The five best arguments for creationism ever!
PZ Myers
Don't you just love a challenge? I'm always looking for some splendid argument from a creationist that would make me think, but they always give me such silliness, instead. And then, I saw this: a mainstream newspaper (well, the Telegraph…but at least it's not the Daily Mail) offers us an article with a tantalizing promise: they're going to give us the the five very best arguments to support creationism. Whoa. Cool. I'm sure they also put their very best science reporter on the job to get some real stumpers for scientists.
Here goes. Brace yourselves. Prepare to be provoked and excited!
No evidence for evolution
There is no evidence that evolution has occurred because no transitional forms exist in fossils i.e. scientists cannot prove with fossils that fish evolved into amphibians or that amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. Perhaps becuase of this a surprising number of contemporary scientists support the Creation theory.
That's, umm, pathetic. Of course we have lots of evidence for evolution! Read Darwin's Origin; even in 1859 we had great rollicking piles of persuasive evidence, and it's only grown since. Fossils show a pattern of change over geological time, and we also have molecular evidence to link all the diverse lineages of life on earth.
Very few scientists support creationism, so there's nothing to be surprised about there.
Yes, the typo is there in the original text. You'd think one thing a journalist with a computer could do is handle the spelling correctly.
That argument is so stupid, it must be some kind of aberration. The next ones will be better, right? Right?
History is too short
Creationists argue that if the world is as old as evolution claims it is there would be
billions more stone age skeletons than have been found
many more historical records like cave paintings than have been found
a lot more sodium chloride in the sea
a lot more sea-floor sediment
Wait…their second best argument is that the Earth is only a few thousand years old? That's just crazy talk. No one sane can think, in the face of all the evidence from geology and physics, that the Earth is young. And to dredge up such hoaryand thoroughly refuted claims is simply sad.
Compound Eye
The eye that enables some organisms to see in the dark is so complex that no proven theories for its evolutionary development have yet been put forth. As the CreationWiki puts it, the Compound Eye "has all of the hallmarks of intelligent design and defies attempts to explain it through natural mechanisms".
Weird. Why pluck out one seemingly random organ out of all the many to choose from? We know how the compound eye develops, we know many of the molecules involved — there are no miracles going on. It's proteins and small diffusible molecules interacting to negotiate the construction of a repeating pattern of simple optical elements. We also know the similarities between different lineages that link them.
Come on, I'm not at all impressed. We must have hit bottom by now. I hope.
Read the entire article HERE
Bible Study Schizophrenia and Personal Revelations
by Mark Smith
I believe that schizophrenia is a better and simpler explanation for all the people- past and present- who have claimed that Biblegod spoke to them. Occum's Razor demands the simplest explanation, and this explains the "revelations" of the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, and religious fanatics a lot better than that the omnipotent ruler of the entire universe took the time to come down here and chit chat with these fanatics.
Like the Blues Brothers, the Apostle Paul believed he was on a "mission from God" (Acts 26:19) because of a "vision" he saw. Before you laugh at this, Michael Abram, the man who stabbed ex-Beatle George Harrison, also "thought he was mission from God" when he did so (Orange County Register, 7/5/02, p. News 21). It turns out that this man was a paranoid schizophrenic. Schizophrenics see visions, hear voices, and regularly talk to Biblegod (or so they think). This would explain the visions and voices mentioned in the Bible. Mental illness, and not "The Lord God Almighty Omnipotent Ruler of The Universe" is behind all of the hallucinations.
In light of the recent movie "A Beautiful Mind" in which Russell Crowe portrayed the schizophrenic Dr. John Nash, along with Andrea Yates in Texas (who drowned her five kids "because God told me to"), how can any thinking person not consider schizophrenia a reasonable and plausible explanation for the visions and voices affecting many Biblical characters???
Newsweek ran a cover story on schizophrenia (Newsweek, March 11, 2002, p. 46+). Read some excerpts from this news story, and see if there's a nickel's worth of difference between what happened to the Apostle Paul and someone with rampant untreated schizophrenia:
Whether it brings the voices of heaven or of hell, it causes what must surely be the worst affliction a sentient, conscious being can suffer: the inability to tell what is real from what is imaginary. To the person with schizophrenia the voices and visions sound and look as authentic as the announcer on the radio and the furniture in the room.
In paranoid schizophrenia, the patient becomes convinced of beliefs at odds with reality hears voices that aren't there or see images that exist nowhere but in his mind. ...The voices the patients heard were therefore as real to them as the conversations in the hallways they passed through en route to the lab. ...(Andrea)Yates, who has a deeply religious background {Gee! What a shock! Imagine a religious person hearing voices no one else can!] had satanic hallucinations. ...The seeming authenticity of the voices means that people with schizophrenia can be barraged by commands that, they are convinced, come from God or Satan. That inference is not illogical; who else can speak to you, unseen, from inside your mind?
Modern Christians are betting their life on the assumption that the visions and voices mentioned in The New Testament are real visions and real voices, rather than common paranoid schizophrenia. Of course nowadays, if Joe Blow layperson came up to the Pastor and told him about visions and voices he'd been experiencing, we'd all think the guy had schizophrenia. So what's the difference between Joe Blow of today, and the Apostle Paul of the past, other than a distance of time and location? Why accept the visions and voices of a total stranger (the Apostle Paul), yet reject the same from someone closer to home? Is it just the old adage, "a prophet is not without honor except in his own home"???
The New Testament is full of visions and voices. Here is just a small sampling:
Acts 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
Read the entire article HERE
Born Atheist
A portion of each chapter is included here. See http://bornatheist.com/index.html for other chapters
Chapter 6. Atheism is neither a religion nor the opposite of religion (or, why atheists should not wear their hats on their elbows).
They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America--the religion of secularism. American Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney
Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God. . . . it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited. The Reverend Bill McGinnis
Atheism is defined by religion, but it is not the opposite of religion. Neither is atheism a form of religion. Everyone is born atheist, just as everyone is born human. Some humans learn religion, some do not, and some learn religion and later reject it.
It is kind of like humans and hats. All humans are born without hats, just as all humans are born without religion. Some humans have hats put on their heads pretty soon after birth, but they are not born that way. Humor me and let me call newborns “a-hatist” (that is without hats, just like “a-theist” is without religion). If hats were never invented, there would be no need for the term “a-hatist,” but a-hatism would still exist.
Similarly, atheism is defined by religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in religion. If men had never invented religion, there would be no need for the term “atheist,” but atheism would still exist.
Neither is atheism a religion. Religionists want to call atheism a religion. They seize on language in a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that labeled secular humanism a religion. The language is located in a footnote and is what lawyers call dicta–incidental words that are thrown into the case but have no bearing on the decision and do not serve as
binding legal precedent. Religionists call us secular humanists more frequently than they call us atheists. There is a reason for this.
If religionists succeed in categorizing atheism as a religion, they can claim victory. Atheism would just be another supernatural theory, no better or worse than their own. They could call evolution a religion and demand that their bearded man myths get
equal billing. But they are wrong. Religion is a belief in the supernatural. Atheism is the absence of that belief. Think back to Chapter 1 where I described the mayonnaise jars of religionists and atheists. A Christian religionist’s jar is full of supernatural beliefs like: the world was created in six days, woman was created from man’s rib, a virgin gave birth to a child, dead people can come back to life, and so on. The atheist’s mayonnaise jar is empty. No matter how much the religionists try, they cannot transmute the lack of supernatural belief into a supernatural belief. That is, unless we let them.
It is easy to imitate the religious model and allow religionists to set the agenda. Satanists are a good example. They take Christianity and flip it on its head. Satanists worship Lucifer instead of Yahweh. They have black masses instead of white. It seems that some people get a rebellious thrill by claiming to be Satanists, but they are misdirecting their frustration with Christianity by being its opposite. They let the religionists set their agenda and act in a manner as equally silly as the religionists they are rebelling against.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a spoof of Christianity. It provides a bit of comic relief in the debates over religion and creationism. Tongue in cheek, the Church announces, “Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push creationism into public schools. These people are
mistaken.” Admittedly, I laugh at the irreverent references. But all fun aside, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a limited joke that conforms to
Read the rest of this article HERE.
Joke-of-the-Week
Catholics are against abortions.
Catholics are against homosexuals.
But, I can't think of anyone who has less abortions than homosexuals! -- George Carlin
Q: How does a girl Rationalist have her hair done?
A:In big bangs
Q: Why did the Rationalist cross the road?
A:To be sure to see both sides.
Share with your friends: | 
