Some people will insist that the founding fathers were Christian, therefor the constitution is a Christian document.
This makes no sense to me, as what does one's belief have to do with the documents they write? It would be like an atheist writing a children's book, and even though the book is written for children to enjoy, and nothing else, it is none-the-less an atheist book because it was written by an atheist.
Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.
But as it turns out anyways is that at least several of the founding fathers were not even Christian in the first place.
The key founding fathers are Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.
Several of the these peoeple considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of deists.
American Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by deism include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson.
Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York.
Then there's the fact that god is not mentioned in the constitution. Not only that, but it was stressed that the government would not have any influence on the people's religious beliefs, as they wanted freedom of religion. So, if we are suppose to be a Christian nation, with the constitution enforcing such religion, then how can there also be such a significance on freedom of religion?
I suppose someone grasping at straws to validate their Christian view could bring up the fact that the pledge of Allegiance mentions "under god".
However, this is ludicrous as the Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a LONG time after the constitution was formed. Not only that, but the original Pledge of Allegiance had no mention of god, and was:
"I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
The "Under God" phrase was not officially incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.
I suppose a desperate person could then state that our currency has "In God We Trust", thus making us a Christian nation.
However, "In God We Trust" first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, then became the official U.S. national motto after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.
So there you once again have some religious zealots dreaming up the phrase and throwing it onto our currency many, many years after the forming of our nation.
Why is it so important for some Christians to say that we are a Christian nation in the first place? Are they that insecure in their beliefs that they need to know that the entire nation is on their side?
What's far more important than being a Christian nation is being a nation of no particular religion! Isn't this truly in line with what our founding fathers had in mind? Did they not stress the importance of complete freedom, be it freedom of speech, a fair trial, or freedom of religion? To say we are a Christian nation is to totally negate the original concept of what our founding fathers had in mind.
So, enough with this Christian nation crap! We are a nation formed to have the freedom of religion, whatever that religion may be, or to even be an atheist!
Friday, October 9, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Moon conspiracy idiots
Might as well touch upon these lunatics (no pun intended) while I'm on the conspiracy trend here.
There are actually people out there that truly believe that we never went to the moon! No sense hashing through all of their so called "evidence" as this can all be located on the WEB with a Google search. Let me just say though that every bit of their "proof" has been put to the test and shown to be, if anything, proof that we DID go to the moon.
Now, don't get me wrong, as I think it's good that people are willing to question things, and not take everything at face value. But the moon conspiracy people are holding onto their beliefs regardless of all the data that goes against their belief.
It's as if they think that the United States one day awoke and then launched a rocket to the moon with 3 astronauts, and succeeded over night. Well, not quite guys! It took us in the neighborhood of 10 years to develop the technology to get there! Being 52 years old myself, and growing up in the era of the space race, I can attest to this fact.
Since the Russians put the first satellite, Sputnik, into space back in 1957, the space race began. The United States then launched its first satellite in 1958. The first human in space was by the Russians in 1961, soon followed by Alan Shepard of the United States. From that time on, the United States was feverishly making strides to get into space, and get to the moon. Many space craft were launched, and were improved upon from the old Mercury/Gemini days on up to the Saturn V. Finally, nine years after the first American in space, we landed on the moon.
So, this is not something that occurred over night. It took many years of development, and several lives (Many Russian cosmonauts, and 3 Americans that were killed during an Apollo 1 test).
Some will think that we did not have enough technology back in 1969 to accomplish such a feat. However, we are really talking basic telemetry here, and even the archaic computers back then were capable of this.
Some will then say that we never went to the moon back then because we are not going there now. That's ridiculous, and a look back into history will plainly show why we stopped going, and a look into our present mindset will show why we are not going now.
Going to the moon proved to be VERY expensive, but we were determined to beat the Russians to the moon, and fulfill president Kennedy's goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade (1960's). Once that was achieved, we went back a few more times, but it became apparent that once the drive to get there was gone, and the financial obligation became too much, we ended all trips to the moon. Then the space shuttle was developed to replace the expensive, aging Saturn V rocket, and our focus became one of using space travel for scientific gains.
So, it's not for lack of technology that we don't go to the moon now, as much as it's just not financially feasible.
Certainly is an interesting notion that we perhaps never went to the moon, but I firmly believe that we did, and so far there is NO evidence pointing to the contrary!
There are actually people out there that truly believe that we never went to the moon! No sense hashing through all of their so called "evidence" as this can all be located on the WEB with a Google search. Let me just say though that every bit of their "proof" has been put to the test and shown to be, if anything, proof that we DID go to the moon.
Now, don't get me wrong, as I think it's good that people are willing to question things, and not take everything at face value. But the moon conspiracy people are holding onto their beliefs regardless of all the data that goes against their belief.
It's as if they think that the United States one day awoke and then launched a rocket to the moon with 3 astronauts, and succeeded over night. Well, not quite guys! It took us in the neighborhood of 10 years to develop the technology to get there! Being 52 years old myself, and growing up in the era of the space race, I can attest to this fact.
Since the Russians put the first satellite, Sputnik, into space back in 1957, the space race began. The United States then launched its first satellite in 1958. The first human in space was by the Russians in 1961, soon followed by Alan Shepard of the United States. From that time on, the United States was feverishly making strides to get into space, and get to the moon. Many space craft were launched, and were improved upon from the old Mercury/Gemini days on up to the Saturn V. Finally, nine years after the first American in space, we landed on the moon.
So, this is not something that occurred over night. It took many years of development, and several lives (Many Russian cosmonauts, and 3 Americans that were killed during an Apollo 1 test).
Some will think that we did not have enough technology back in 1969 to accomplish such a feat. However, we are really talking basic telemetry here, and even the archaic computers back then were capable of this.
Some will then say that we never went to the moon back then because we are not going there now. That's ridiculous, and a look back into history will plainly show why we stopped going, and a look into our present mindset will show why we are not going now.
Going to the moon proved to be VERY expensive, but we were determined to beat the Russians to the moon, and fulfill president Kennedy's goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade (1960's). Once that was achieved, we went back a few more times, but it became apparent that once the drive to get there was gone, and the financial obligation became too much, we ended all trips to the moon. Then the space shuttle was developed to replace the expensive, aging Saturn V rocket, and our focus became one of using space travel for scientific gains.
So, it's not for lack of technology that we don't go to the moon now, as much as it's just not financially feasible.
Certainly is an interesting notion that we perhaps never went to the moon, but I firmly believe that we did, and so far there is NO evidence pointing to the contrary!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The 9/11 conspiracy crackpots
It never ceases to amaze me the crap some people will adhere to. Case in point is all this talk of the 9/11 attacks being a planned government job instead of a true terrorist attack. Give me a break!!!
There was a show on recently that discussed these crackpots, and on it were one of the people responsible for the film "Loose Change" which "documents" the 9/11 conspiracy. Just gotta love it when the guy says "Oh yes, many people saw a commercial airline flying towards the Pentagon at a very low altitude and fast speed, but nobody really knows what flew into the Pentagon.".
Gee, I have an idea, perhaps what flew into the Pentagon WAS THE COMMERCIAL PLANE PEOPLE SAW FLYING TOWARDS IT!!!
Sheesh!
There's no point in me rehashing all of the fictional content of Loose Change, and all of the bogus "science". For instance, one thing they will point out is that as the building collapsed, you can see what appears to be small explosions blowing out of the side windows. They then go on to say how this must be from the explosives that were planted there in order to bring down the building. Uh, yeah, OK. Gee, don't you think that a collapsing building, especially of that magnitude, would be forcing out A LOT of air as it crushed the floors? And just where is that air going to go? Oh, gee, maybe it will find the path of least resistance AND GO OUT THROUGH THE WINDOWS! DUH!!!
Oh, but gee, I'm sorry, I'm using logic there, just as so many scientists, engineers and experts have done in the past in explaining the tower collapse.
It's actually good to see people questioning the government, and looking at all the possibilities. I also have to say that the film Loose Change appears to be a very well made film, especially when you consider that it was made by a high school student. Good work indeed. However, it is pure fiction the way it presents the "evidence". A well made film, but none-the-less gets people to view the incident in the wrong light. It's like the JFK film by Oliver Stone. It's very well made, and pulls you into the plot and keeps you entertained, but many of its content is pure fiction! There is no magic bullet, even though the film will lead you to believe otherwise. Pulling off 3 shots in the allotted time is VERY doable, and Oswald was indeed an expert marksmen, yet he is not shown that way in the film. A good film, but many liberties were taken with the facts. Just as Loose Change, many of the facts are twisted and false conclusions are drawn just to show the audience a slanted conspiracy viewpoint.
Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that our government wanted to create a false terrorist attack in order to get us into a war with Iraq. Would they have needed to create an attack as devastating as the 9/11 attack? Couldn't they have simply planted a few bombs under a bridge someplace, blown it up, then yelled, "Oh my god, look at what those terrorists have done. Now we just have to go in after them."
But no, instead they choose to not only take down ONE of the twin towers, but BOTH of them, and using 2 commercial airliners to boot. And as if that wasn't enough, they then launch an airliner into their own building, the Pentagon! Oh wait, there's more. That's apparently not enough, so they also had plans to send yet another plane into the capitol. That one missed it's mark though due to the brave people aboard it.
Oh yeah, right, this makes complete sense. Again... SHEESH!!!!!!!
Sometimes things really are as they seem, especially when it is so painfully obvious. In this case, planes crashed into the twin towers, causing intense heat due to the jet fuel, enough to weaken the steel and bring the buildings down. The resulting collapse of the twin towers damaged building 7, and even though it was not hit by any planes, sustained enough damage to also collapse. Then a plane flew into the Pentagon, and another into a Pennsylvania field due to the actions of the people on board.
That's it!
If only these conspiracy people would spend even one tenth as much energy that they spend on this conspiracy crap and put it into something useful. Perhaps looking into how another terrorist attack can be thwarted, or in finding Bin Laden.
There was a show on recently that discussed these crackpots, and on it were one of the people responsible for the film "Loose Change" which "documents" the 9/11 conspiracy. Just gotta love it when the guy says "Oh yes, many people saw a commercial airline flying towards the Pentagon at a very low altitude and fast speed, but nobody really knows what flew into the Pentagon.".
Gee, I have an idea, perhaps what flew into the Pentagon WAS THE COMMERCIAL PLANE PEOPLE SAW FLYING TOWARDS IT!!!
Sheesh!
There's no point in me rehashing all of the fictional content of Loose Change, and all of the bogus "science". For instance, one thing they will point out is that as the building collapsed, you can see what appears to be small explosions blowing out of the side windows. They then go on to say how this must be from the explosives that were planted there in order to bring down the building. Uh, yeah, OK. Gee, don't you think that a collapsing building, especially of that magnitude, would be forcing out A LOT of air as it crushed the floors? And just where is that air going to go? Oh, gee, maybe it will find the path of least resistance AND GO OUT THROUGH THE WINDOWS! DUH!!!
Oh, but gee, I'm sorry, I'm using logic there, just as so many scientists, engineers and experts have done in the past in explaining the tower collapse.
It's actually good to see people questioning the government, and looking at all the possibilities. I also have to say that the film Loose Change appears to be a very well made film, especially when you consider that it was made by a high school student. Good work indeed. However, it is pure fiction the way it presents the "evidence". A well made film, but none-the-less gets people to view the incident in the wrong light. It's like the JFK film by Oliver Stone. It's very well made, and pulls you into the plot and keeps you entertained, but many of its content is pure fiction! There is no magic bullet, even though the film will lead you to believe otherwise. Pulling off 3 shots in the allotted time is VERY doable, and Oswald was indeed an expert marksmen, yet he is not shown that way in the film. A good film, but many liberties were taken with the facts. Just as Loose Change, many of the facts are twisted and false conclusions are drawn just to show the audience a slanted conspiracy viewpoint.
Now, let's just say for the sake of argument that our government wanted to create a false terrorist attack in order to get us into a war with Iraq. Would they have needed to create an attack as devastating as the 9/11 attack? Couldn't they have simply planted a few bombs under a bridge someplace, blown it up, then yelled, "Oh my god, look at what those terrorists have done. Now we just have to go in after them."
But no, instead they choose to not only take down ONE of the twin towers, but BOTH of them, and using 2 commercial airliners to boot. And as if that wasn't enough, they then launch an airliner into their own building, the Pentagon! Oh wait, there's more. That's apparently not enough, so they also had plans to send yet another plane into the capitol. That one missed it's mark though due to the brave people aboard it.
Oh yeah, right, this makes complete sense. Again... SHEESH!!!!!!!
Sometimes things really are as they seem, especially when it is so painfully obvious. In this case, planes crashed into the twin towers, causing intense heat due to the jet fuel, enough to weaken the steel and bring the buildings down. The resulting collapse of the twin towers damaged building 7, and even though it was not hit by any planes, sustained enough damage to also collapse. Then a plane flew into the Pentagon, and another into a Pennsylvania field due to the actions of the people on board.
That's it!
If only these conspiracy people would spend even one tenth as much energy that they spend on this conspiracy crap and put it into something useful. Perhaps looking into how another terrorist attack can be thwarted, or in finding Bin Laden.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Bible just doesn't make any sense
Being an atheist and never attending church as a child, I certainly cannot attest to really knowing anything in the bible. However, one cannot but at least hear of some of its writings, and absurdities.
Let's start with the tree of knowledge. Apparently god had this tree sitting in the garden where Adam and eve are frolicking around, and told them not to eat from it. A snake then speaks to Eve and convinces her to eat from it, after which Adam does the same. Shame on them for disobeying god, so they are condemned to be ashamed of their nakedness, and not live forever.
WOW!
So let me get this straight. God creates a tree of knowledge. God creates Man. Man disobeys God's will and is then punished.
Um, excuse me, but wasn't it God that was responsible for this whole mess to begin with? If he created Man, and Man then ventures out due to temptation, then wasn't this trait inherent due to God's creation? Doesn't appear to me that God was so perfect after all, and created a defective being. Then when this defective being messes up, he condemns Man instead of thinking "Oops! Dang, I could have sworn Man wouldn't have done such a thing. Hold on Adam and Eve, I'll get back to you once I figure this thing out. Sorry about that."
Let's not even get into the whole rib from one to create the other, a talking snake, and the fact that the bible would have all of us put to death if we so much as say God's name in vain.
And to think that there are actually people out there that take the literal interpretation of the bible.
Seems to me if one was to embrace the bible AT ALL, then one would need to view it through symbolism. Perhaps the snake just represents the temptation that all Man feels at times. The tree represents that which is not only good, but also evil, as everything has two sides to it. To know of good is to know of evil, just as one cannot know of light unless they know of darkness. It's a two edge sword. Perhaps the message isn't that one should never partake in knowledge, in as much that one must be very careful as learning good also means learning of evil, and thus one must choose wisely.
Of course none of this helps with making any sense of the fact that god apparently punished Man for trying to learn.
Come to think of it, maybe god is the devil, and vice versa. It's god that appears to be the dictator, and wants us to be blindly following him like sheep, whereas the devil wanted us to expand our horizons and learn.
Or perhaps the bible has been misinterpreted by so many people all along.
I just don't know. What I do know is that the people who take this to the extreme, and really believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs didn't really exist, and that there is no such thing as evolution (at least on the level of viruses and other lower like forms), need to get help.
Let's start with the tree of knowledge. Apparently god had this tree sitting in the garden where Adam and eve are frolicking around, and told them not to eat from it. A snake then speaks to Eve and convinces her to eat from it, after which Adam does the same. Shame on them for disobeying god, so they are condemned to be ashamed of their nakedness, and not live forever.
WOW!
So let me get this straight. God creates a tree of knowledge. God creates Man. Man disobeys God's will and is then punished.
Um, excuse me, but wasn't it God that was responsible for this whole mess to begin with? If he created Man, and Man then ventures out due to temptation, then wasn't this trait inherent due to God's creation? Doesn't appear to me that God was so perfect after all, and created a defective being. Then when this defective being messes up, he condemns Man instead of thinking "Oops! Dang, I could have sworn Man wouldn't have done such a thing. Hold on Adam and Eve, I'll get back to you once I figure this thing out. Sorry about that."
Let's not even get into the whole rib from one to create the other, a talking snake, and the fact that the bible would have all of us put to death if we so much as say God's name in vain.
And to think that there are actually people out there that take the literal interpretation of the bible.
Seems to me if one was to embrace the bible AT ALL, then one would need to view it through symbolism. Perhaps the snake just represents the temptation that all Man feels at times. The tree represents that which is not only good, but also evil, as everything has two sides to it. To know of good is to know of evil, just as one cannot know of light unless they know of darkness. It's a two edge sword. Perhaps the message isn't that one should never partake in knowledge, in as much that one must be very careful as learning good also means learning of evil, and thus one must choose wisely.
Of course none of this helps with making any sense of the fact that god apparently punished Man for trying to learn.
Come to think of it, maybe god is the devil, and vice versa. It's god that appears to be the dictator, and wants us to be blindly following him like sheep, whereas the devil wanted us to expand our horizons and learn.
Or perhaps the bible has been misinterpreted by so many people all along.
I just don't know. What I do know is that the people who take this to the extreme, and really believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs didn't really exist, and that there is no such thing as evolution (at least on the level of viruses and other lower like forms), need to get help.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Cost to California for Michael Jackson's funeral... Why?
Please don't get me wrong here, as I have no intention of disrespecting Michael Jackson. He was a very talented person and a terrific entertainer. In a way, an American icon. It's also very sad whenever someone passes away, especially someone as giving as Michael, and someone loved by so many.
My objections are ONLY directed to the fact that the state of California, of which I live in, will be out $3+ million to provide police and other support for his memorial service.
Why?
Why are we, a financially strapped state, already in debt to the extent that we are cutting government jobs, and school programs, flipping the bill for this? Why doesn't AEG pay for this? They were the promoter of Michael Jackson, and stands to actually gain money from his death.
Someone once said that his memorial service could bring a lot of money to the hotels and other businesses in the area, but so what? Me, Joe blow tax payer, will not see a cent of that money. Yet part of my tax money is being used for this.
How 'bout instead of spending $3 million on this service, we put it into our school system? Or for that matter, why don't the people who sacrificed their lives in Iraq get such a service?
This just makes no sense to me.
Michael Jackson certainly deserves to be remembered, and many people feel the need for closure, and to mourn. However, isn't that a very private thing? Do we need a multimillion dollar service, especially at the tax payer's expense?
Michael Jackson, may he rest in peace.
My objections are ONLY directed to the fact that the state of California, of which I live in, will be out $3+ million to provide police and other support for his memorial service.
Why?
Why are we, a financially strapped state, already in debt to the extent that we are cutting government jobs, and school programs, flipping the bill for this? Why doesn't AEG pay for this? They were the promoter of Michael Jackson, and stands to actually gain money from his death.
Someone once said that his memorial service could bring a lot of money to the hotels and other businesses in the area, but so what? Me, Joe blow tax payer, will not see a cent of that money. Yet part of my tax money is being used for this.
How 'bout instead of spending $3 million on this service, we put it into our school system? Or for that matter, why don't the people who sacrificed their lives in Iraq get such a service?
This just makes no sense to me.
Michael Jackson certainly deserves to be remembered, and many people feel the need for closure, and to mourn. However, isn't that a very private thing? Do we need a multimillion dollar service, especially at the tax payer's expense?
Michael Jackson, may he rest in peace.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Religious nut Ken Ham... what a moron!
It's idiotic garbage that Ken Ham spews out that keep rational people running as far away from religion as they can get! In particular I'm talking about his writings that state:
"However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view."
In reading the above statement from Ken Ham, I get an image of Archie Bunker (of the old TV show "All in the family") saying something like this, but then I think to myself that even Archie Bunker could not possibly utter something this stupid!
So Mr. Ken Ham is basically saying that because the dinosaur bones have no labels on them stating how old they are, we therefore have no idea how old they are, and we are dreaming up a story about their age to fit our evolutionists’ idea. Excuse me? What about carbon dating, which is a scientific method of dating objects and has been proven to be at least somewhat accurate! This obviously blows apart his statement of "...no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old". It appears that Mr. Ham believes that scientists are just a bunch of people who are all feeding into a grand conspiracy to trick the world into believing their side of the story. Never mind all the proof, huh Mr. Ham?
While we're at it, let's apply Mr. Ham's "logic" to religion itself, shall we? So he states that because no scientist has ever actually seen a dinosaur, and because fossils have no labels telling us how old they are, then we cannot possibly accept any fact about them, regardless of all the data we have on them. OK, fine, so let's apply this to the bible. No scientist has ever seen anyone write the bible, therefore by his same "logic", it appears that we cannot know anything about it, and cannot be certain of when it was written, who wrote it, what it was based on, so on and so forth. So basically his "logic" that blows apart science also blows apart religion and the bible. Of course no scientist has ever seen god either, so of course this means by Mr. Ham's "logic" that we cannot then know that one exists.
Mr. Ham has it all totally backwards. He believes that scientists already have a preconceived notion as to how things are, and then fabricate data in order to support it. Nope, sorry, that's not the way it works. Scientists first analyze the data, and then based on their findings, come up with a theory that matches the data. A good scientist is also always ready to put any theory to the test, and will see how any further data either fits, or does not fit the theory. So when Mr. Ham states "...fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view", he is being ludicrous! The scientists do not have a "view", and they do not have a "story". What they have is cold, hard, proven data that points to a theory that is based purely on data and observations.
As if the above statement from Mr. Ham wasn't idiotic enough, he then goes on to say:
"As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years."
So here we go again. The bible is apparently "right", regardless of the fact that their is no proof, and I guess it's "right" because he says it is. Of course this then means that science is wrong, regardless of all the proven data and facts that they have. Interesting that the whole concept of creationism and the bible is "right", though it has no proof or data to back it up, and all of science is wrong, though it has all the data and facts that one cares to view. This guy also truly believes that the dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old! Are you serious? Oh, but that's right, I keep forgetting that all that scientific carbon dating and such is just all nonsense.
It's people like Mr. Ham that I have a problem with, and it's a shame that someone like this spews out all this nonsense, and actually wants to be taken seriously, as it gives religion a bad name. I have no problem if someone wants to believe in god, and hold the bible dear to them so as to go through life with meaning. By all means use the teachings in the bible in order to be more compassionate, and loving towards your fellow man.
However, when someone this radical steps up to the plate, and states that every literal interpretation of the bible is fact, and anything that goes against it is wrong, even in the face of cold, hard scientific data, then that's where I have to draw the line.
Being an atheist I am of course going to side with science. But I'm also not just siding with science, but am siding with the data and facts that we can all view and come to a conclusion about. That said, for all I know, there is a god. However, I am not about to believe in such a far fetched concept just because a book was written thousands of years ago by many generations of people, and based on, for all I know, just their imagination!
That said, is it any more credible that we all evolved from a few cells of life swimming around in the primordial soup a billion years ago? Granted, that does sound far fetched, but for me, so does the idea that some supreme being created it all, then stepped aside to allow us to run amuck and screw everything up. The thing is, there is more evidence to prove evolution than creationism, regardless of how hard it is for one to get their brains wrapped around it.
I guess the bottom line for me is that if you are going to be religious, and accept the bible, then at least also accept the fact that science makes sense, and though they don't have all the answers, you really cannot ignore the data.
"However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists’ story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view."
In reading the above statement from Ken Ham, I get an image of Archie Bunker (of the old TV show "All in the family") saying something like this, but then I think to myself that even Archie Bunker could not possibly utter something this stupid!
So Mr. Ken Ham is basically saying that because the dinosaur bones have no labels on them stating how old they are, we therefore have no idea how old they are, and we are dreaming up a story about their age to fit our evolutionists’ idea. Excuse me? What about carbon dating, which is a scientific method of dating objects and has been proven to be at least somewhat accurate! This obviously blows apart his statement of "...no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old". It appears that Mr. Ham believes that scientists are just a bunch of people who are all feeding into a grand conspiracy to trick the world into believing their side of the story. Never mind all the proof, huh Mr. Ham?
While we're at it, let's apply Mr. Ham's "logic" to religion itself, shall we? So he states that because no scientist has ever actually seen a dinosaur, and because fossils have no labels telling us how old they are, then we cannot possibly accept any fact about them, regardless of all the data we have on them. OK, fine, so let's apply this to the bible. No scientist has ever seen anyone write the bible, therefore by his same "logic", it appears that we cannot know anything about it, and cannot be certain of when it was written, who wrote it, what it was based on, so on and so forth. So basically his "logic" that blows apart science also blows apart religion and the bible. Of course no scientist has ever seen god either, so of course this means by Mr. Ham's "logic" that we cannot then know that one exists.
Mr. Ham has it all totally backwards. He believes that scientists already have a preconceived notion as to how things are, and then fabricate data in order to support it. Nope, sorry, that's not the way it works. Scientists first analyze the data, and then based on their findings, come up with a theory that matches the data. A good scientist is also always ready to put any theory to the test, and will see how any further data either fits, or does not fit the theory. So when Mr. Ham states "...fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view", he is being ludicrous! The scientists do not have a "view", and they do not have a "story". What they have is cold, hard, proven data that points to a theory that is based purely on data and observations.
As if the above statement from Mr. Ham wasn't idiotic enough, he then goes on to say:
"As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years."
So here we go again. The bible is apparently "right", regardless of the fact that their is no proof, and I guess it's "right" because he says it is. Of course this then means that science is wrong, regardless of all the proven data and facts that they have. Interesting that the whole concept of creationism and the bible is "right", though it has no proof or data to back it up, and all of science is wrong, though it has all the data and facts that one cares to view. This guy also truly believes that the dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old! Are you serious? Oh, but that's right, I keep forgetting that all that scientific carbon dating and such is just all nonsense.
It's people like Mr. Ham that I have a problem with, and it's a shame that someone like this spews out all this nonsense, and actually wants to be taken seriously, as it gives religion a bad name. I have no problem if someone wants to believe in god, and hold the bible dear to them so as to go through life with meaning. By all means use the teachings in the bible in order to be more compassionate, and loving towards your fellow man.
However, when someone this radical steps up to the plate, and states that every literal interpretation of the bible is fact, and anything that goes against it is wrong, even in the face of cold, hard scientific data, then that's where I have to draw the line.
Being an atheist I am of course going to side with science. But I'm also not just siding with science, but am siding with the data and facts that we can all view and come to a conclusion about. That said, for all I know, there is a god. However, I am not about to believe in such a far fetched concept just because a book was written thousands of years ago by many generations of people, and based on, for all I know, just their imagination!
That said, is it any more credible that we all evolved from a few cells of life swimming around in the primordial soup a billion years ago? Granted, that does sound far fetched, but for me, so does the idea that some supreme being created it all, then stepped aside to allow us to run amuck and screw everything up. The thing is, there is more evidence to prove evolution than creationism, regardless of how hard it is for one to get their brains wrapped around it.
I guess the bottom line for me is that if you are going to be religious, and accept the bible, then at least also accept the fact that science makes sense, and though they don't have all the answers, you really cannot ignore the data.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Loose/Lose and other idiocies
I understand the fact that we all make grammatical errors, as very few of us are English majors. We also usually don't want to take the time to proof-read everything we write to ensure that it is 100% grammatically correct.
However, there are some errors I see consistently that makes me wonder if people ever made it through the 4th grade!
A prime example is with the word "loose". More times than not I see people using the word "loose" when they mean to use "lose". It's as if they don't even know that the word "lose" exists! They will write something like "I hate to loose a game." Or, "I hate loosing." Come on people! It's "lose a game", and "losing"!!!
While we're at it, what's with the improper use of "there" instead of "they're", or "your" instead of "you're". Just gotta love it when you see something like "There going to the store" and "Your an idiot". Sheesh!
Do these people truly believe that "your" can be short for "you are", or "there" for "they are"? If so, we need to send some of them back to school.
However, there are some errors I see consistently that makes me wonder if people ever made it through the 4th grade!
A prime example is with the word "loose". More times than not I see people using the word "loose" when they mean to use "lose". It's as if they don't even know that the word "lose" exists! They will write something like "I hate to loose a game." Or, "I hate loosing." Come on people! It's "lose a game", and "losing"!!!
While we're at it, what's with the improper use of "there" instead of "they're", or "your" instead of "you're". Just gotta love it when you see something like "There going to the store" and "Your an idiot". Sheesh!
Do these people truly believe that "your" can be short for "you are", or "there" for "they are"? If so, we need to send some of them back to school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Chopper ride
Nice wooded area heading out of Booneville towards the coast.