Re: Back to Genesis #2 [Part I]

I typed this in Word and when I pasted it my old defunct Myspace blog’s entry form it acquired some weird formatting errors which I was unable to get rid of. Sorry for any inconvenience. Remember when I did a response to Back to Genesis #1? Well I’m back with a few comments on B2G #2.

I don’t have too much to say about this one because the vast bulk of it was aimed at atheist understandings of abiogenesis. Since I’m not an atheist and don’t hold such views I wont give comment except to say that the attacks against atheism were slightly illogical. Ill leave it up to the atheists to defend their viewpoints. Here we go…

Claim #1
In Isaiah 5:20, 21, we read, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!”

Too bad that evolution is not a moral ideology; its a scientific theory. No amount of whining or bullshitting is going to change that. I don’t mind seeing bible quotes in religious debates, but please at least make sure they’re relevant.

Claim #2
EVOLUTION IS BELIEF: I then began to explain that there were no human witnesses to the event, and there was no written record. I explained that we did not have a sample of the original atmosphere or oceans, and there was no way of proving the idea concerning the evolution of life. I also explained that in the dictionary, “science” is defined as “knowledge,” and that which can be “observed and repeatedly tested.” I insisted that evolution was belief not science.

Since when did we need a human witness to know whether or not something happened? Last time I checked most murders aren’t exactly done in the middle of a crowded room in broad daylight. Yet criminals still get put behind bars anyway. Why is this? Ill give you a clue, it starts with “e” and ends with “vidence”. Evidence happens to be the thing that leads people to believe in evolution, too.

By your logic the study of the Barringer Crater in Arizona is non-scientific because you can’t replicate that particular meteor impact. As far as evolution being repeatable, it is possible in theory to replicate all of evolutionary history. Problem is you’d need to be omnipotent and omniscient to do so. Since even creationists will admit that only God has these qualities it seems like they expect too much out of scientists- people they’re ever so fond to point out as being fallible.

And since when was human testimony more accurate than observed phenomena, even when it’s indirectly observed? If you set up a video camera in your backyard to film a rainstorm on Wednesday and ask Bob on Thursday Hey, did it rain yesterday? When Bob tells you it was bright and sunny who are you going to believe? Bob, or the video footage of the storm?

That’s it for now. Stay tuned for part 2!

“Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery”: Abyssal’s Addendum

Zen… And the Art of Debunkery is a nice little criticism of skepticism that’s been floating around the web for a while. I’ve found it to be amusing, even if its treatment of “paranormal” topics is a bit overly optimistic.

I had some thoughts floating around in my head for a while that seemed to parallel its sentiments, so I thought I’d post them as if they were extra entries that could have been included in the original “Zen” list. Hope you like ‘em.

Skeptics are Exempt
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Unless said claimant is a skeptic making broad sweeping judgments about an anomalous phenomenon or those who report being witness to one. Those claims, or in fact any claim made by someone under the banner of skepticism, can be accepted without any support whatsoever.

Act under the infantile notion that serious investigations into alleged anomalies is like a battle ground where people are trying to conquer the opposition by foisting their opinions on them. Ignore the idea that discussions about anomalies are meant to be civil investigations into the truth of the reports, not an opinion pushing competition.

---

Selective Use of Clarke’s Law
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Unless that technology is reportedly utilized by aliens within the context of a CE-3 or Abduction experience. In that case no hypothetical alien can violate the laws of physics as we currently understand them no matter how hypothetically advanced they may be!

---

Don’t be Skeptical About That!
Skeptics scornfully dismiss any accusations that they attempt to maintain an intellectual status quo. They say that skepticism has no sacred cows and nothing is off-limits to critical examination. Since their brand of “critical thinking” is the supreme virtue, and not everyone holds the same views or intellectual philosophy as them, they put a great deal of effort into “correcting” this state of affairs.

If a skeptic ever displays this attitude, test their honesty by voicing doubts about one of the following: the safety of vaccines, scientism, the extinction of a prehistoric animal, atheism, the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS, the theory of evolution, anthropogenic climate change, or the official government explanation for anything.

See if your self-proclaimedly “skeptical” friend is fond of your new-found skepticism, or whether he squirms as you breach the unspoken boundaries of an intellectual status quo he denies the existence of.

---

Of Grays and Men
The so-called “Gray” alien humanoid reported by alleged abductees, CE-3 experiencers and Roswell crash witnesses is obviously a human invention because it is so anthropomorphic! Keep asserting this without reminding the public that many “anthropomorphic” qualities are necessary for a species to become technologically advanced.

These qualities include four limbs or more (at least two for locomotion, two for manipulating objects and tool building), a dense neural network analogous to the brain, eyes to be able to perceive the subtlties of the environment, among others. Pretend the phenomenon of convergent evolution does not exist.

Also ignore the inconvenient statistic that 100% of known life-bearing planets have produced humanoids! Categorically dismiss this as being due to small sample size without a single reservation. Don’t consider the notion that a larger sample size could actually confirm the commonality of the humanoid form.

That’s all I got. Have a good one.

10 Things That Are Overrated

Rocky Road Ice Cream

M*A*S*H

Fig Newtons

Guitars

King of the Hill

Nascar

The NFL

Professional Wrestling

Ron Paul

Neo-Paganism