermensch either, I care too much about the other lifeforms we must co-exist with to say that my human life is more important any other lifeform. Being a humanist implies you believe in the strength of a human being, and while I am sure many people would hate me for using the word faith here, it is irrational faith that make people believe humans are more important than what they are. Nihilistic as I am, I cannot understand how a group of people can forget how little their lives matter to the vast universe, or the earth itself. Another problem I got with the humanist movement is that it’s an organizaton, it’s a group. And it’s becoming almost as bad as the religions they seem to love attacking. Why?

First of all, I will outline the basic definitions of what religion is in an anthropological definition, and even more so fundamentalism, which does not necessarily encompass the belief in a supreme being at all:

- Shared belief system (the belief that the human being is stronger without the belief in god)
- Strict rules or values/dogma (Seperation of church and state, adopted liberalistic ethics. Anyone deviating from these ideas would most likely become ostracized from the group)
- It is an organization with a leader to unite the group members

In addition, to officially be counted as a humanist, you need to pay a fee, just like Christians here in Sweden pay a fee to the Church of Sweden if they are members. Of course, one can be a member without paying a fee, but not officially. Thus far, including propaganda sites like the one I provided at the start of this post and very aggressive methods where they rather seem to be attacking the religious than the religious organizations, it’s as if the humanist movement is becoming a religion itself, and a fundamental one to add. I completely respect their wishes to seperate the church and state in countries where they are not, or to let the church and state remain seperated in countries where they already have been, but when they attack the religious people instead of the religious movements? That’s like shooting themselves in the foot and furthermore, they give atheists bad names! They reinforce the idea that atheists hate religion, and that’s the least rational atheists want.

No, there are many ways you can criticize religion and seperate it from church and state without attacking its believers. Such as stop addressing people personally and address the name of the religious organizations, like the Church of Sweden, or the Pentacostals. It’s really sad, all in all, that they are becoming the thing they so strongly oppose.

More Antichristianity: We get email #2 | A short list of questions | An Anti-Religion/Atheist Movement: Discussion

]]>

Greetings,

My name is [...]. I’m a 23 year old Christian from Arkansas, and I would like to go ahead and get it out on the table that this letter holds no hostility to whoever reads it or your movement. It’s simply a question that I would like to have your opinion on…

I understand that many horrible things are carried out supposedly in God’s name. I agree with you that it’s wrong. However, every religious group has its “bad apples”. In my opinion, there is no room for extremists in any religion, Christian or other. My question to you is why direct your entire organization towards Christians or any other Abraham based religions?

Waldheri: Allow me to dive right into it. The people who actively participate in this group all come from countries in which Christianity is the predominant religion. It is part of our daily lives, whether we want to or not. Even though a lot of a things we write about are applicable to other religions, is it that surprising that it is mostly centered on Christianity when you realize it is the religion that we come most into contact with? I do not think Christianity is worse than the other Abrahamic religions, if that is what you’re actually trying to ask.

Anath: I generally do not direct my efforts towards extremists but rather towards the good ol’ average Joe churchgoer.  The extremists are entrenched too deeply in their own delusions to be swayed either way, but when someone is a reasonable person, they are more open to seeing from another person’s point of view.  Also, the moderates quietly support the extremists by their sheer presence, and the fact that they do NOT decry the behavior publicly or otherwise.  There are more moderates attending  and funding the megachurches than extremists!  There are more moderates quietly going along with extremist organiztions such as NOM, putting their votes in to legislate their beliefs by attempting to ban gay marriage,  abortion, teach intelligent design and abstinence-only education in schools, and so on.  THIS is deplorable.  It is the moderates, who nod their heads and baa contentedly that we need to shake awake.  Extremists will always be extremists, but the moderates have the ability to either support or condemn their actions.

In this nation, we all have a constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Waldheri: Your right to freedom of religion is certainly extant, and I would never try to take away that freedom. However, being a secularist, I will do my best to pry religion apart from governance. In itself, I do not think religion is a valid reason for passing or obstructing legislation.

Anath: And WE have that right as well.  As I stated above, the attempt to legislate BELIEF is one thing I stand firmly against.  I am an American as well, and I do not want the Church dictating what me or my (potential, future) children do with their bodies, mind, or how our tax money gets spent.  Don’t think this is happening?  Watch more closely, it is.  There’s a saying out there: “Freedom of religion means ALL religion”… including secularism.

Now I’m not saying that there aren’t extremist Christian groups that would lash out, sometimes even violently, against your group or any other like it. That’s a cold hard fact, and it’s gravely unfortunate. But my concern is that you’re attacking the foundation of life as we know it against mostly everyday good people. There are going to be conflicts between groups like ours, and that’s inevitable. However instead of going for the throat, we should be trying to calmly discuss our differences. Most Christians (and all true Christians) don’t believe in hating anyone for any reason. We hate the sin, not the sinner. You also hold a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but with that does it also mean that there is no such thing as common decency between our fellow people anymore? If both of our missions are to promote peace and harmony between all people, than why are we being so ruthless towards one another?

Waldheri: I’m not sure what you mean by the “foundation of life as we know it”, but it is important to remember that people simply might not agree with you on those foundations. To me, the freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have. My ideas may sound controversial or even offensive to Christians, but frankly that’s not my problem. I don’t think I’ve ever directly attacked Christians as persons in my posts (and if I have, I apologize) – I have always attacked Christianity. I think its metaphysical ideas (souls, heaven, hell) are ridiculous, its moral character (Old Testament divinely sanctioned bloodshed) deeply dubious, some of its virtues (faith, piety) naive and worthless and its god a spiteful, arrogant tyrant that I would not want to serve even if I did believe he existed. I am honest in my posts and I realize it may offend Christians, but they can’t expect me to simply shut up. Must I keep my deeply held beliefs locked up so that others’ deeply held beliefs can roam free without dissidence? Furthermore, you must understand that some of Christian beliefs are deeply offensive to me. Examples are the idea that when we are born, we already bear the guilt of some crime committed by our forebears; the idea that we are worthless and inherently bad (”sinful”) and need saving; the idea that our actions in a finite time frame are enough to judge us to a fate of infinite timespan.

Anath: I’m going to assume that by “the foundation of life as we know it”, you mean the basic tenents of Christianity; the existence God, the divinity of Jesus, a “plan” for us all, an after life, etc.  Let me turn this around–Christianity is attacking the foundation of life as WE know it.   By that  “attacking that foundation”, I mean inserting causation where none can be proved, denying the reality of evolution  and what it entails, attempting to undermine science on the basis of a 6000 year old book written by patriarchal desert nomads, claiming we have “freedom of choice”–then defining that “freedom” as “choose God or GO TO HELL!”, claiming that we are condemned before we were born for the sins of our greatest ancestors… that there is a strict, black and white dichotomy of “good” and “evil”, and every single action, motivation, person, and so on in this world can be judged by that dichotomy… and so on.  Your belief system attacks the foundation of my reality.  By insisting that your belief system is the only correct one, and asserting the “God or Hell / Good and Evil” dichotomies, you assert that I am Evil and Hellbound.  If that is not an attack, I don’t know what is.  Think about it from the other side of the fence for a while.  You may “hate the sin, not the sinner”, but that doesn’t change where we stand in your worldview.  You dont’ have to “hate” us to condemn us.

Based on your “freedom of speech” bit, I question whether you actually engaged the CONTENT of this site, or became squeamish based on our name alone.  Read some of the articles, we are not overtly hostile and “going for the throat”.  My recent debate with Aelnathan demonstrates that we are willing to be patient and engage Christians and Christian thought.  Our recent “10 Answers from an Antichristian” posts demonstrate what we DO believe, and why we do not follow Christianity, in a very approachable way.  Cleric’s recent “Reasonable vs. Unreasonable Christians” demonstrates that we ARE willing to engage Christians as long as they are reasonable, Lea and Waldheri’s recent posts engage Christian thought and bring up important questions and observations about Christianity in the modern world.  I fail to see how we are “going for the throat”, but if you can bring up a specific example to back up this statement, we will explain the intent, and how you may have potentially misunderstood the content.

Like I said before, I don’t mean any of this offensively, it just had been on my heart. I don’t expect you to censor any of your authors or anything like that. This is just a simple conversation between anyone in your group interested and myself. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

[...]

Waldheri: Nor is my opinion meant to be offensive, but it can be. You need not apologize.

More Antichristianity: We get email | A short list of questions | Cartesian Dualism: Atheism II

]]>

If you would like to read the debate for yourself directly on Amazon you can go to his review here. The content I am posting starts on page 3.
If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude, Part 1, and Part 2.

Anath said:
>>I see your point on “decreasing genetic diversity”. Perhaps my arguments have been erroneous, due to my research of the Global Seed Vault ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault ). Here, however, one can see what happens when a person applies one branch of science (in this case, agricultural biodiversity) to a wider field (biodiversity as a whole).

Yes, I am not sure how you drew the conclusions you did, but I am glad that you understand now. When I read the article on the global seed vault one thing stuck out at me that may not have stuck out at you : “The Seed Vault will provide insurance against the loss of seeds in genebanks, as well as a refuge for seeds in the case of large scale regional or global crises.” They are saving the seeds so that essentially if the world were to end in a horrible fiery apocalypse, the few survivors would be able to start anew, or if something were to physically happen to the genebanks, we would not have lost everything. This is very important goal, but has little to do with how genetic diversity works or doesn’t work and everything to do with guarding against the unknown factor for posterity. It would be a very good thing if our greatgreatgreat grandchildren could grow corn and not starve to death after the zombie apocalypse because we were insightful enough to set aside some seeds for them : )

>>When I said apes, I meant APES, not primates. My question is, did man descend from apes? I have heard of numerous evolutionists argue for and against this theory.

You are mixing up forms of taxonomic classification for confirmation bias.

Primate is an Order, which we share with every sort of “monkey and ape” from lemurs, to aye-ayes, to golden tamarins, to gorillas. Go further down the line to “ape” and we are talking about a superfamily which contains two families, one is primarily gibbons and the other is Hominidaie– Great apes which include orangutans, gorillas, chimps and US. We ARE apes. The question is how far do you want to go in your taxonomic evolutionary tree. We have a hominid (ape) ancestor, since we ARE apes from taxonomic family, subfamily, genus, to species and subspecies, but are distinctly different from other great apes. We had a common hominid ancestor, but we had many other common ancestors that would not be considered “apes” by the layman sense of the word (orangutan/chimp/gorilla) so it is not inaccurate to state that we had a common primate ancestor, since primates are apes and more. Similarly it is not inaccurate to state that we had a common mammalian ancestor or vertebrate ancestor or animal ancestor or eukaryote ancestor, so cutting off your evolutionary chain at “apes” is quite shortsighted. We are still classified as apes, so we didn’t evolve INTO anything other than a more specific specie of ape. Again, there is no “darwinist” I have come across that would refute this so I would very much love to see what arguments you have seen by “darwinists” that claim we do not have a hominid/primate/mammal/animal/eukaryote common ancestor.

>>If we can “CONTROL our environment”, why does that remove then from “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Are we not then just “super-evolved”? We are still operating within our “parameters”; we just have more power, a greater ability to “take charge of ours”. It is not like other creatures lack this ability to “take charge”. (and surrounding text)

Of course other animals can “control” their environments, it is the degree to which we can control ours that sets us outside the normal limitations of nature. First of all, our technology can have a staggering unintended impact on the environment, such as our old refrigerators and air conditioning leaking free radicals. Termites have “air conditioning” because they have figured out a way to manipulate their environment and build their structures so that it is natural. Our air conditioning and cars and refrigerators and video cameras and computers and cell phones and skyscrapers are unnatural. Termites don’t create new chemicals in an “artificial” effort to meet their end. They can only do what is natural.

We are still operating within our parameters, however those parameters, set by our ingenuity and capacity for abstract thought and organized creation of nature-defying materials, are outside the bounds of traditional survival-of-the-fittest nature. We don’t just nurse our infirm back to health with motherly care, we give them antibiotics that boost their immune system, or chemotherapy that destroys cancerous tumors. In “pure” nature, a sick creature with a weak immune system would die, a creature with lung cancer has no hope, no matter how much their families care for them. This doesn’t mean its fellow creatures can’t aid it, but they can NOT give it asprin or theraflu and boost its immune system beyond its natural capacity as we can. Thus, we are able to save members of our species that WOULD have been “unfit” by any standards, giving them the potential to reproduce where in ANY OTHER situation they would have died and produced no offspring. The central premise here providing the ability to REPRODUCE and in the process pass on “unfit” genes that would have been eliminated from the gene pool had nature taken its course and flu medication not intervened.

As far as predators, we do have a number of them, but the difference is that now, in the 21st century, our #1 fear is no longer death from natural predators. Lions and bears are physically much more powerful than any human, but they are not more powerful than a human wielding an AK-47. Disease is very dangerous and kills a very large portion of the human population every year, but if you analyze the statistics, these numbers primarily exist in the “third world”, or overcrowded places, or just places with poor medical care and lower levels of hygiene. Many of the diseases that once plagued our ancestors do not even exist anymore for us, and many of the diseases that plague us will not exist for our ancestors. Man has BECOME the #1 predator on the planet, whereas the other hominids have not. We have transcended our “mere” genes and evolutionary tree through ARTIFICIAL means. This means we are NOT subject to the normal predator-prey dynamic that keeps other populations and gene pools in check.

>>If dolphins engage in these irrational activities, are they also to be excluded from the scope of “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Also, considering their apparently extreme intelligence, how come they have never evolved hands with opposable thumbs? I am sure they could find a use for them

I seem to have missed this on first read.

No, dolphins are not “outside” the scope of “naturalistic” evolution because, while they possess great intelligence and ingenuity, they have not developed a way to ensure that genes that would have been eliminated by natural selection are passed to the next generation.

Why would you think they should have developed hands with opposable thumbs? Would that have helped them swim faster and escape predators? NO. They adapted to fit their marine environment. We adapted to our arboreal one. Different solutions for the same problem.

>>Also intriguing is the universe’s current rate of expansion. When this is taken into consideration, all of the Solar System’s planets ought to be much farther away from the sun then they currently are, when we take the evolutionist’s estimation of the Solar System’s age.

Um, no. The reason the planets are not further away from the sun than they are is because the Sun has maintained a constant gravitational field throughout its existence. The expansion of the universe at large does not affect local gravitational fields. Also I would NOT expect all the planets to rotate uniformly on perfectly perpendicular axes. The universe IS a chaotic and random place, especially during the formation of what we consider a “regular” system, so collisions are incredibly HIGHLY probable. Our own tilted axis as well as Neptune’s is most likely due to a collision, as is the retrograde rotation of Venus, Pluto, and Uranus, as well as the rings around the ringed planets, which are due to colliding moons, asteroids, and comets. Why would you find the anomalies odd? There ARE scientific explanations for apparent “exceptions”.

Also, evolution says nothing about anything other than life. It says nothing about the universe at large or solar system or the movements of planets or the deaths of stars or the big bang or abiogenesis. It has to do with adapting life, and ONLY adapting life. Discussing the estimation of the age of the universe is in the realm of astronomers and cosmologists, NOT “evolutionists”.

>>Personally, I do not worship “peer-reviewed scientific fact.” Aristarchus’ heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected by the science community of his day.

You may find this interesting, but a modern system of peer review was not fully in place until the mid 20th century. Prior to this, there WAS no established, formal, peer review process. And also note that there was not really a “scientific community” in the terms we have today. We had groups of scientists, but science was not an independent realm with its own “community”, and those practicing science had other connections, usually religious. It was not the nonexistent scientific community that spurned the discoveries but rather the religious and philosophical communities that either found an apparent discrepancy between their holy text and the finding, or found the potential implications unsavory (You mean we are just machines??!!11!!? O NOES!!1!!). Also with no peer review process or “establishment” in place, it was just a man and his discovery. In many ways, it still is, BUT the wheat is separated from the chaff more times than not, especially post 1950 when more rigorous standards were put in place.

>>I am afraid I must pass on your generous offer to “fill in the gaps” of my allegedly “misled” understanding. I believe my arguments have been as clear as yours, and have suffered from no more (if perhaps no less) holes in logic. The Bible, English grammar, literature, and science have been my main studies in life so far. I will learn science enough when, Lord willing, I take mechanical engineering in college. Thank you for your time, and the discussion. Good-bye and farewell.

I have pointed out a number of holes in your understanding and misconceptions you hold, you have even admitted to one or two.

Remember that you do not have to give up your Christian faith in order to hold an accurate view of how the universe operates. Many Christians find “God’s power” even more mysterious and amazing once they break out of a young earth creationist mindset. I have seen both sides of the argument. It would be absolutely foolish not to try to do so yourself.

In retrospect, I should have used different wording in the “natural/unnatural” paragraph, but this was written long before the Natural thread in Kriegphilosophie so I didn’t realize how my words could have been misunderstood. I don’t believe Aelnathan ever touched on it again, but any reader who currently has problems with the wording should read the Natural thread for further clarification.

Cleric jumps in again.

>> Cleric Said:
Also intriguing is the universe’s current rate of expansion. When this is taken into consideration, all of the Solar System’s planets ought to be much farther away from the sun then they currently are, when we take the evolutionist’s estimation of the Solar System’s age.

I’m sorry, but you are clearly in error here. This is a ridiculous assumption and to say you have stated “facts” at the end of your response is merely disengenious to what you have written. You attempt to assert that the expansion of the ENTIRE universe somehow changes the way gravitational fields work. This is NOT true. It would be a good idea to learn some gravitational mechanics before you assert such ideas as this. I have no idea who told you this or why you think it’s true.

Furthermore, attempting to relate the evolutionary theory of life to the development of planets is simply a fantasy. The mechanics of how life developed on a planet are vastly different than how large rocks or gas planets developed. Sure you can use the word “evolve” with the defintion of “to develop gradually” but you cannot apply the Theory of Evolution to Celestial Mechanics.

>>Personally, I do not worship “peer-reviewed scientific fact.” Aristarchus’ heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected by the science community of his day.

You are a fool to do so. It would be like me ignoring things like the Pythagorean theorm simply because the scientific community supports it. You also seem to misunderstand that “Peer-review” was NOT a requirement until the mid 20th century. Galileo and Aristarchus did not publish peer reviewed projects. Nor did Tesla, nor did Newton. So to make this statement is to not realize the history of required scientific writing. It is also the reason why you see a gap in “bad science” versus “good science” in times like the 1800’s and before. If the scientific discoveries made then hold up today, then you can be assured that under peer review they are as factual as they’ll get. To say otherwise is to not understand the peer review process and I think you will have an incredibly difficult time with your aspirations in mechanical engineering if you wish to dismiss the process from which you’ll be learning!

>>The Bible, English grammar, literature, and science have been my main studies in life so far. I will learn science enough when, Lord willing, I take mechanical engineering in college. Thank you for your time, and the discussion. Good-bye and farewell.

My father is a mechanical engineer, and so are a few friends of mine. You will NOT learn the things you claim to have opinions of. Mechanical Engineering does not take you down the path of evolutionary biology, it doesn’t not bring you to astrophysics, it will not explain the intricacies of geology, or anything of that nature. If you want to find out what the scientific world says about these things then YOU will have to seek out the information. Reading the Bible, going to young Earth creationist propaganda sites, will NOT help you understand any of these topics. Anath and I have delved into these topics pretty heavily so to dismiss our help or dismiss our willingness to discuss these topics is further folly. It smacks of not wanting to have your worldview challenged at all costs. This is something I don’t understand and really belies the makings of a poor scientist and mechanical engineer, in my opinion.

If my words anger you, they probably should, for your words have frustrated me. While you have been quite amiable, I can’t help but feel dismay that you would choose to go into a field heavily science laden with such a biased and close minded attitude. I am sorry, but you need to be challenged in some fashion on this. If not by me, then by your future teachers on the subjects. We offer our help, yet it is rejected, that is what angers me.

Aelnathan said:
It has not been my attempt to anger anyone. I am sorry that you have become so frustated.

Concernig man’s evolutionary descent, I will here remind you of a fact that I am sure you are aware of: not all evolutionists are Darwinists. In my post I mentioned and was speaking of evolutionists, not Darwinists. There are contentions about man’s origins. Perhaps you have merely dealt with the evolutionists that follow Darwin.

Concerning the expansion of the planet’s orbits, they are getting farther apart, though perhaps not as fast as I first expected. Here is link to a dis-cussion concerning NASA’s upcoming attempts to study “dark energy”, a mysterious substance that is pushing galaxies and, yes, planets apart. http://www.sitnews.us/1006news/100206/100206_shns_darkenergy.html . Of course these a very small amounts that will not apparently affect us for billions of years, and does not quite illustrate my argument. However, the moon is moving at a relatively rapid pace away from the earth—-somewhere around 3.8 centimeters per year, according to an article by Britt Britt Scharringhausen, PhD, at cornell.edu ( http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124 ). Of course, the article says that it did not always move this fast, saying that the “Moon was slowed down by the tides raised on it by the Earth.” It would be interesting to find out what the rates were “billions of years ago”, before the magma ocean cooled and the tides stopped. Still, just applying the current rate to a time after the magma ocean apparently crystalized (said to be around 215 million years ago, according to wikipedia’s article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_magma_ocean ), that would mean that at the time when the ocean cooled, the moon was 2,150 km nearer to Earth than it is now. That makes for an orbit over .5% smaller than the current orbit of 384,000 km. What affect do you suppose this would have had on the earth’s oceans? The earth and moon may have been even closer than this, actually, because the rate of this orbital expansion is now slowing down ( http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=699 ). I find it interesting that this rarely seems to be discussed in this context. I do not remember claiming that my discussions would be limited to biologic life. In fact, I remember discussing plate tectonics in a much earlier post. Ah, yes, evolutionists do have theories concerning the origin of the universe, do they not? I notice a trend of responses to my posts constantly referring to Darwinism. I never declared that I only would discuss Darwinism.

It is interesting to note the furor that surrounds the comments folowing one’s questioning of the peer-review process. I said I do not “worship” (”to honor or reverence as a diving being or supernatural power”, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1997) the peer-review process, not that I discard everything produced by it. Curiously, I am far from the only person who does not think that this process is all that it claims to be. Richard Horton, fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, honorary professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and University College London, and editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability – not the validity – of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticisms_of_peer_review ) I am sure that Richard Horton does not dispute the Pythagorean theorem. The fact that peer review did become so prominent until the middle of the 20th century raises questions about its proclaimed crucial nature. “Galileo and Aristarchus did not publish peer reviewed projects. Nor did Tesla, nor did Newton.” Thus, why is peer-review so necessary? The “bad science” of the 19th century is not in use today, and fell out of use before the dominance of peer-review.

It is an interesting phrase, “claim to have an opinion”. By definition, an opinion is a personal view. In my study of science so far, I have experienced a reasonable amount of success. For several years my grade average in general science has been above 95. My average in chemistry was 93. I have chosen mechanical engineering because of its practical application of science. As you have put it, “Mechanical Engineering does not take you down the path of evolutionary biology, it doesn’t not [Ah ah ah, let us watch those double negatives! Your words actually mean the opposite of what you were intending to say. "Doesn't not" means "does", technically. "Doesn't" or "does not" are much more fitting for the sentence at hand.] bring you to astrophysics, or anything of that nature.” I am quite fine with that. I am no theoretician, but I do have skill applying science, whether it be gardening or machine repair. At any rate, I did not mean to offend anyone with my choice to forgo the tutelage offered me. I am sorry this has kindled such anger, for that was far from my attempt. I also regret that this discussion has shown the first signs of name-calling arise, though it came in the form of a grammatically absurd remark. In response to my post, “Personally, I do not worship `peer-reviewed scientific fact.’” your comment, “You are a fool to do so.” would have been much better served with the phrase “You are a fool not to worship it.” or “You are a fool not to.” As the phrase currently stands, its peculiarity would render it unintelligible were it not for the sentences that followed. I could be led to believe that I would be a fool to worship the peer-review process, or rather that I was being a fool in my worship of peer-review. Both outcomes are contradictory, with the former contradicting your apparent faith in the system, and the latter carrying this anomaly in addition to the contradiction of my own stated opinion of peer-review. Fortunately, the words that follow clarified this potentially confusing line. One must not forget one’s grammar, even in scientific discussions. It becomes even more crucial when one must write scientific papers to receive one’s degree.

In any case, I am not angry to see my views challenged. I do not mind being called a fool. That of all things is the last item that could hope to sway my passing interest. Alas, that this discussion has come to this! Well, I must retire from this discussion now, for it is obvious that my beliefs are not going to be blown away. For those who have remained calm and resisted the urge to taunt, I congratulate them. For those who almost managed such a feat, but failed at the end, I pity their misfortune, yet am glad that they composed themselves for the majority of the debate. Thank you all for this discussion. I will not be seen posting here again, at any rate not for quite some time. I chance the appearance of being a stubborn brute, yet I am equally stubborn in my belief in the practicality of the sum 2+ 2= 4. Good-bye to all, farewell, and may we come to know the Truth.

Author of the Aelnathan

WOW you got good grades in general ed high school science? That’s amazing and totally gives you credibility on high level topics such as abiogenesis. And its so cool that you know grammar so well and can give us several paragraphs of condescending instruction instead of actually addressing our points.

Cleric obviously was not a fan of this worthless post.

Cleric said:
Yes, it is wonderful that you resisted the urge to taunt, despite the lengthy paragraph analyzing a typo. Obviously one (you) could not resist the urge. Despite this you go into lengthy detail while forgetting the fact that we are conversing in a forum, not writing scientific documents. I’m sorry that was so lost on you, despite the fact that you got the gist of what I was saying. I love how you try to be overly pretentious and high minded through most of this yet imply you resisted the urge not to taunt at the end… splendidly good show sir. Well, you obviously grasp the English language quite well, you should stick with writing and leave science to the scientists. I hope you find the truth that 2+2 does equal 4 someday.

Next week, the typo/grammar drama continues, and I call Aelnathan out to either step it up or step OUT.

More Antichristianity: Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 2 | Evidence | Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 1

]]>

If you remember in our last episode, Aelnathan asked us to go to HIS review if we wanted to continue commenting, as he just can’t keep up with posts on someone else’s review. Whatever. I did it. Previously, Cleric had gone to his review and continued a discussion that was already in the comments section, but we will start with my post, as there is a gap in time and the old debate (The bible promotes genocide! No it doesn’t, there are wars but wars aren’t genocide! Yes it does, God asks them to kill all living beings in a city…! BUT BUT BUT TEH WERE TEH EVULS…) Kind of died. If you would like to read it for yourself you can go to his review here. The content I am posting starts on page 2. There’s also another person who steps in and gives similar arguments to the ones I presented, but all of the previous debates were months old by the time I got there.

Anyway, on with the debate. I will keep it short, 2 posts, because from here on out, the posts become… EPIC.

If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude and Part 1.

First it is worth looking at Aelnathan’s review of Expelled. “Headdesk” is a good adjective to describe my thoughts about it.

I just want to thank you for making the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It takes great courage, wit, and knowledge to take on the anti-scientific Science Establishment. I respect and appreciate people like you, who provide knowledgeable debate on the issues of Evolution and Intelligent Design. Congratulations on a job well done!

And that’s it. Really. Honestly, I’m not sure the word “review” even applies to a blurb like this, but lets move on from writing criticism and see how the debate is going.

Anath Said:
I’ll respond here since you mentioned I should. Admittedly I don’t keep track of Amazon much either, usually Cleric alerts me of replies since I don’t really use the site much.

>>The “decrease in genetic diversity”, as I put it, does not just relate to artificial selection. Case in point; try getting a sun bear cub from breeding polar bears. It is not going to happen (not by natural breeding means, anyway) However, these two bear species descended from some original bear ancestor. They both are better adapted to their respective environments than their ancestors, but they will not be able to produce the range of breeds that their ancenstors produced. That is my point.

But your point is invalid and not accurate to life. Two polar bears cannot produce a sun bear, but their ancestors didn’t spontaneously produce random breeds of bear either. Their common ancestor was only ONE specie and the species diverged over time. The polar bears and the sun bears both have the same potential their ancestors did to generate new species based on adaptations and changes in environment, so imagine that each species spawned two new species, that makes FOUR new species where previously there were only TWO. How exactly is 4<2?

Also there remains this possibility. Imagine that a population of Sun Bears found themselves in an environment that was growing increasingly cold and snowy year round. In order to survive, they will adapt, and their offspring will begin to exhibit different traits than their parents. One good adaptation, found by countless arctic species, is to have a white coat, so imagine that after generations, the Sun Bears have white coats, as a gene from their ancestors is expressed - let's imagine it's incidentally the same gene sequence that turns a polar bear's coat white. Does that mean a Sun Bear has just given birth to a Polar Bear? NO. Did the genetic diversity go down? NO. Do we have a new species? Maybe in a few generations, but not yet. When we do get a new specie from this isolated population, will the genetic diversity go down? NO.

What makes you think that our "modern" animals are incapable of becoming ancestors for future species or are not in the process of doing so? It's like saying that YOU PERSONALLY can't become an ancestor.

>>Concerning the “what good has evolution done for us?”, you make some interesting points. In the case of medicine, however, is not the study of family history called Heredity? Perhaps I am merely splitting hairs here. With Evolution’s effects on computers and such, one could argue that the Evolutionary Algorithm is merely an attempt to mimic human reasoning faculties, despite its inspiration.

Heredity is a branch of Genetics which is under the very large umbrella of Evolution. When you talk about family-history heredity, you are talking about evolution through genetics on a VERY small time line, and when you talk about “Evolution”, you are talking about heredity and genetics on a very LONG time line.

The Evolutionary Algorithm works more like genetics in order to solve problems by elimination. This is DIRECTLY evolutionary theory. The AI program you are thinking of that tries most directly to mimic human reasoning is called the Artificial Neural Network, which attempts to “learn” in a similar method as a human brain. Yes, the goal of all AI is to mimic human intelligence, but to imply that this somehow overrides the fact that the Evolutionary Algorithm was DIRECTLY created due to knowledge of evolutionary theory is confusing the order of carts and horses.

>>P.S.—-Just one last question for Anath, in response to the argument with All-Access Customer. Did man descend from apes??? I have noticed that Evolutionists are so…….not unified on that point.

This depends largely on what one defines as “apes”. If one means the gorillas or orangutans or chimps we currently see in the zoo, then of course not, but if one means a common primate ancestor, then yes. Biologically speaking, homo sapiens–man, didn’t just “descend” from primates, we ARE primates.

I don’t know what “evolutionists” you’ve been talking to that would disagree that we have a common primate ancestor, I haven’t found any yet.

Here’s a couple other points from your posts that I feel should be addressed:
>>so would a dictator have the right to control and cleanse the population he governs by means of abortion, eugenics, and genocide. (and surrounding text)
>>Does sentience thus thrust a species from the bounds of Nature?(and surrounding text) Is there a limit on how far evolution can progress? If all species become sentient, does “Nature” become an obsolete word? Does evolution halt?

“Survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean survival of the physically strongest or most “powerful”. In many cases, such as our own evolution, the most co-operative can be the “fittest”.

What removes us from the bonds of classic, natural evolutionary theory is our ability to CONTROL our environment. Other animals operate within their parameters, we take charge of ours. Normally the physically infirm die by disease. We are able to keep them alive and help them overcome their handicap and live a full life, or simply give them a chance at it. Normally there is a portion of any species that becomes prey for predators. We have been able to nearly wipe any would-be predator from the face of the earth, and combat any remaining, so we are no longer subject to the predator-prey dynamic that keeps populations in check. But what does this REALLY mean? Does it mean evolution no longer happens to us? NO. It means that we are effectively directing our own evolution instead of natural processes. We are creating our own environment to adapt to, and we are in the process of eliminating as many natural kinks as possible. No one knows where this will lead, but there is a lot of speculation, especially in the realm of neuroscience as our interaction with new technology directly affects the wiring of our brain.

Is sentience unnatural is also an important question. I argue that it is not. We are not the only “sentient” beings on this planet, and we have not been the only sentient beings in the course of history. Dolphins and elephants display a remarkable intelligence and sentience, and even a pigeon is self-aware and can recognize itself in a mirror. The difference is our ability to create and manipulate tools due to being bipedal with opposable thumbs. As a result, a capacity for greater abstract thinking was “fittest”, where other mammals found other advantages, such as size or speed. This does not make them any less sentient.

>>Now about microevolution—-how do my analogies not correlate with the material at hand? I was pointing out that studying one facet of a certain branch of science, and then applying it to the entire branch can lead to erroneous conclusions. (and surrounding text)

I would agree, but none of your analogies ACTUALLY represent microevolution.

A friend of mine once made a very correct analogy on the relation of microevolution and macroevolution. I mean no offense by quoting it here, but try and understand what it is saying:
“Saying that microevolution is a fact but macroevolution is not a fact is like saying that you can pick your nose for 5 seconds but you can’t pick it for a full minute.”

Microevolution and macroevolution are essentially the same thing. All that is different is SCALE. Microevolution talks about a couple genes here and there within a very small time frame. Macroevolution talks about many genes over an extended time frame. Should an alien visit earth and believe that all life here used photosynthesis, that would be due to a small sample size. The “sample size” of macroevolution is ALL life on earth and EVERYTHING that has ever happened in microevolution.

Also as a comment to this
>>I am growing weary of constantly speaking in an ambiguous tone for the sake of argument. I know where you stand, and I believe you know where I stand. I am a Christian and a Creationist, and constantly stating my views in the form of a question is quite grating. Neither of us seem to be getting anywhere.

We are stating facts that you misunderstand and elucidating the areas in which your knowledge or beliefs clearly contradict well-known peer-reviewed scientific fact. Stating that bears today have less genetic diversity than the bears of yesterday IS ERRONEOUS, and while I understand how you have drawn that conclusion, it is incorrect. I can tell you with certainty that it is incorrect because I know the correct answer due to question, study, and evaluation of both sides of the argument. I know the creationist arguments, where they are valid and where they are flawed, and you do not have to give up your Christian belief to understand how evolutionary theory works, despite what others on both sides would have you believe. If you would like, I will help you fill in the gaps and understand where you are being misled.

Or you can just believe that you can pick your nose for five seconds but not for a full minute, and wonder why people keep telling you that you are wrong.

As always, I made my epic post thinking, MUAH HAHA! THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN SAY TO THAT! I CAN’T EVEN IMAGINE WHERE HE’D START ARGUING THAT! But watch him. Its quite sad really. Oh and pad your desks and palms, there are SERIOUS headdesks and facepalms on the way, and lots of them.

Aelnathan said:
I see your point on “decreasing genetic diversity”. Perhaps my arguments have been erroneous, due to my research of the Global Seed Vault ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault ). Here, however, one can see what happens when a person applies one branch of science (in this case, agricultural biodiversity) to a wider field (biodiversity as a whole).

When I said apes, I meant APES, not primates. My question is, did man descend from apes? I have heard of numerous evolutionists argue for and against this theory.

If we can “CONTROL our environment”, why does that remove then from “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Are we not then just “super-evolved”? We are still operating within our “parameters”; we just have more power, a greater ability to “take charge of ours”. It is not like other creatures lack this ability to “take charge”. Take a look at termites, or bees, or ants—-slave-making ants in particular. This species actually goes out of its way to raid other ant colonies, taking their population as “slaves” to work in the slave-maker ant’s colony. In addition, many animals do care for their handicapped. Dolphins lift their wounded to the surface to breath (assisted respiration, anyone?) In one fairly recent case, a dog dragged an injured dog off of a highway and into safety. If you have ever raised dogs, or cats, or horses (as I have), you will see how a mother will care for her young when they are injured. The fact that the most they can do is often merely licking wounds does not change the fact that they are doing all they can to keep their loved ones alive. Regarding predators, how many predators does a polar bear have in its natural habitat? Man. What else? I am sure that you will find this question difficult to answer. Man has his fair share of predators. In addition to the obvious animals (bears, lions, alligators, crocodiles, caimans, etc.), there is also disease. So the idea that man has eliminated nearly all of his predators is—-how shall I say?—-erroneous. We are nowhere near that point. Even the predators that we can “combat”, disease namely, are still oftentimes far beyond our control. It is not like a polar bear can not “combat” his predators (Man), either. It has been successful in many cases. Yes, we are creating our own environments. By the way, termites have air-conditioning. We are not alone.

It is interesting that you should mention dolphins. They can create tools (such as using broken sponges as nose-guards during foraging), and these skills are passed down by education, not by inheritance. Some have also been known to engage in acts that often are unaccountable in relation to the natural order of things. Their still mysterious, occasional killings of porpoises may be do to some discord among their “cultures”. This poses some interesting questions. If dolphins engage in these irrational activities, are they also to be excluded from the scope of “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Also, considering their apparently extreme intelligence, how come they have never evolved hands with opposable thumbs? I am sure they could find a use for them.

Concerning microevolution and activities involving noses, one could also consider the axes of the planets. Every planet’s axis is aligned in a generally perpendicular position compared to the plane of the Solar System, [here, the speaker's voice lowered to a whisper, a nervousness shading his face, his eyes looking down] except for, uh, Uranus [He kicked the ground, cursing his misfortune]. There are always exceptions to scientific expectations, like the expectation that all planets should rotate in the same direction, due to their alleged emergence from dust swirling after the sun appeared. Yes, I know, Uranus is said to have been hit by a comet, or asteroid, or rogue planet, or so some of the theories go. Also intriguing is the universe’s current rate of expansion. When this is taken into consideration, all of the Solar System’s planets ought to be much farther away from the sun then they currently are, when we take the evolutionist’s estimation of the Solar System’s age. It seems highly unlikely that the speed of this expansion is becoming more and more rapid, especially when entropy is accounted for.

Now I have stated facts that I do not expect you will find reason to “misunderstand”. Personally, I do not worship “peer-reviewed scientific fact.” Aristarchus’ heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected by the science community of his day. As I have said elsewhere, the scientific establishments contemporary to Galileo persecuted him for his discoveries. I appreciate what the scientific community has accomplished, but generally my admiration is with the individual scientists (Aristarchus, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Tesla, etc.) rather than the “establishment”. I think it is clear that neither of us are “scientists”, though we both are interested the workings of the universe. I am afraid I must pass on your generous offer to “fill in the gaps” of my allegedly “misled” understanding. I believe my arguments have been as clear as yours, and have suffered from no more (if perhaps no less) holes in logic. The Bible, English grammar, literature, and science have been my main studies in life so far. I will learn science enough when, Lord willing, I take mechanical engineering in college. Thank you for your time, and the discussion. Good-bye and farewell.

Author of the Aelnathan

That’s right everyone, “Why didn’t dolphins develop opposable thumbs”? After all, we all know that if a creature doesn’t have a human or human-like form it most certainly CAN’T actually be intelligent, and a dog licking its sick puppy is exactly the same as developing and administering antibiotics! Seriously.

Here we also witness one of many attempts to duck out, and the continual denial of the real problem: Aelnathan doesn’t understand evolution in the first place. What’s that AA saying… the first step to recovery is admitting there is problem?

Next time, three epic posts as Cleric comes back, I explain taxonomy, gravity, and technology, while Aelnathan sticks his fingers in his ears and thinks we called him a fool.

Continue the debate? Part 3.

More Antichristianity: Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 1 | Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 3 | Anath vs Aelnathan; Amazon ID Smackdown II–Prelude.

]]>

I did enjoy the debate, and just shows how insecure many Christians are in their beliefs when someone challenges them.

More Antichristianity: On respect… | Fred Phelps Is At It Again | Religion: Merely a Socio-political Construct

]]>

This will be much shorter than the Prelude since we no longer have to catch up.

For those who want to read ahead or look at it in its “native environment”, this section starts on page 30 of Cleric’s review.

Before I get a chance to reply to some of his silliness, Cleric jumps in to point out how silly his mention to survival of the fittest in reference to euthanasia and abortion is. I don’t reappear until we move the debate to Aelnathan’s review.

Cleric Said:
>>Abortion and euthanasia ARE related to this topic. They both are related to the “survival of the fittest mentality”. These items require further questioning—-where does this selective deduction of life end? The unborn are killed “for the health of the mother”, or because it will be a burden to its parents, etc. The old and terminally ill are killed so that medical funds will not be “wasted” on them. Remember, slavery was an accepted institution for thousands of years (and still is in some regions), and that does not mean it was ethical. Just because abortion and euthanasia are accepted by many today does not mean it is right. Perhaps someday more will come to see its evil.

But, as I’ve already pointed out the “survival of the fittest” concept is specifically in relation to a world that is not meddled in, where nature is in control. Mankinds use of murder, abortion, euthanasia or whatever is meddling in nature’s whims and thus the whole notion of “survival of the fittest” doesn’t hold in context of the evolutionary theory. Now you’re just discussing a philosophical aspect. You are taking it out of science and putting it into philosophy, which is why it’s not relevant to the Theory of Evolution. You are just talking about the philosophical concept of “survival of the fittest” as it is removed from the evolutionary system.

>>P.S.—Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT. It is a theory. Why are people so afraid to say that? We have mathematical theorems that we follow, and nobody is scared to call them theorems. Why not just call Evolution the “Theory of Evolution”?

I’m not afraid to call it the theory of evolution, that is it’s definition when you look it up in a dictionary. However microevolution IS a fact. Just like we accept gravity as a fact. Right you are about the mathematical theorms, but the premise of a lot of those are that they are true and some are unprovable, such as the commutative property of mathematics. We assume this property holds for all numbers at all times. You can’t fully prove it in a testable fashion, because you can’t test all numbers. So we base the assumption that it’s true on the logical fact that some of the tested series work. Same goes for evolution, basically. Microevolution exists and works, therefore it is extrapolated that evolution is the process that dictates the system. If you want to pick and choose what scientific observations you want to believe, that is your prerogative, but that doesn’t mean ignoring it makes it not true.

Aelnathan said:
When has mankind ceased being a part of nature? If a lion kills a gazelle or another lion, it is regarded as a process of nature. If a human kills an animal or another human, is that not part of nature as a whole also? It really is not such an extreme extrapolation to apply the “survival of the fittest” mentality to society. If you hold that man evolved from apes or what have you, than man is basically a very intelligent animal. As such, the strongest of the “herd” of humankind can make decisions concerning the fate of said “herd”. Like the stallion culling the weak and sickly foals from his drove, so would a dictator have the right to control and cleanse the population he governs by means of abortion, eugenics, and genocide. Of course these things are atrocious, but they are not unrelated to the subject at hand. No one is saying that Darwin set out to create such re-gimes (those distinctions fall to Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin), but to ignore their correlations to one another is to choose ignorance.

Do remember that I said “Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT.” I never said microevolution is not fact. To do so would make me little different than a believer in a flat Earth. Yet that still does not mean that evolution can be applied to the whole without some great errors. It is akin to observing the society of ants, and then believing all animal life to observe the same pattern. It is like unto the expectation that since plants use photosynthesis to produce food, then animals must also do so. It is very much similar to studying geology with the belief that everything has always moved at the same rates, without accounting for the changes that happen over time. Maybe microevolution is but a small facet of biology, that does not explain the existence of life itself. I do not ignore microevolution; rather I do not wish to jump to conclusions in its proper application.

That’s right, “microevolution” exists but “macroevolution” does not with an AMAZINGLY inaccurate analogy, and conveniently forgets the fact that it is ABIOGENESIS that attempts to explain the existence of life, NOT evolution–”macro” or “micro”.

Cleric said:
>>When has mankind ceased being a part of nature? If a lion kills a gazelle or another lion, it is regarded as a process of nature. If a human kills an animal or another human, is that not part of nature as a whole also? It really is not such an extreme extrapolation to apply the “survival of the fittest” mentality to society. If you hold that man evolved from apes or what have you, than man is basically a very intelligent animal. As such, the strongest of the “herd” of humankind can make decisions concerning the fate of said “herd”. Like the stallion culling the weak and sickly foals from his drove, so would a dictator have the right to control and cleanse the population he governs by means of abortion, eugenics, and genocide. Of course these things are atrocious, but they are not unrelated to the subject at hand. No one is saying that Darwin set out to create such re-gimes (those distinctions fall to Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin), but to ignore their correlations to one another is to choose ignorance.

I’m talking about this specifically on how Darwin saw things. Furthermore, animals don’t fall prey to the ridiculous irrational things humans do. Hitler killed off Jews based on their religion and race. This had nothing to do with them being weak by natures standards, but by Hitler’s irrational standards. Stalin and others were despots that wanted absolute control over their territories and populations. That’s not how survival of the fittest works in nature and you should know that. Furthermore a lot of the beliefs in Eugenics were unfounded and proven to do little to improve anything. Thus it is NOT working in conjunction with a concept of survival of the fittest. So, in my opinion, to think there is a correlation is ignorant. You have to learn to differentiate between the excuses people use for these things and the reality of it. You are trying to imply an argument Darwin specifically said didn’t apply in his theory. I think he was pretty on point. He even acknowledged it, why can’t you?

>>Do remember that I said “Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT.” I never said microevolution is not fact. To do so would make me little different than a believer in a flat Earth. Yet that still does not mean that evolution can be applied to the whole without some great errors. It is akin to observing the society of ants, and then believing all animal life to observe the same pattern. It is like unto the expectation that since plants use photosynthesis to produce food, then animals must also do so. It is very much similar to studying geology with the belief that everything has always moved at the same rates, without accounting for the changes that happen over time. Maybe microevolution is but a small facet of biology, that does not explain the existence of life itself. I do not ignore microevolution; rather I do not wish to jump to conclusions in its proper application.

Do remember I said microevolution is the catalyst for macroevolution. If one is fact then the other is highly likely to be. The case of transitional fossils being found is further proving that fact. Maybe you’re worried about jumping to conclusions, but that doesn’t change the evidence that continues to be found. Though, I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply with the analogies. No one’s asking you to do that, least of all evolution. And no, microevolution will never explain the existence of life, microevolution is a mechanism that allows for small changes over time. Maybe the first things in life used a microevolutionary process…

Aelnathan said:
If you are merely talking about Darwin’s theories, and if he had already excluded humanity from his equation, then my comments do not apply. He was very smart to leave people’s actions out of his theory. Yet the “Theory of Evolution” is not limited to “Darwinism”. I understand your point on dictators misusing Darwin’s theories to further their own agendas. Still, from a purely rhetorical view, can you not see my point about man’s hypothetical state as a “very intelligent animal”? Does sentience thus thrust a species from the bounds of Nature? If man’s actions cannot be accommodated in the natural process of “Evolution”, then where do we fit in? Let us assume that, oh, five million years in the future, sentient, talking horses come to be. Are they therefore no longer part of Nature? What is this quality that separates man from beast? I would think that this very exception to the tenets of “Evolution” would draw into question its feasibility. Is there a limit on how far evolution can progress? If all species become sentient, does “Nature” become an obsolete word? Does evolution halt? Or perhaps, is sentience a gift from our Creator, who planned out the universe’s workings from the beginning? Could He have decided which species are sentient, and which are irrational, and where these creatures stand in existence? These questions are certainly worth consideration.

Now about microevolution—-how do my analogies not correlate with the material at hand? I was pointing out that studying one facet of a certain branch of science, and then applying it to the entire branch can lead to erroneous conclusions. I do not see humans (or much of anything else, for that matter) reproducing by binary fission. But sea anemones do. Let us say for a moment that I were an alien visitor, coming from a world where all creatures are hermaphrodite, and landed on Earth. Sea anemones were first species I studied intently. I might proceed to the conclusion that ALL of the creatures on Earth reproduce in this manner. E.T. just made a big mistake. “Oww-ie.” Anyway, I do not see how I can make my point any clearer. Microevolution could just be a crucial yet limited component of biology.

It seems as if this debate has gone on as far as it can go, with both parties making little or no headway. If you wish to continue, then I will soldier on, yet if you wish to retire, I will second the motion. I am growing weary of constantly speaking in an ambiguous tone for the sake of argument. I know where you stand, and I believe you know where I stand. I am a Christian and a Creationist, and constantly stating my views in the form of a question is quite grating. Neither of us seem to be getting anywhere. I hope my posts have given you some matter for contemplation, in an unoffensive manner (something I have striven with great care to accomplish). Thank you for not resorting to name-calling and insults. If you agree, this here is farewell, and as I have said several times before, may we all find the Truth.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
—–John 14:6

Cleric said:
>>If you are merely talking about Darwin’s theories, and if he had already excluded humanity from his equation, then my comments do not apply. He was very smart to leave people’s actions out of his theory. Yet the “Theory of Evolution” is not limited to “Darwinism”. I understand your point on dictators misusing Darwin’s theories to further their own agendas. Still, from a purely rhetorical view, can you not see my point about man’s hypothetical state as a “very intelligent animal”? Does sentience thus thrust a species from the bounds of Nature? If man’s actions cannot be accommodated in the natural process of “Evolution”, then where do we fit in? Let us assume that, oh, five million years in the future, sentient, talking horses come to be. Are they therefore no longer part of Nature? What is this quality that separates man from beast? I would think that this very exception to the tenets of “Evolution” would draw into question its feasibility. Is there a limit on how far evolution can progress? If all species become sentient, does “Nature” become an obsolete word? Does evolution halt? Or perhaps, is sentience a gift from our Creator, who planned out the universe’s workings from the beginning? Could He have decided which species are sentient, and which are irrational, and where these creatures stand in existence? These questions are certainly worth consideration.

To be perfectly honest, I’m not qualified to give this a supremely detailed answer. However, I think the whole point of somewhat omitting mankind IS our ability to meddle in a vastly different way than nature does. For all we know sentience could be an anomaly of nature, an exception to the rule. I lean on the side that it is an abnormal state, since we’re the only species that seems to be able to meddle like we do. If you know what I mean?

>>Now about microevolution—-how do my analogies not correlate with the material at hand? I was pointing out that studying one facet of a certain branch of science, and then applying it to the entire branch can lead to erroneous conclusions. I do not see humans (or much of anything else, for that matter) reproducing by binary fission. But sea anemones do. Let us say for a moment that I were an alien visitor, coming from a world where all creatures are hermaphrodite, and landed on Earth. Sea anemones were first species I studied intently. I might proceed to the conclusion that ALL of the creatures on Earth reproduce in this manner. E.T. just made a big mistake. “Oww-ie.” Anyway, I do not see how I can make my point any clearer. Microevolution could just be a crucial yet limited component of biology.

I would agree if microevolution wasn’t found in everything. I do understand your point, but I think you are attacking it from the wrong angle.

>>It seems as if this debate has gone on as far as it can go, with both parties making little or no headway. If you wish to continue, then I will soldier on, yet if you wish to retire, I will second the motion. I am growing weary of constantly speaking in an ambiguous tone for the sake of argument. I know where you stand, and I believe you know where I stand. I am a Christian and a Creationist, and constantly stating my views in the form of a question is quite grating. Neither of us seem to be getting anywhere. I hope my posts have given you some matter for contemplation, in an unoffensive manner (something I have striven with great care to accomplish). Thank you for not resorting to name-calling and insults. If you agree, this here is farewell, and as I have said several times before, may we all find the Truth.

I agree. And maybe we should call it quits here. I also must thank you for not getting all “hell and damnation” on me. Instead we had quite the civil conversation on this matter.

Aelnathan said:
Thanks for the debate. Farewell.

–Author of the Aelnathan

P.S.—-This post is the same one as the one deleted above. I had a little trouble with it. Sorry. After I had posted it, I remembered that I had already said goodbye in my previous post. Wanting to avoid redundancy, I deleted it. I forgot that such an action would leave an empty space with the bracketed words “Deleted by author on____”. Oh, well.

And this is Aelnathan’s first retreat. In the next episode, I confront him on his own territory.

And I’m not nice like Cleric.

Continue the debate:
Part 2

More Antichristianity: Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 2 | Anath vs Aelnathan; Amazon ID Smackdown II–Prelude. | Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 3

]]>

Very shortly: This time he is tackling the answers to the ‘Order’ question. Unfortunately his answers can be simply surmised as him falling back onto his ‘Creation’ question. He turned the question from “How can the universe be finely tuned to human life” to “Why have a universe that can sustain any kind of life rather than no life” this is aking to saying “Why is there a universe”.

And my answer to that question is the same as before.

(h/t FaithlessGod)

More Antichristianity: RE: 10 Answers from an Antichristian | 10 Answers from an AntiChristian | Uhm, hi.

]]>

This article records everything from Aelnathan’s first comment up to the time All-Access left for good and Aelnathan got serious and stopped waiting a month between posts.

This first comment needs a little context. This is Aelnathan’s first comment on the Expelled review (starting on page 26 for those who want to read all surrounding comments for themselves). Around this time, a lot of people are discussing Nazis and “Darwinism” and Hitler and how it appeared Stein was giving a biased opinion. Don’t worry, the subject changes quickly.

Aelnathan said
Ben Stein was showing the demoralizing effect of Darwinism. Hitler may or may not have been an atheist, but his practices were certainly ‘logical’ (such a horribly adept adjective) progressions of Darwin’s theories. If the perfection of biological life is the goal of existence, than Hitler would be completely justified in his atrocities. If this truly is the case, Hitler (and Stalin, too) should be praised as benefactors of humanity.
I find this ‘Northern Man’ to have given a pseudo-educated comment. Ah, he has researched Mein Kampf, perhaps, yet I question the reasoning that would provide us with such a comparison as the one he gave. It is obvious that Hitler believed that animals mate only with their kind. It is obvious that Creationists believe that animals mate only with their kind. It is obvious that animals mate only with their kind. It is not ‘creationist innuendo’; it is a fact of the natural world.
Oh, and for Cleric’s knowledge, Stein was not blaming Darwin for the holocaust; he was showing the correllation of the ideals of Evolution and Nazism. Also, I sometimes wonder if this reviewer was watching this film as carefully as it would at first seem. Ben Stein interviewed those responsible for the expellation of persons like Sternberg and Gonzales, to hear their (rather fabricated excuses for) explanations. He interviewed those like Richard Dawkins, to gain an understanding of their support for Evolution and their stand against Intelligent Design. I do not see this as poor hosting. I may be an idiot to think this (highly doubtful), but does it not seem fitting to question those who are expert in their field? Those that fired Sternberg would be those most fit to answer for their actions. Richard Dawkins is the one to ask concerning the views in his book.
In addition to my above remarks, I would like to address the reviewer’s assumption that ‘Intelligent Design cannot provide something observable that can be repeated in a laboratory, that’s a fact, not a belief.’ He is correct. Yet I would like to see Evolution repeated in a laboratory. Someone had better invent an immortality drug, time machine, or something, to observe the mutations over millions of years. Stanley Miller tried to prove it in a laboratory, but ultimately created a simulated environment that made life impossible (If you do not believe me go to wikipedia) . Or, you could work on that time machine, and ask Stan himself). Both theories require faith. Creation requires less faith than Evolution, in fact. I mean, either DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa, or some three-year-old scribbled with crayons long enough. It would be some unfathomable miracle for the ordered universe to arise from random mistakes, constantly leading to greater order and sophistication (entropy and Thermodynamics notwithstanding).

*headdesk* Prove it in a laboratory? Seriously… but we get to that. Though I’d like to mention, I didn’t think of it at the time, that actually “either DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa, or some three-year-old scribbled with crayons long enough” is surprisingly accurate, but not in the way he intends. DaVinci WAS once a three year old scribbling with “crayons” (Though they were conte crayons and charcoal, not the waxy Crayolas we use), and he scribbled long enough and consistently enough, that he… got good at it. His style evolved until he was good enough to paint the Mona Lisa. But I digress.

Also observe how he linked the Talk page about the experiment and not the ACTUAL page which can be found here. Also notice the content, and link to AiG. Seriously. And people wonder why Wikipedia is often not considered a ‘credible’ source.

At this point, All-Access says he’s fed up for the first time, Cleric indicates his frustration, and Aelnathan makes another post.

Aelnathan said:
Just one more thing before you go. I understand the frustration of debate, when you are shouting, “Can’t you see? It is so obvious!”, and nobody sees your point. But this is no mere matter of debate. It hurts my heart to see how hopeless Evolution can make people. But it is not that it just makes people hopeless. Sometimes, the arguments for Evolution just do not make sense. For instance, how come all species on the planet are becoming less and less genetically diverse? If Evolution is true, at least the general trend would be that creatures were becoming more diverse with each coming generation. But here is the funny part. Every ‘mutation’, or whatever title one wants to give the variations in a breed (such as Wolf and Dog [both canines], Lion and Cat [both felines]), signifies a decrease in genetic diversity, even if the breed ‘improves’ in its characteristics. The earliest ancestors of the species contained all of the genetic information necessary for posterity. As time wears on, when subspecies branch off into different sizes and colors, part of their parents’ diversity leaves them. It would at first not seem this way, but for lack of a better analogy, I will compare this to the separation of the colors in white light. When all of the rainbow’s colors are combined, we have white light. This represents complete genetic diversity. When, however, separate the light with a triangular prism, we see Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. If we look at the Red section, we can at once see that it is more striking in appearance than the white light, and might even think it to be more complex. But the truth is it is but a simpler component of white light. Thus, the colors represent the branching off of a species, resulting in reduced genetic diversity.
This is what frustrates me most about some Evolutionists. They act as if their theory has been proven as fact, when in truth it has not. I am a Christian, and take the Bible literally when it says that God created the earth in six days. I do not expect this to fit inside a test tube. Evolution does not fit there either. And what theory remains more persistent? The Bible, after thousands of years, still says that the earth was created in six days. Evolutionists, on the other hand, change the dates assigned to the geologic collumn, still bicker about whether mankind descended from apes, and remain perplexed by the prospect of the organic rising from the inorganic. Creationism says that God created life out of nothing. That may sound impossible, and ‘un-scientific’, but to me, it sounds more probable than the amoeba arising from ’soup’ that came from rocks that came from an ity-bity little cube of matter before the Big Bang. And, wait a minute—-where did you say that cube of matter came from? Oh, yes, I am still waiting for an answer.
For those who actually believe Evolution (and are not just using it as a tool for power and/or fame), I do not feel anger. I just hope they take a look at some of the things that point to a Creator.

Cleric comes back exasperated.

Cleric said:
Aelnathan , I must apologize if the following sounds somewhat harsh in response. Maybe I am weary of the debate at hand. I think I’m mostly just tired of explaining my point of view and people very rarely understanding what I’m getting at. I think I am just a poor communicator in this regard, but for what it’s worth, here it goes…

All of the colors combined make Black, not white. So your analogy was incredibly hard to follow for me. White is caused by the absence of color.

Secondly, I’m not saying that a creator is not possible, so I’m not sure where the discussion of “hopelessness” comes from. I also believe a creator is highly likely, so I am not even remotely arguing from that perspective. And species are getting diverse as well, they discovered 70 some odd new species in 2007, if I remember the article date correctly. So if things weren’t still evolving, or are becoming less divergent as you claim, then we wouldn’t discover anything new. We’d see constant extinction with nothing being created.

My issue with the creation story is that it is incredibly contradictory from what people explain to me about the nature of “god” in the Bible. Aside from the fact that the story is just illogical to me, the fact that people say “god” is eternal and everywhere and then in the first paragraph the Bible states there was a void makes no sense. If you’re presence is eternal and everywhere then a void is impossible and your statements aren’t reconciliable to your own book. Therefore there can be limitations to “god’s” presence and existence.

Personally I’ve moved on from evolution, because there is more evidence to support evolution than most other “beliefs” out there. Such as the Theory of Gravity, humans still don’t really understand that much about this. Plus the “it’s just a theory” argument when discussing evolution is a pretty moot point. When you use 2 + 3 = 3 + 2 (commutative property of addition) in mathematics to solve problems the process you go about using these properties is called the Theory of Equations. So if it’s logical that evolution should be dismissed based on the fact that it is called the “Theory of Evolution” then we should very likely dismiss other theories as improbable like the theory of gravity or the theory of equations, regardless of the observations we make and the mathematical models we develop with them.

I guess that’s the major area I come from when I argue against the creationist theory. There is no real physical evidence of anything presented in the creation story from Genesis (and yes I have read the Bible). However, on a philosophical note, beliefs are stronger than facts or anything else depending on how strong your belief is. I could be presenting this wrong, but what I’m trying to say is that if you truly believe it then it’s obviously true for you and nothing science or anything else will change your mind on this if you believe it hard enough. This is essentially what the Bible teaches, so those with a lot of faith in it will not change their minds.

The only reason the Bible hasn’t had a “noticeable” change is because of the development of the printing press. Euclid’s “Thirteen Elements” hasn’t really changed much either and that’s older than any “New Testament” you’ll find written even before the printing press. So you’re statement about how it hasn’t changed is also kind of irrelevant as there are many other documents from ancient times that also haven’t changed much since we’ve printed them and mass produced them. I guess I just don’t understand where your’e coming from on that point. Not to mention at the end of “revelations” it flat out says “you can’t add anything else to this book” or else it will be considered heresy or something along those lines. (I don’t have a Bible with me at work, sorry).

It is actually immediately following this post that my first Smackdown article begins, but Aelnathan disappears for quite some time so he took the back seat. He comes back, pointing out that he was misunderstood with his confusing light=biodiversity analogy and actually meant LIGHT and not PIGMENT, and adds more headdesks. For those interested in reading the original posts, this returns on page 28.

Aelnathan said:
I am sorry, sir, but I was not talking about colors in the sense of pigments (paint, ink, etc.) I was talking about the colors of LIGHT. White LIGHT is a combination of the Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Inidigo, Violet wavelengths of LIGHT. Black (True black, like the black of a Black Hole) comes from the absence of LIGHT. I hope my analogy has taken on somewhat greater meaning.
Concerning man’s never-ending discoveries of ‘new’ animal species, I have this question to ask: When did humans become omniscient? Just because we have never seen a certain species before does not mean it has not existed for millennia. And my point about decreasing GENETIC diversity is precisely what I said. I am not saying that the species themselves are not becoming more diverse, but that their genetic code is becoming less diverse. If you have ever heard about the Global Seed Vault (GSV), you will know what I mean. It is an effort to retain the biodiversity of various strains of seeds, by storing them in seedbanks across the globe (go to Wikipedia again for more info). Take Indian Corn, for instance. It contains more genetic diversity than the modern strains used in agriculture today. It more readily adapts to differing environments. All of our modern breeds come from Indian Corn. This is but one illustration for my point on decreasing genetic diversity.
Concerning your comment on the ‘void’, I could not say it any better than All-access Customer said it. ‘”And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2). It was the earth that was void–not void of God, but rather nonexistent before He created it.’
Concerning gravity and such, I say this. These theories contribute to the capabilities of man today. ‘Something’ makes apples fall from trees, and at an observable rate of increasing speed. Three marbles plus two marbles equals two marbles plus three marbles. These observations have been put to good use in engineering. What good has evolution done for us?
And I was just using the Bible’s unchanging stand as an illustration of the rather dynamic nature of the Theory of Evolution.

Some of the responses on the first article are edited to remove the points I addressed to Aelnathan in order to focus on All-Access. What I am posting here is the Aelnathan version of these posts.

Anath said:
While the taxonomic tree and the spreading of light coming out of a prism are visually strikingly similar, the deep layer of analogy is entirely misplaced. The spread of “feline ancestor white light” to “lion/tiger/jaguar/serval/fishing cat/cheetah colors” or “canid ancestor white light” to “jackal/wolf/fox/coyote colors” is not representative of what actually occurs. Species are not a simplification of their ancestors. Let me break this down further to illuminate the true lay of the land. Forget your White Light analogy entirely, for it will only serve to confuse the issue for you.

I will use the family canidae, but the specifics of this example are irrelevant as any ancestor at any level or branch of the taxonomic tree can be substituted and the core concept will not change, so I will avoid scientific names and irrelevant details and keep this example in generic terms.

40 million years ago, we see the first common ancestor of canidae. This “ancient wolf” had a specific genetic structure with a specific phenotype and specific alleles that it had inherited from previous ancestors to help it survive in its Eocene environment. This genetic structure varied slightly from individual to individual in order to maintain genetic diversity, and was combined in near infinite combinations during sexual reproduction. These animals were all located in one local area of the globe at first, and began to wander. Geological events and natural disasters occurred over time and gradually isolated various parts of the population for a variety of reasons. This variable recombination occasionally produced individuals with particular alleles that were able to achieve great reproductive success, but since there were pockets of population, these changes were generally unable to spread much farther than their local groups. Now fast forward to the Miocene epoch and we see a split into the genera Canis (wolves, jackals, coyotes), Urocyon (grey foxes), Vulpes (True Foxes) (there is no need to take it all the way to species, the concept still applies on a more local level). This is 30 million years later, and 9-10 million years from the common era. Canids have a litter of pups about every year so we are looking at about 30 million generations from the common ancestor to the genera split, give or take. Now we can analyze the question, did we lose or gain genetic diversity in the split?

How do we define “genetic diversity”? The National Biological Information Infrastructure website says:
>>Genetic diversity refers to the variation at the level of individual genes (polymorphism), and provides a mechanism for populations to adapt to their ever-changing environment.<<

So redefining the question with the definition. At the time of the split, we have 30,000,000 generations of pups, litter size of 1-16 (sometimes more), which is about of 240,000,000 surviving pups assuming we start the family Canidae with one single animal, assuming an average litter of 8 pups that survive to reproduce, and ignoring all potential unusual population variations due to feast-or-famine. (It is more likely that there were anywhere from 5-100+ mated couples that made up the early Canids, and there can be a large number of pups that live to reproductive maturity so you can see my figures are quite conservative. ) This is WELL over 240 million unique arrangements of the original genome. With genetic diversity defined as "variation at the level of individual genes", do you think that 240 million+ variations of the original genome is indicating a DECREASE in diversity? Even as the family "splits" into three genera here, each individual creature still contains a unique set of genes inherited by blending their parent's genes. The genera and subsequent species do not indicate a decline in genetic diversity; they are simply variations on a theme.

A more fitting analogy is that of any standard musical scale. The common ancestor for Canidae is... let's say a C Concert Scale, and the three genera could be an arpeggio, a third, and a minor scale. Same notes, different variation. Think of three different ways to play "Hot Cross Buns" or "Mary had a Little Lamb". Same thing.

>>Take Indian Corn, for instance. It contains more genetic diversity than the modern strains used in agriculture today. <<

You are using a very, very misleading example. Corn is a domesticated plant that has been artificially selected by humans for very specific traits, not producing its own variations in nature. We don't want corn to change because it possesses certain traits, so WE are taking steps to keep it from changing (to the point of genetically engineering and cloning it in laboratories). Left on its own, there would be greater variation, but when a farmer sees a "bad" (read as: different) plant, he removes it from the garden and destroys its possibility of reproduction.

Also your terminology here is also misleading. ALL corn is "Indian Corn". Every single species of corn on the market today derives from maize domesticated in 16th century Mesoamerica. So essentially you are saying there is more genetic diversity in a species as a whole than in an artificially selected, domesticated, modified, and even cloned strain of the species. This is true, but not actually relevant to your point. Its like saying there is a greater genetic diversity in all Amur tigers than just the Amur tigers in the Pittsburgh Zoo.

>>What good has evolution done for us?<<

If you can't think of a single thing knowledge of evolution has done for modern biology, this is incredulity on your part, nothing more. Evolution has entirely restructured the field of biology, to the point where you can not understand biology without it. Natural selection has changed how we view ecosystems as a whole, as well as revealed incredible insights about our own species, from our deep psyche to why our anatomy is structured the way it is. For me there are three outstanding examples of evolution's mark.

The first is the field of genetics. While Darwin knew nothing of genetics when he penned his theory for the first time, its a well-known secret that the theory has grown and been modified as the world of genetics unraveled. HOW does the randomness, and mutation, and natural selection and adaptation work? Genetics. Sexual reproduction. Mutations. Even if we knew what DNA was and how it was composed, even if we had the human genome entirely mapped out, we would be completely unable to utilize any of that information without the knowledge of evolution and its inner workings. We now know how heritability works, among other things, which leads me to my second example...

Medicine. As the knowledge of evolution, genetics, microbiology, and so on grew, we were able to advance our medicine to keep up. We learned about bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms and how to combat them, and more importantly, we learned that they adapt to our antibiotics and other medications, so that we could combat them more effectively. If you have ever had an extremely severe case of the flu, pneumonia, bronchitis, tetanus, rabies (or been potentially exposed to rabies) the common cold, or a dozen other previously life-threatening illnesses, and took any sort of medicine or a preventative shot for it, you may owe your very life to our knowledge of evolution. We also have been able to pinpoint the causes of genetic diseases and we have been able to determine who is more susceptible to other health issues such as high blood pressure or breast cancer based on family history. The benefits of evolution on medicine go on and on, as genetic engineering becomes increasingly integral part... and I haven't even touched on neuroscience.

Also we have integrated the idea of natural selection in computer science and artificial intelligence, creating programs that mimic evolution to optimize programs and solve complex problems. You probably have several devices in your house that are a direct or indirect result of this method. This is a fascinating field but I don't know much about it to be honest, so if you are interested there is lots of information all over the web if you Google it. Wikipedia has an introductory article with lots of links to start you off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

Hope that helped to clarify some of your misunderstandings.

After this, Aelnathan took some more time off (about a month) and jumped back in when he thought he could smack some morals around.

Aelnathan
Abortion and euthanasia ARE related to this topic. They both are related to the “survival of the fittest mentality”. These items require further questioning—-where does this selective deduction of life end? The unborn are killed “for the health of the mother”, or because it will be a burden to its parents, etc. The old and terminally ill are killed so that medical funds will not be “wasted” on them. Remember, slavery was an accepted institution for thousands of years (and still is in some regions), and that does not mean it was ethical. Just because abortion and euthanasia are accepted by many today does not mean it is right. Perhaps someday more will come to see its evil.

–Aelnathan

P.S.—Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT. It is a theory. Why are people so afraid to say that? We have mathematical theorems that we follow, and nobody is scared to call them theorems. Why not just call Evolution the “Theory of Evolution”?

Oh classic, “Why not just call Evolution the “Theory of Evolution”?” I don’t know where he gets it, but this had me dying of laughter. Fortunately I didn’t, and lived to read his next response, which he posted immediately after, addressing me.

Aelnathan said:
I am sorry for my late response. I do not very competently keep track of my comments on other people’s reviews.

The “decrease in genetic diversity”, as I put it, does not just relate to artificial selection. Case in point; try getting a sun bear cub from breeding polar bears. It is not going to happen (not by natural breeding means, anyway) However, these two bear species descended from some original bear ancestor. They both are better adapted to their respective environments than their ancestors, but they will not be able to produce the range of breeds that their ancenstors produced. That is my point.

Concerning the “what good has evolution done for us?”, you make some interesting points. In the case of medicine, however, is not the study of family history called Heredity? Perhaps I am merely splitting hairs here. With Evolution’s effects on computers and such, one could argue that the Evolutionary Algorithm is merely an attempt to mimic human reasoning faculties, despite its inspiration.

Due to the fact that I so poorly keep track of my comments, I may not be seen posting here again. Sorry for the inconvenience, but if one wishes to question me, they could comment on my own review of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. I will attempt to stay current on my posts here, but that has so far been achieved with wildly varying results. I close here, wishing that all of us find the Truth.

–Aelnathan

P.S.—-Just one last question for Anath, in response to the argument with All-Access Customer. Did man descend from apes??? I have noticed that Evolutionists are so…….not unified on that point.

Needless to say, we didn’t scare him off that quickly, and he plays a very, very long game of “I’m leaving!” *post* “I’m leaving for REALS” *post* “REALLY I’M LEAVING!” *post*… which I promoted by pushing his buttons, writing responses, and moving to HIS Expelled review like he recommended! He just can’t STAND not to have the last word, but I’ll give it to him here, since we’ve gone slightly past the end of All-Access.

Tune in next week sometime for a short series of responses! This post will be the the longest installation in the series, since it really is just a parallel catch-up.

Continue the debate:
Part 1
Part 2

More Antichristianity: Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 2 | Anath vs. Aelnathan Part 1 | Intelligent Design Smackdown on Amazon.com

]]>

Ultimately I don’t believe in love, I believe in intelligence. For me, it is not the love that makes me love a person so to speak, it’s the intelligence found inside. A majority of Westerners still focus on that love is required to love in a relationship. That I happened to love someone is more of a side-effect of what I found inside a person, rather than love itself.

I guess what I really want to say is that I am aiming a social critique against the notion of how we view love. A lot of people say, “it’s nice to love”, but is it really the love we should be living for? Love, just like marriage, is just a symbol given a meaning, but I think a human being can be meaningful without symbols.

And I thought I could challenge some Christians with their view about love as a symbol as well, if you really read what I said carefully.

Love has no meaning outside a cultural context. Humans give it an instrinsic meaning because we believe in its meaning. For an animal, love is equal to air, simply because an animal cannot understand the symbolic meaning humans attach to love in their respective cultures.

If we also look at how Christians actually behave to their countrymen, it also turns out that the person they are projecting their love to is rather secondary. It rather seems to be the communal notion of love that is important than actually loving people, where the persons to whom you are projecting the love to are more important then the love you are projecting. That means that love itself becomes redundant as a symbolic carrier, and it would furthermore mean that you are more genuinely interested to those you are talking to instead of “spreading love”, and telling people how much “you love”. Because it seems what you are really after are just people who too, share this view inside a community, so in reality, it at least feels like you don’t really care about the people at all as long you have an agreement about the “love” itself.

This also holds very true in regards of what I have previously experienced. Remember, this is a challenge, not necessarily a claim I made to attack anyone or anyone’s beliefs.

More Antichristianity: Religion: Merely a Socio-political Construct | The madness does not go to the mountains… | Evidence

]]>

The beginning of this conversation when I started to explain a little about our group…

X Christian: So, a religious person cannot follow logic or doesn’t know, what experimentation is? I don’t know, where you live, but that’s just untrue. Just like it’s false to say that all irreligious people do follow logic or embraced reality.

Unreasonable: Don’t you just love those antichristian casuistries and sophisms, X?

Me: X, NO, you’re trying to imply a blanket statement to my post and that’s not true at all. I never said Christians couldn’t use logic, nor did I say only irreligious people use logic.

X Christian: Well, you might claim, you didn’t say it. But that’s how I understand your statement as a whole. On the other hand, I might have understood you wrongly (or misunderstood you), since English is not my first language. If your main goal is “the philosophy of explaining the world and universe via logic and experimentation”, then why “anti-Christian” or “anti-religious”? That’s exactly, what makes me feel, that no matter what, you personally consider all the so called “irreligious” superior at all aspects to all the religious (especially Christians).

Me: Ah yes, X, I think I may have come off that way. You are right; I understand where we misunderstood each other. Well, the group started off initially against Christian fundamentalism. Why Christian? Well the group primarily comprised of Europeans and Americans, and this is the majority religion in our lives. I would move to it being more irreligious so it doesn’t seem like we target a single religion (that would be hypocritical in my view). The goal is more to inform people and help them look at the world through actual reality. Remove the religious dogmas and actually LOOK at what’s happening. Study it, understand it, draw conclusions and test them. Jumping to a supernatural explanation is not a good answer, nor is it a foregone conclusion. Don’t get me wrong, irreligious people can be just as uninformed, but that’s the whole point, helping people become informed! But I find it much harder to inform someone if they follow some irrational belief that isn’t founded on anything. Even if it’s some weird form of atheism! The fact is there is no proof that there is no such thing as higher beings, for example, even though the outlook does have its merits.

X Christian: Okay, I get it, your “group” consists of Americans and Europeans mostly, therefore “anti-Christian”. Also I see that you mentioned “fundamentalism”, but isn’t fundamentalism almost exclusively found among protestant Christians, mainly in America. I’m not saying that there are no fundamentalists in Europe, where I live now. But their movements are marginal. Also I think that every single person has her or his own dogmas. Even the most religious persons can actually see what’s happening, they perceive the reality, but the explanation to question “why is this happening?” might differ, as well as the conclusion to question “what shall we do about it?”. It’s like politics. Everybody sees, there’s an economic crisis, nobody denies the reality, but one group says, it’s because capitalism failed, while the other one says it’s because there’s too much socialism (”why is it happening?”). One group wants more state control, the other less (”what shall we do about it?”). Who’s right?

Unreasonable: Cleric, I agree that the vast majority of Christians consists of people not-so-willing-to-learn (or debate). That or it’s just a spotlight fallacy… But if you take a look at most apologists (not creationists maybe), like some early Church Fathers, you’ll notice that they were more educated than any other religious group! They were doctors, philosophers, scientists and all that. And, there isn’t any foundation for anything at all in the whole world. There is no foundation for science, morals, society or anything at all (you know how nihilistic and skeptic I am towards such subjects).

Me: X, fundamentalism of religion is for anyone who takes something like the Bible as absolute truth (i.e. everything in the Bible is a fact and all things are meant literally). It’s actually a growing problem in my country and a lot of this has to do with deficiency in our education system (most of which is a political issue). For the example you provide about the markets, the answer will never be God. Prayer will not make the market perform better and alleviate the suffering related to it. That’s the whole point of our argument. To come up with real and viable answers religion has NO place in such issues. In fact politics has little to do with it, capitalism and socialism have nothing to do with what happened. Political deals may have been made behind doors to further very powerful people’s control, but in large part the market issue is centered on the general public’s irrationality. It’s a well known factor in economics that large groups gathered together can react irrationally. Now a large group need not be gathered together, you need only to reach this group via the media. The media is frequently doom and gloom and people and markets react to such news. What happened (I believe it started in the U.S.) was that fixed assets started to decrease in value. This triggered a global sell off of these assets. They were then devalued and banks had huge unrealized losses on their books, this caused a panic. Fixed assets perform a very specific function, they’re FIXED. That means that if you expect to receive a dollar, you will receive a dollar. Unfortunately because of trading, the value’s got priced somewhere around 0.7 on the dollar, this amounts to billion dollar losses real fast. But that doesn’t mean you will NOT receive the dollar in the future. Since most loans do not go into default, it’s a safe bet that you will receive nearly 100% of the investment. But the media didn’t spin the crisis like that.

Me to Unreasonable: I must confess that I have almost no idea what you’re talking about. Are you trying to say that religion is the only thing that can ever be founded or something?

X Christian: I know that prayer will not make the market perform better. But a prayer can help me, personally. It gives me strength and encourages me. For example European Christian-democratic parties have real political program. When there’s a crisis, they don’t say “pray and everything will be fine”. No, they offer a solution according to Christian teachings, which in case of (for example) economics means propagation of free market mixed with Christian socialism and social solidarism (at least in case of Catholicism). So yes, religion has a place in such issues. You know, Christianity is not just Bible, but also for example Augustine of Hippo or Thomas Aquinas. And, well I guess thanks for explaining current “crisis”, although that’s not what I thought we were discussing.

Me: yeah, I just threw in the crisis thing… it’s currently my field of work. Anyway, I’m aware Christianity has influenced people like Aquinas and so forth, but that’s not fundamentalism. Fundamentalism would be putting a stop to scientific research and trying to change text books to say that dinosaurs are not millions of years old, but are only 6,000 years old, because that’s what the Bible says. These are the things we’re expressly combating. Using prayer for personal use is no different than meditating and that’s perfectly fine. It’s a personal thing, which is what religion should be. Religion has no place forcing people to live a certain way. For example some human rights issues in Islam should not be continued. Religion has enabled this. Though, I have to say, I don’t know where the Bible teaches about Free Market Economic Theory? But I still say religion has no place with the issues, you can solve them WITHOUT religion. I’m not sure why you think it has a place?

Unreasonable: No, I’m saying that religion/faith is unfounded belief, just like everything else in this world. But thinking inside of our world’s limits (which we set ourselves) if there’s no Creator -as we’ve said before- then there’s no actual meaning in life (therefore any other meaning is willful delusion), no universal and true moral values, nothing at all…

Me: I disagree. I’m not talking about belief here. I’m talking about specific reasons, factual things. If you hold two objects in your hand, you have a total of two objects. This is a fact, it’s a real thing. The sky is blue for very specific reasons. It’s not a “belief”. I’m talking about interpreting the information around you with real observations, not muddying the waters with all this faith explanation that has been 100% wrong so far. And so what if there’s no creator, why does that equate to you can’t have any meaning in your life? Not to mention you have a very exclusionary view of “creator” and it’s not really fair to every other faith out there, what makes yours right/special. Nothing. We’ve also discussed numerous times how moral values are a product of society and have been since the dawn of civilization.

Y Christian: Cleric, I agree with you… every issues can be solved WITHOUT a religion and every life can have a meaning without a Creator because everyone can pursue their dreams or run after their happiness for their own. And many of them will be successful, prosperous and even make history but anything will never be enough because the emptiness behind their achievements will terrify their mind. And from this moment on, these empty people will fall and die slowly in life. That’s when some of them find Christianity. Others just dry until there is no hope or dreams left. Christianity is more than a religion or prayer; it’s the filling up of our hearts, the satisfaction of doing anything for greater reasons without the fear of the fall.

Me: Y, I do understand that, and that’s the primary point of just about every religion conceived by mankind. Doing something beyond this life, etc. And I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to believe in god x or y, that doesn’t matter to me. But defining all things in context of books written thousands of years ago that don’t necessarily apply isn’t helping anyone when they insist theirs is the “way of truth”. However, I have to greatly disagree on your point that people without Christ can’t live full lives. That’s simply not true. I live an extremely full life, in my opinion. For you to say otherwise would be forcing your beliefs on me. I can’t think of a nicer way to say this, but I want to say “who are you to tell me how I feel?” If you know what I mean. If you feel fulfilled in Christ, that’s great, good for you, go off and be merry, but that doesn’t mean I can’t feel just as fulfilled with life as you. Sorry if that came off sounding harsh.

Z Christian: Cleric, I can totally understand you. Christian believers, in all context are mostly all overconfident. It’s disgusting at some times when I see Christians acting like they are God themselves. People can go through a lifetime without even talking about God, and live a great life. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again. God is sometimes used as an excuse for some ”believers” as a ticket to self-righteousness; if you wish. But Cleric, with ALL respect, saying that the all writings in religion are false, is completely false itself. Some major pioneers, explorers, doctors, scientists, philosophers, and even psychics; have gotten useful information for their studies and observations through the Bible. I’m going to be completely vague with you here, due to I hate it when people bring copied things from texts and paste them straight onto here. But, the Bible did say thousands of years ago, that the Earth spun around the sun and was hanging from nothing. This is completely against what some scientists were saying even hundreds of years ago. People were used to hundreds of theories. Such as the most popular, the Earth being flat, sitting on a turtle, and the turtle on a crocodile. Also, many others thought that the West, as we know it now, was the only land known to man. But, the Bible also helped Christopher Columbus, and others discover land far from the West. Even now, thousands of research and theories have been changed, due to numerous scientists dropping the ”Big Boom” theories completely. They say that there might be something more, due to always missing something in their research. Another thing I would like to point out. The brain shows increased signs of activity when you speak, write or sing. When people sing or speak on tongues, that part of the brain nearly stops working at all, showing little to no signs of activity. Even the government in the United States, the most powerful country in the world, like it or not. Uses psychics to detect attacks and where harmful weapon could be hiding. No joke whatsoever, it was even on the discovery channel. The Bible also said that the world would scorch in heat, and famine would rule the Earth. That money would be a major problem. Not bad for a book that is 100% wrong, also written thousands of years ago, by numerous people who never met, hundreds of years apart in time, yet it still connects. Not bad at all! I’m not telling you to believe in anything, nor to explain yourself, because it’s not a big deal to me. But, saying that there is no proof, or even a minimum, is completely false. There is proof, it’s just that ours doesn’t get shouted out in television. Seriously, who would want to hear about billions of people who followed some hippy, named Jesus, which changed the course of history? For a book that is full of junk, it did a fine job at building countries, people’s careers, businesses and other fine things. Sure is a shame.

Me: Z, I’m not saying you should ignore the Bible outright. It’s actually a very good historical document on some levels. But what I’m pointing out is that, for example, because the Bible says not to eat pigs 3,000 years ago, in no way, has anything to do with it now. Biblical laws in some rights do not allow for technological progress. What I’m really getting to the heart at, is that it’s foolish to use the Bible as your source document for all decisions. If the only response you have to do something is “because God says so”, to me, you haven’t thought that through. Your point about the Bible saying the Earth went around the sun is nothing special. Civilizations that pre-date the Bible knew that too. And explaining it was hanging from nothing isn’t proof; the Bible also said the Earth was on Pillars. So you’re picking and choosing what you want to glean as a fact. Just because science proved one correct doesn’t mean the Bible is divine or have supreme knowledge. Also your point about science being different over a hundred years ago is moot, because the peer review process that is used today was not used then. The Peer Review process cuts down on the admission of any crack pot theory. Christopher Columbus was also looking for someplace completely different. He had no idea there was another land there and his crew was on the verge of mutiny before they struck land. Not to mention the Vikings had already been to the America’s hundreds of years before Columbus, and they were just stupid violent pagans by those eras Christian standards. I’ve done some research on why there’s this huge divide between science today and the past. A major requirement that has changed for public work is peer review. This has only been used since the mid 20th century. It was conceived well over a thousand years before hand, but it was never REQUIRED. And theory versus a Theory are different things in science. Do you mean Big Bang, not Big Boom… because as it stands the Big Bang has not been dropped at all?

Z Christian: I agree with you, some people tend to use the Bible as an excuse, like as if it had all the answers. Well sadly, it doesn’t. But, I know you’re going to hate this part haha, but you’re supposed to turn to God, and not the Bible. I know, it’s what I believe, what more can I say? I live by the sword; therefore, I will die by it. But Cleric, I know that there are simple minded people, and the worst of them are Christians when it comes down to it. But, there’s a lot of truth in that book bud. I don’t believe in the word, I believe in God. Anyways, I totally get your point mate. What can I say? Man has corrupted everything that was once pure, fine & divine.

X Christian: Yeah, Christian fundamentalism is different. But like I said, it’s very exclusive to the US. Christianity and free market are actually kind of interconnected, although free market theories were designed mainly by Protestants, especially by those from the United Kingdom or the Netherlands. After all, God gave us freedom, that’s something many people don’t get, be it Christian fundamentalists or atheists. When it comes to Islam and human rights, first of all, human rights is a western concept, therefore it has no universal meaning and should not be forced upon every country. But I admit, that Islamic countries are just hmm… aggressive(?). After all, that’s why we (my family) left Iran for Europe. Christians don’t have easy life in Islamic countries, if they live at all. Christian democracy has place in politics, but it’s just one of the many political ideologies. Some time ago even someone from the Communist party (!!!) quoted the Pope to support his policy proposal.

Me: Only an idiot during Biblical times wouldn’t write about how money would rule the Earth. That’s not prophetic, that’s telling the story of every civilizations concept. And money is only a problem for people who don’t want to engage the society on that level and dislike the economic divide between rich and poor. Even if we had no money, that would still be an issue, because then it would be strong vs. weak. It did a terrible job at building countries. Look at the history of Scandinavia. People were slaughtered for this religion! It’s the reason some of the most atrocious acts were committed in history, so despite all these glorious careers developed in the 20th/21st century, its historical involvement of careers like creating inquisitors is just immoral. It really is a shame that mankind had to be held back by the, would be, word of God, because some power maniacs used it to torture the population for hundreds of years.

Z, that’s a good point. I’m not saying it’s all false, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t believe in it! And in my book a simpleton is a simpleton, whether he believes in God or not. They are equal. As for corruption… I think that has a lot to do with societal changes. The only thing I know for sure is corrupt is business and politics… and boy do they make terrible bedfellows haha!

X, I’ve actually given some thought to the free will proclaimed by Christians and others. I think that’s a bit of an illusion, or at least a temporary one. For the Bible teaches everyone will be judged by God and be sent to heaven or hell. Thus if I don’t want to go to either place, I’m screwed, because I have no free choice. At least that’s how I’ve been looking at the teaching as of late. As for Christian democracy, I’m going back to my stance that it doesn’t belong, nor does any other form of Theocracy. You absolutely exclude people if you run a government by a single religious belief, you should know that better than anyone originally being from Iran. You can claim relativism on the Islamic issue, but I still say things like beating your wife and raping people is something the average person shouldn’t have to deal with.

Z Christian: Hah, too true. Religion doesn’t make us different at all, I agree with you 100%. It’s what you do as a man on earth, as an independent soul. So many things fall into place when you think about what kind of attributes are needed for a man to be considered, how could I say this… To be a totally functional brain, with a purpose. Although, religion plays such a little role in it. It’s everything you do in your life, you leave a piece of you behind, and you move on to make progress. You don’t need a Bible in your hand to show people you can make it in this world, obviously. I know what you mean, and I agree with you 100%.

And that is basically where that discussion ended. The next discussion took place on a different discussion board, where “Unreasonable” also happened to post. This starts off somewhere when we were discussion God’s tendency to ask for people’s deaths.

Unreasonable: There weren’t many deaths of firstborn sons in history…

ACP 1: Again, then, tell me. Why did your benevolent god do such a thing? Not to mention the Jews could kill them themselves without the help of angels

Me: There weren’t “Unreasonable”? Proof please. Peer reviewed archaeological studies. I want time frames of 4,500 B.C. to 1900 AD to support this claim you have made. (PS: Why am I asking for this? Because I already know it’s false. Child death was very common.)

Unreasonable: I don’t see how killing them would do any harm, since they could be saved when Jesus went down in Hades?

ACP 2: You don’t see how killing people would do any harm? You are one scary dude.

ACP 1: You what?

Unreasonable: People can only kill the body, this borrowed shell of mortality. That means that I was talking about their souls, which is what really matters.

ACP 1: So god and his followers can go killing however many children they like, is that it?

ACP 2: I fear “Unreasonable’s” moral compass is broken. I have to ask though: Whatever happened to “life is sacred”?

ACP 3: Congratulations “Unreasonable”. You’ve managed to undermine every single argument you’ve ever made for morality with a single sentence. I don’t think I could manage to pull off such a trick.

Me: Well “Unreasonable”, I’m glad that your universal morality will allow for the rape and murder of children without having to worry about it too much. At least your God can kill on a whim with a clear conscience!

Unreasonable: Nope, I never said that Christians can go kill or anything, His Word says we shouldn’t after all. But when God kills someone then He sure can take care of him, He knows what to do. Some will say that ‘all the people that died before Christ’s arrival didn’t get a chance to strive for Heaven’. Indeed, but they got one when Jesus preached to the dead in Hades. I never said that it’s okay to kill people, it’s just isn’t as important as harming one’s soul (i.e.: Salvation).

Me: Well, I’m glad you were able to perform the mental gymnastics to find moral cause for thrusting billions of innocent people in Hades for thousands of years, simply because the selfish whims of your God’s prophecy had not yet come into fruition. Of course you will say this is a trifle in comparison to your “salvation”… but it really does beg the question. Imagine if people actually tried to live like this God of yours! What kinds of great atrocities could be justified for such an unconscionable and immoral deity!? Thus far the most humorous part of these conversations is how the Anti-Christians talk MORE about morality and have a problem with killing Children far more than the Christians do. Now who is the greatest moral teacher of all time? Hmm… I have to wonder about that…

A Christian: Cleric, don’t give “Unreasonable” such a hard time for not quoting verses. You know very well that what he says should be seen in the context of Matthew 10:28…39.

Unreasonable: I thought you didn’t believe in “correct moral values”. But how come, are you a theist?

ACP 2: I’m going to righteously suffocate a few children. Don’t worry, God told me it was okay.

Me: Unreasonable, where did I say I didn’t believe in “correct moral values”? And what the hell does that have to do with being a theist? And A, it’s comforting to see that your God supports breaking up the family for his own selfish needs. Awesome, morality at it’s peak! But I guess that’s only okay in context, my mom doesn’t really read the Bible, so I’m going to disown her based on the verse you just quoted and follow Jesus. I want to try to live a moral life, I, perhaps, in context of that alone, should kill children that were born out of wedlock, as they are an abomination of the Lord. Thank you A.

Unreasonable: ACP 2, God doesn’t approve murder. Please, present a verse where God agrees with your idea. So, you believe in universal and correct moral values, Cleric? And you’re an atheist?

ACP 2: Yes, sure. “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor!” ~ God. What are you going to tell me next, God loves us? Hahaha.

ACP 3: So, you think being an atheist means one cannot believe that a form of morality exists? Did you just magically forget the debates on this topic from the past… how many months?

Me: Wow “Unreasonable”… it’s like trying to talk to someone who can’t read or remember anything, ever. Why do you think atheism means “no morals”?
A Christian: Cleric, nice to see that you read the whole passage in Matthew 10 to know the context. Try to see it this way: if God would save one of your family, it would cause division in your family in a way that it is in view in Matthew 10.

Unreasonable: ACP2, that was nothing but a case/an exception, not a universal and general command. Cleric and ACP3, no. I’m just saying that since life has no apparent meaning (except the one you give it, a man-made meaning) an atheist’s moral values are based on nothing at all (of course, killing and such are not included).

ACP 1: 1. It was not an exception, such things appear often. And even if it was, so, if I kill a few people, can I tell the judge, “oh, that was a one-time thing, I won’t do it again – besides, it doesn’t matter I killed them, there’s afterlife.”? 2. Funny, you said that was one case/an exception, and in your very next shout, 4 (!!) minutes after, you say “those he killed during the flood!!!” (I took the liberty of fixing your syntax mistake). 3. I don’t know about others, but I’m just saying that morals are man-made, and therefore cannot be universal, or “correct”. They are still very real and apply to a human society, but could change drastically in the course of time, as they already have in the past.

Me: ACP1, your perception on how I am perceiving morals is quite correct. Which we have explained to “Unreasonable” numerous times, but as if he never read a word of what we said, he still has no clue as to what we are talking about. Along with his moral compass being broken… his reading compass appears to have been irreparably damaged as well. Quite sad.

ACP3: Actually a great deal of our “man-made” morals are firmly rooted in evolution. Altruism and working towards group goals, for example… the universal anger at injustice, crime… resentment towards those who take what belongs to others to benefit themselves, or make their welfare simply by leeching off others. Most of our “core morals” can be seen in other animals and globally. Where things start getting fuzzy is when we get flavors of these core values or we see counter-intuitive “artificial” versions in other cultures which may not appear to benefit the society or an individual. A standard atheist’s moral values are primarily based on two things: his biology and his culture. Neither of those is “nothing”. But we’ve told you all of this before, you just seem to have developed amnesia.

Unreasonable: Nope, I remember everything we said about sociobiology (Lea is a good teacher). Morality has become a pseudoscience nowadays. And it has nothing to do with atheism, which is nothing but an non-belief. Each atheist may have his own morals, no matter if they’re close to Bakunin or LaVey. And my compass isn’t broken, there was just a magnet stuck on it. 1) They may appear often, but they’re not the universal morals set by God. If He tells you to provoke a war, then I can’t do anything about it (well, provided I believe you first…), go on. There’s afterlife for those children indeed, but we can’t let you keep stopping us from our test (life, that is). 2) Funny, yes, I’m still laughing (I’m a stand-up comedian, you know). Next time you better not “edit” my words.

More Antichristianity: Morality | The Bible: What If | RE: 10 Answers from an Antichristian

]]>