Random nonsense

100 reasons why Agnosticism is right!

100 Reasons why evolution is so stupid

I found this video on digg. basically the guy goes through evolution and the big bang and points out some errors in them. Which is fine, because nobody ever said it was truth. but he then makes the logical fallacy of concluding that because the current theory of evolution is wrong, the bible must be right.

Let me say right here. There are no answers on this planet for you if you are looking for universal truth. Nobody knows anything, and our theories are just as good as they were 2000+ years ago (Christianity). Mankind will probably never know for sure what the universal truth is.

The only answers you will find are those that require you to believe (religion) and therefore cannot be proven with logic.


5 responses

  1. LOL! I love how those people don’t realize that their argument pretty much sounds like:

    “Evolution is just a theory, ergo the world must have been created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster”

    Btw, not all religious people are mentally challenged this way. Most educated Christians know that the story of genesis is just an allegory. Many even know that large part of it was borrowed from the ancient Mesopotamian and Summerian religions and mythology. Somehow they are able to reconcile faith and science.

    Recently I talked with a really guy who claimed to be a “creationist”. I was surprised because the dude was educated, intelligent, and well rounder person. I was intrigued how someone with a science degree could be a creationist. So I asked. It turns out hat he was not an evangelical creationist – and he resents evangelicals for creating the situation in which creationism is now considered silly and stupid.

    He simply believed that the universe was created by God, but that this belief in no way refuted or conflicted with the current scientific theories. I asked him to elaborate, and it turned out that he does not take genesis literally, and he does not reject evolution and all the other scientific theories. He believes that the big bang (or whatever happened at the begging of time) was the act of creation, and everything that followed was just part of God’s elaborate plan.

    And that by studying science, we can actually get closer to God by observing his work in all it’s glory. That every miracle can be explained by science, because God’s will is manifested in this world through the natural processes of the universe that he created himself. That while God himself exists above and beyond human understanding, his influence on this plane of existence is bound by the laws of physics he set up. That no scientific discovery can ever refute or prove existence of God.

    And you know what – I don’t have a problem with his interpretation. I like it. I can live with that kind of creationism. What really pisses me off is the blatant, literal, anti-intellectual, anti-science approach of the evangelical church. It’s unhealthy, and promotes ignorance. If you teach children that scientists lie about evolution, then when they grow up they will also probably doubt in global warming, the natural resource depletion, pollution and hundreds of other burning problems that we need to resolve to survive on this planet…

    Wednesday, July 18, 2007 at 10:33 am

  2. Pop

    I like how you phrased it, that theories come up with 2000 years ago are not better than modern ones. Ha! That’s basically a big turd shat upon every scientist and engineer in the past two millennia who ever worked hard to make this world a bit better somehow.

    Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 9:27 am

  3. Imagine 2000 years from now, when Scientists are laughing at the ideas we come up with now. The search for universal truth is basically reverse engineering the universe. And considering how small out footprint is on the universe, imagine the discoveries we might make, and how they will shape our theories. And 4000 years from now, we will laugh at what people thought 2000 years from now.

    Maybe you should read the post more carefully, instead of jumping at things that offend you out of context.

    Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 1:28 pm

  4. Jim

    There’s a fundamental difference, though, between saying “we don’t yet know the ultimate truth about the universe” and “our knowledge is not in any meaningful way better than it was 2000 years ago.” Apparently the fact that we can see to very nearly the edge of visible space, can produce energy by manipulating sub-atomic particles, can easily cure what used to be terminal diseases, and can accurately model the behavior of all but the smallest possible objects in existence is of no value whatsoever, because we still can’t create ONE equation describing the nature of all reality.

    Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 7:15 pm

  5. Using science to cure disease and further our race is fantastic, and it is definitely growing by leaps and bounds. But to tell me that we are any closer to discovering the beginning of time and the universe is a joke. As time move on, our answer is further away. Science and religion are in the same boat when it comes to this question, and while science has the obvious uses, religion exists solely to answer this question.

    Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 5:28 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s