Philosophical Multicore

Sometimes controversial, sometimes fallacious, sometimes thought-provoking, and always fun.

Point By Point Rebuttal of Creationist Websites

Posted by Michael Dickens on November 29, 2008

An aquaintance of mine has given me a list of Creationist websites to rebut.

[a] signifies a footnote. [1] means “see point one”.


The First atmosphere—geological evidences and their implications

Geology Questions and Answers

Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers

Polonium Radiohalos

Geological Evidence Indicates Rapid Formation

Natural Selection and Adaptation Preserve Life Forms, Rather Than Generate New Ones

The Human Genome: A Creationist Overview:
8 )

Tornado in a Junkyard (something diff):

Evidence from Science:

Evidence from Nature:

Origin of oxygen more complex than imagined:

Fraudulent Evolutionary “evidences”:

Hitler & Christianity p1:

Discovery of important function for endogenous retroviruses debunks evolution argument

Darwinian evolution was basis of Nazi legal system:

Creationism, Science and Peer Review:

Darwinian thought police strike again

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?

Professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal:

Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias:

Who’s Really Pushing Bad Science?:

The biblical origins of science:

Niagara Falls and the Bible:

Probabilities of randomly assembling a primitive cell on Earth (a secular site):

CMIs response to PBS-TV series Evolution
Episode 1: Darwins Dangerous Idea:

Dating Methods:

Court Rules Atheism is a Religion:

Links to Much Scientific information on MANY topics:

1.1. “most evolutionists today tend to shun the entire field [of abiogenesis] . . .”
In the second paragraph of the article, they begin to get dogmatic. There is no such thing as an evolutionist or a Darwinist, any more than there is a gravityist or a Newtonist. Even so, evolutionary scientists have nothing to say about abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life diversified, not how it originated.

1.1.1. There are 3 mentions of evolutionists and 2 mentions of Darwinists in the article. That’s 5 too many.

1.1.2. You can probably expect behaviors of 1.1 in pretty much any pseudo-science Creationist article.

1.2. “. . . because they are ‘uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled’”
I can subjectively say that this is not true. Until recently, I thought that no one had any idea how life originated. That’s what I was taught in school. But I learned on my own that we have a good idea about how abiogenesis could have occurred.

1.3. “Abiogenesis was once commonly called ‘chemical evolution’,2 but evolutionists today try to distance evolutionary theory from the origin of life. This is one reason that most evolutionary propagandists now call it ‘abiogenesis’. ”
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. No one is pretending it does. No distancing is necessary.

1.4. “Chemical evolution is actually part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form’.”
Few scientists recognize the ‘General Theory of Evolution’. When I Googled ‘General Theory of Evolution’ in quotes, all I got was either a) unrelated or b) from a Creationist website. The ‘General Theory of Evolution’ is a Creationist idea, not a scientific one.

1.5. “Another reason exists to exaggerate abiogenesis claims—it is an area that is critical to proving evolutionary naturalism.4 If abiogenesis is impossible, or extremely unlikely, then so is naturalism.”
Naturalism and evolution are not the same thing. Naturalism implies evolution, but evolution does not imply naturalism. Many people believe that evolution occurred, but was guided by God. Evolution does not require that there be no God.

1.6. “Darwin recognized how critical the abiogenesis problem was for his theory.”
Abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. It is possible that a god (not the Judeo-Christian one) created primitive life forms out of nothing, which then evolved over about 3 billion years into the diverse life that we see today.

1.7. “If God made one type of life, He also could have made many thousands of different types[1.8].”
But he did not necessarily make thousands of different types. It is possible that my hypothesis at point 6 is correct. I doubt it, but it’s conceivable.

1.8. Define “type”. If you mean “species”, then there are estimated 3 to 10 million species[a], not thousands.

1.1.3. “Although seriously challenged in recent years, the warm soup hypothesis is still the most widely held abiogenesis theory among Darwinists.”[1.1]

1.1.4. “Developed most extensively by Russian atheist . . .”
Whether a scientist is an atheist or a theist does not matter.

1.9. “After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life.”
Not exactly true: 11 of 20 amino acids were found. But they never expected to find more. The experiment was small, and only lasted for a week. Miller said, “Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids.”[d]

And of the many replications and modifications of the original experiment, some discovered new information supporting abiogenesis.

1.10. “They believed this because ‘laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be largely inhibited by oxygen’.28 Here is one of many examples of where their a priori belief in the ‘fact’ of chemical evolution is used as ‘proof’ of one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere.”
Abiogenesis is likely to have occurred. There is no evidence (I repeat, no evidence) supporting the Christian God creating life. The best alternative is abiogenesis. It’s not a huge leap of faith to assume that the early atmosphere had little to no oxygen. It is a fairly likely condition. Venus, for instance, has virtually no oxygen[b]. And Mars also has negligible oxygen content[c].

1.10.1. There are other sources of evidence indicating what earth’s early atmosphere may have been like, and they independently confirm that abiogenesis could have occurred. For example, many volcanic eruptions in earth’s early unstable environment would have released much CO2.[e] “In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2.”[e]

1.11. ” . . . without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred.”
The experiments that have been done did not expect to get all 20 amino acids. To accurately reproduce the early earth environment, we’d need around a hundred billion cubic kilometers[f] of space and several hundred million years. But instead, relevant experiments have had a few cubic meters and a few weeks, at most. We can hardly expect to get the exact same results.

Even so, we have gotten phenomenal results. A recent experiment produced 22 amino acids and many organic molecules[e].

1.10.2 “A major source of gases was believed to be volcanoes, and since modern-day volcanoes emit CO, CO2, N2 and water vapour, it was considered likely that these gases were very abundant in the early atmosphere. In contrast, it is now believed that H2, CH4 and NH3 probably were not major components of the early atmosphere.” [1.10]

1.12. “Most researchers also now believe that some O2 was present on the early earth because it contained much water vapour, and photodissociation of water in the upper layers of the atmosphere produces oxygen.”
Those levels of oxygen would only have been about 1% of current oxygen levels, however.[g] Photosynthesis is what primarily caused the earth’s atmosphere to fill with oxygen.

1.13. “Yet another reason to conclude free oxygen existed on the early earth is that it is widely believed that photosynthetic organisms existed very soon after the earth had formed, something that is difficult for chemical evolutionary theories to explain.”
Organisms began to show up a little bit after earth’s crust stabilized[1.13.1]. This makes perfect sense. But considering the size of the atmosphere, it would take a very long time to fill with oxygen.

1.13.1. By “a little bit”, I mean tens or hundreds of millions of years. This is short in the grand scheme of things, but this is hundreds to thousands of times more time than humans have inhabited earth, and hundreds of thousands of times longer than recorded history.

1.13.2. The above quote contains a contradiction. It is trying to show that life could not form, because the atmosphere was filled with oxygen. Yet it claims that one of the reasons that the atmosphere was filled with oxygen is that photosynthetic organisms were creating oxygen. Abiogenesis does not need to occur when it already occurred.

1.13.3. “So even granting evolutionary presuppositions, this latest research shows that life existed almost as soon as the earth was able to support it, not ‘billions and billions of years’ later.”

Hundreds of millions of years may not be billions of years, but it sure is a long time.[1.13]

1.12.1. “Even if the oxygen were produced by photodissociation of water vapour rather than photosynthesis, this would still be devastating for Miller-type proposals.” [1.12]

1.14. “Modern replications of the Miller–Urey experiment using a wide variety of recipes, including low levels of O2, yield even lower amounts of organic compound than the original experiment.”
This is false. More modern experiments involving simulated volcanic eruptions have come up with even more results.[e]

1.1.5. “The Miller–Urey experiment held great hopes for the materialists. . .”
This implies that the purpose of that experiment was to make materialists look right. The purpose of science isn’t to support any one position. It is to discover the truth.

1.15. “To produce even non-functional amino acids and proteins, researchers must highly control the experiment in various ways because the very conditions hypothesized to create amino acids also rapidly destroy proteins.”
Researchers make environments to simulate earth’s early environment. They ended up creating many amino acids and organic compounds.

I’m only about half done with this article, and there are 27 more on the list.

1.16. “Very few proteins remain biologically active above 50ºC, or below about 30ºC, and most require very narrow conditions. Cooking food is a good example of using heat to denature protein, and refrigeration of using cold to slow down biological activity.”
30 to 50 degrees celcius is a range that occurs many places on earth. Even if only a fifth of the earth is (or was) within that range, that’s still a huge amount.
1.16.1. Refrigeration slows down the movement of molecules, organic or inorganic.

1.16.2. “As any molecular biologist knows from daily lab work, the pH also must be strictly regulated.”
Once again, the earth is a big place. There is plenty of room for varied pH levels.[1.16]

1.17. “Miller had to remove many contaminants and impurities to obtain pure compounds that are not normally found in life.”
Miller removed nothing. He started with nothing, and added gases and environmental factors. The environment was made to simulate early earth conditions.

1.18. “In Miller’s UV experiments, he used a select wavelength to produce amino acids and screened out other wavelengths because they destroy amino acids. Yet both chemical-building and chemical-destroying light exists in sunlight. Amino acids are actually very delicate and readily break down under natural sunlight.”

The UV harm is a problem in the field of abiogenesis, which we do not have a solution for at this time. However, it is likely that there is a slightly different solution that we have not seen, considering all the other evidence to support abiogenesis.[h]

It is suspected that early life developed at the bottom of the ocean, where UV rays would not reach it, and energy would come from volcanic eruptions.

1.18.1. “Even the ocean would not protect them, because UV penetrates several metres of liquid water—you can even sunburn under water.”
Several meters is different from several kilometers, or even several hundred meters. The deep ocean can protect against UV rays.

1.19. “Even simple movement can cause major protein damage: whipping cream or beating egg whites is one way of using mechanical agitation to deliberately denature protein (the whipping stretches the polypeptide chains until the bonds break).”
We don’t completely understand abiogenesis. [1.18]

Beating an egg requires vigorous movement. This does occur in some places, but there are many places on earth that are calm enough.

1.20. “Creating life in a test tube also turned out to be far more difficult than Miller expected.”
Not to get unscientific, but . . . duh. [1.16]

1.21. “Life is far more complex than Miller believed”, a whole section that essentially says “Around the time of Darwin, T.H. Huxley had some incorrect ideas about the nature of life.”
So T.H. Huxley didn’t understand cellular biology as we do today. So what?

1.22. “These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer.”
A human cell contains roughly 350 megabytes of information[i,j], which is far less than even the worst computers on the market today. And human cells are relatively complex. A good home computer contains 1000 times as much storage as a single cell.

But that’s not a full explanation of complexity. The latest Cray supercomputer has 1.64 petaflops[k]. That means it does 1640000000000000 floating-point operations per second. How many operations per second does a cell do? Well . . . a cell doesn’t do operations in the same way. But the human brain does. The human brain can do about as many operations as the lastest supercomputer.[l] But the brain is a complex network of billions of cells, meaning that if you divide it up, each cell can only do operations along the order of megaflops. (Of course, the human brain doesn’t do flops. The human brain is hopelessly slow at floating-point operations: it cannot multiply 3.5 by 5.3 (or similar numbers) a quadrillion times per second. It can do about a quadrillion operations per second, though.)

Even so, early living cells were not nearly as complicated as they are today. A human cell is complicated. But that complication evolved. Early life forms were just simple reproductive mechanisms, which grew more complex over time through natural selection. That type of thing is far simpler than the complicated cells we have today, with their golgi bodies and ribosomes and such.

1.23. “Chemicals do not produce life; only complex structures such as DNA and enzymes produce life.”
DNA and enzymes are chemicals. And DNA alone does not produce life. A system of various chemicals produces life.

1.24. “… no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. ”
A thousand years ago, no one had ever satisfactorily explained how we were all stuck to the earth. That doesn’t mean gravity was wrong.

1.25. “… high temperatures would accelerate the breakdown of amino acids, just as cooking meat breaks down the bonds …”
Cooking meat does not cause amino acids to break down.

I will continue this one later. For reasons that could only be described as boredom, I will now skip to #27.

The following is filled with “I don’t like it, therefore it’s not true” arguments. I try to ignore them, but just so you know, they’re there.

27.1. “(The Seventh) federal court has ruled that prison officials in Wisconsin violated the rights of an inmate who sought to form an Atheist discussion group because they failed to treat Atheism as a religion.”
The discussion group was not atheist (note lack of capitalization), it was humanist. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a god. This is not religion, nor is it lack of religion. It is possible for there to be a religious atheist who belongs to a religion that does not include a god. Humanism is religious in nature. So is naturalism. Atheism, however, is not. Generally when people think of atheism as a religion, they’re thinking of Humanism or naturalism.

27.2. “The Supreme Court has said that a
religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct
from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by
philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns…”
Atheism is not a way of life. Naturalism is a way of life.

27.3. “‘Stephen Jay Gould launched a direct attack on religion thereby exposing the true religious nature of Darwinism…'”
Sigh… [1.1]

27.4. “Atheist worldview”
There is no one atheist worldview. Each atheist has their own worldview. [27.1]

27.5. “1. Cognition of reality, and levels (Godelian) of reality:
a. Natural essence (First Principles of existence and truth)

Atheism is first and foremost Naturalist and Materialist. For now, we will assume that the Atheist accepts the First Principles of existence and truth.”
That is not atheism. That is Naturalism or Materialism. [27.1]

I will now ignore any misuse of the word “atheism” or any other form of the word, unless the misuse is significant. I will, however, count the number of misuses.

27.6. “Atheism will specifically deny any spiritual essence.”
Atheism does not deny the existence of god. It is a lack of belief in a god. This requires no faith. Any misuse of this sort will also be added to the misuse count.

27.7. “Evolution is the Origin Story of Atheism. It is the Atheist’s ABSOLUTE Truth, unassailable, unquestionable cant; dogma.”
Atheism is lack of belief in God. Evolution is science. Evolution is not absolute to scientists; it merely has very good evidence supporting it. If evidence came along and proved evolution false, scientists would stop supporting evolution and instead support some other scientific explanation. In no way is evolution “dogma”. Maybe there is some religious group out there that worships Charles Darwin, but that’s not science, nor is it atheism. Those “Darwinists” might be atheist, but they are not atheism.

27.8. “Life is a random accident according to the absolutist dogma of Evolution. Atheism therefore sees absolutely no purpose to life beyond the perpetuation of one’s own genes, as natural selection occurs. So the sole purpose of life is genetic self perpetuation. Denial of this sole purpose leads to other paradoxes.”
Should that count as one misuse, or two? I’ll call it one, just to be safe.

Science (which is what evolution is) does not make a comment about the purpose of life. Atheism refers to a lack of belief in a god. Atheism does not make a comment about the meaning of life. Philosophy makes a comment about the meaning of life, as does religion.

A bit off topic: According to Christians, what is the purpose of life? To get into Heaven? Well then what is the purpose of Heaven? Eternal happiness seems pretty pointless. The value of life comes in its finiteness. It has an end, so it must be cherished and valued. But when you live forever in the next life, what’s the point?

27.9. “With nothing else to become, once the spark of life has gone there is nothing left but the material fodder for worms (M.M.O’Hair).”
Atheism makes no comment on the afterlife. An afterlife is possible without a god.

27.10. “[Atheists have] Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind.”
I don’t think I’m the smartest person on earth. But I’ll assume that what that means is that supreme intelligence exists in the material world. And that “supreme” means “greatest”, not “infinite”. In that case, I agree with that. But that’s not a faith-based belief. There is no evidence to the contrary. Faith is not supported by evidence, and there is evidence that I have intelligence. There is NO evidence that God has intelligence. So I do agree with the quoted statement, but it’s not a faith-based belief.

27.11. ” Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo.”
Calling a complicated stew of chemicals “goo” is a bit misleading. But I do believe that. And as I said above, it’s not faith-based. There is strong evidence to support it.

27.12. “Faith that a “multiverse” that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false).”
We don’t have to see something to have evidence for it. example

It’s not faith-based.

I’m not really rooted in the multiverse theory. Although it makes sense, there is limited evidence. I don’t so much believe it as much as I see it as a likely possibility.

27.13. “Faith that if I can’t sense it, it does not exist. (No metaphysical existence).”
Other than the misuses…

I can’t sense x-rays, yet I think that they exist. See above example.

27.14. “Anyone familiar with Jeffry Dahmer, Madelyn Murray O’Hair, or Peter Singer will realize that the ethical code of Atheism is “Any Code I Desire” (A.C.I.D.) In fact any code that benefits me, right now, at this very moment. The code is total Narcissism.”
Religious people can bend their religion to fit their morals. People kill each other in the name of God all the time. No, I’m not saying that all religious people are murderers. What I’m saying is that morals are independent from religion. There are plenty of atheists who are fully functional within society. Almost all atheists, in fact.

27.15. “In a stunning twist of logic, the purveyors of the ethical code that protects the Atheist (Christianity, the Bible and the Ten Commandments) are deemed evil.”
Didn’t I just say that evil is independent of religion? And I’m an atheist.

27.16. “The celebrity scientists and philosophers clearly are the high priests of Atheism: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Stephen J. Gould, Bertrand Russell, Theodore Dobzhansky, Carl Sagan, celebrities all.”
These people are scientists. They use their rational minds. And Stephen Hawking was not atheist.

27.17. “In politics, Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao.”
Hitler was in fact Catholic.[m] He wrote in his journal “… I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord’s work.”[n] [27.14]

I wasn’t sure about Stalin and Mao. But I found a blog where someone wrote about it, and phrased it better than I could have.
“But most people seem to assume that because they abolished religion, they must be atheists. In fact, they abolished religion so that they could establish cults of personality, and become gods themselves. They did what they needed to in order to get more power, and religion was a rival power source, which is why they abolished it. Stalin actually reinstated the church after Hitler invaded, because he thought it would help him (from here). Religion simply got in their way, and they eliminated anything and anyone that got in their way.”[n]

27.18. “As the source of all truth, the Atheist mind becomes an object of awe and worship, and the situation becomes that of pagan self-worship.”
Scientists take up the point of view that there is no absolute truth. So there is no source of absolute truth. Anyhow, this quote is assuming that the source of truth must be worshipped, which is not necessarily the case.

27.19. “Belief in nothing is a belief without proof, a leap of faith. And because self-validation is an act of Godellian illogic, Atheism is a blind leap into illogic…the very definition of “religion” that Atheist’s love!”
It’s not a belief in nothing. Atheists don’t “believe that there is no god.” They “don’t believe that there is a god.” The distinction is very important.

WARNING: The Grammar Nazi has entered the room!! It’s “that atheists love”, not “that atheist’s love”. The atheist is not in possession of the love.

27.20. “One such set [of atheism] is Secular Humanism, also legally declared a religion.”
Secular Humanism may be a religion, but it is independent of atheism.

27.21. ““Some say there is no objective morality. When told that a certain individual believed that morality is a sham, Samuel Johnson responded, ‘Why sir, if he really believes there is no distinction between virtue and vice, let us count our spoons before he leaves’.””
There is no objective morality, but that’s different from saying that there is no morality. There is no absolute right and wrong. Killing someone is always wrong, right? But what if killing that person saves thousands of people? Then is it wrong? So killing someone isn’t always wrong. Or maybe it is. It depends on your point of view.

27.21.1 The Samuel Jackson quote is misleading; it’s a very common argument. “I don’t like it, so it’s not true.” Just because you don’t like the idea of there being no objective morality doesn’t mean that there is an objective morality. So count your spoons, but that individual may be correct.

27.22. “…Cohen[(1868-1954) third president of the National Secular Society, Britain’s largest Atheist organization] does not address the origin of the “moral feeling”, which might be called conscience…”
Conscience arose through natural selection. Societies without without betrayed and killed each other, and died off. Societies with morality worked together, and reproduced. It’s that simple.

27.23. “…the existence of selflessness falsifies Darwinian evolution…”
Evolution is not about the survival of the individual; it is about the survival of the gene pool. Organisms that help other similar organisms will become stronger as a species. They help each other out when necessary, so they survive better as a whole.

27.24. “Q: How many Darwinists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None, they know that given enough time, one will evolve by itself by random assembly.”
Funny, but misleading. Certain things have been known to develop on their own. For example, look at a rock. The rock has all these complicated bumps and grooves. It must have been designed intelligently!

No. It was made by natural phenomena. There are no known natural phenomena that screw in lightbulbs. Except maybe if the lightbulb was right in the center of a tornado. . .

27.25. “… Aldous Huxley [is a total idiot for being an atheist]” (paraphrased a teensy bit)
Aldous Huxley was a literary genius.

27.26. “If an Atheist is behaving like an Atheist, how is he behaving?”
No such thing as “an Atheist behaving like an Atheist”. That’s like saying “an abigfootist (someone with a lack of belief in Bigfoot) behaving like an abigfootist”. It just doesn’t make sense.

27.27. “Atheism is based on just one premise: “There is no deity.””
Finally! You get it…almost right. Remember, it’s not “there is no deity”. It’s “I do not believe that there is a deity”.[27.19]

27.27.1 “Note that this is not a positive declaration of the existence of something. It is the declaration of the absence of something.”

I’ll fix that.

“Note that this is not a positive declaration of the existence of something. It is the absence of the declaration of something.”

27.28. “Atheism appeals on many levels. The illusion of self-determinism, of superiority of mind (and caste), and of self-directed morals is totally compatible with the desire for the freedom to pursue whatever materialism, lust, indulgence or vanity one wishes.”
Ugh. [27.1][27.5][27.8][27.14][27.15][27.18][27.20][27.21]

27.28.1 “For Hitler it was the pursuit of the Master Race. ”

27.29. “The Atheist is also caught in a Cause / Effect logical contradiction.”
I’m not sure, but I think this refers to the first cause.

Why does the first cause have to be God? Why couldn’t it have been some eternal inanimate object?

27.30. “…Atheists sorely need Darwinist Evolution to be true, evolutionary theory would have been thoroughly drummed out of the scientific arena a century ago.”
a) They are trying to make it look like science is a conspiracy. Science is the pursuit of truth.
b) If evolution is proven false, that does not necessitate a god. There could be another explanation that does not involve a supreme being. However, no one has tried to look for one because all the scientists support the Theory of Evolution because of its strong evidence, and all the Creationists support the Bible because…well, I don’t really know why.

Oh, you know what? There actually is an alternative. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

27.31. “Einstein famously included a “cosmic fudge factor” in order to make his equations work right for a static universe. When Hubble showed Einstein the red shift, Einstein had two conflicting reactions. First, his original equations had been correct. Second, his religion was incorrect. The universe did in fact have a beginning, and therefore, a pre-existing causing being. Einstein left Atheism to become a Deist. He stated that his goal was “to know the mind of God”.”
Einstein apparently did not know about the Big Bang Theory.

Deism is a religion that believes that God expresses Him/It(?)self through nature. Quotes[o]:
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

“For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything “chosen” about them.”

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.”

27.32. “O’Hair was to Atheism as Carl Sagan was to cosmology. She gave it visibility to the public. She was an avowed communist, and “enjoyed hate”. She was responsible for the elimination of prayer from public schools, and became known as “America’s most hated woman”.”
So maybe not all atheists are very nice. But at least she got prayer out of school. You should have the right to choose whether or not you pray.

27.33. ““Persons are beings that feel, reason, have self-awareness, and look forward to a future. Thus, fetuses and some very impaired human beings are not persons in his view and have a lesser moral status than, say, adult gorillas and chimpanzees.””
I agree. I see no logical reason to think otherwise. I would rather kill a fetus than an adult gorilla, because the gorilla doesn’t have the same level of awareness. (Unless it was my baby or the baby of someone close to me, but that’s an irrational instinct put forth by evolution: if you would rather kill your children than someone else’s, you have no more children, and are removed from the gene pool.)

27.34. “[The guy who said the quote in 27.33] recently extolled the practice of sex with animals: “We’re all great apes, after all”.
I disagree with that. So what? I don’t have to agree with everything that every atheist says.

27.35. “He opines that abortion must be as moral after the fetus travels the birth canal as it is before, because the act of birth does not add value to the fetus. He recommends infanticide up to 28 days after the birth for defective children. (Notice any similarity to Nazism’s eugenics?)”
Ooh, this is a good one. I get to talk about a broad point.

This argument is meant to fuel people’s emotions. People feel emotional about killing babies and not about killing gorillas, because they have more of a personal connection to babies than to gorillas. So this argument tries to overwhelm people with emotion so that they don’t think rationally. The point about Nazism is not a real argument; just because Nazis did it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It is also meant to overwhelm people with emotion.

But when you think about it, what he says makes a certain sense. There is some point at which you decide that it’s no longer legal or moral to abort a fetus. But there is no point at which a fetus suddenly becomes “human”. It’s gradual. So a somewhat arbitrary cutoff point has to be chosen. 28 days born is not much later than 8 months pregnant. But once the baby is born, people become emotionally attached to the baby, so it would be unthinkable to kill the baby! But that’s just more emotion. If the mother really wants to abort the baby, I think that’s okay. (I think a better abortion cutoff is birth; even though it’s arbitrary, at least it’s a milestone.) Hey, it’s not that bad. I know someone who thinks that the abortion cutoff should be 18 years. (Unless he was joking…)

Question for Creationists: If there is objective morality created by God, why did God create creatures that did not follow his objective morality?

27.36. “…evolutionary theory of Atheism…”
That is just about the most incorrect phrase ever. I think it’s worth mentioning. [27.1]

27.37. “Kinsey became bi-sexual, and had sex with the staff males.”
So what? Give me one good reason besides these five here. (That’s 3 different links.)

27.38. “[implies that atheists can do whatever they want because they have no morals]”
There are still consequences for things. Social consequences. You can murder people, but you’ll go to jail. Not only that, but no one will want to be your friend.

And can’t Creationists do whatever they want and then just ask Jesus to forgive them? As I said before, morals and religion are independent. [27.14]

27.39. “…Atheism is the result of attacking other positions. By that I mean that the Atheist position is one of arms folded, skeptical scowl, saying, “prove it”.”
Yeah…that makes sense. Stop trying to appeal to people’s emotions. The atheist described here may sound like a bitter and conceited person, but a little change in attitude and it makes complete sense. How about this? “The atheist position is one of not just accepting anything you’re told. If you’re an atheist, you look for evidence before blindly believing something.”

(I skipped a small section of the article because it looked very tedious)

27.40. “The logic of Atheism is feeble: “If I can’t see it, it does not exist.” ”
Atheist logic is more like, “If I can’t see it, then I won’t assume it exists.” [27.1]

27.41. “Even Einstein admitted that a universe with an obvious beginning had to have a pre-existing causing being outside and beyond itself.”
Wait, you mean Einstein “admitted” it? You make it sound reluctant. Of COURSE Einstein believed that there had to be a pre-existing cause. The logic easily follows.

I: The universe had a beginning.
II: For something to be created, the creation has to take place before the thing exists.
III: A creator has to exist to create something.
Therefore, a creator that existed before the universe created the universe.

You might be saying, “Wait, did you just admit that there is a god?” Well, no. For that a fourth assumption is necessary: A creator must be an intelligent, sentient being. This assumption is false. Example: A lightning bolt catches some twigs on fire. The lightning bolt was the creator of the fire. But is the lightning bolt intelligent? No.

27.43. “1. Logical proof of a pre-existing, necessary, causing being with intelligence. Several (34 at last count) proofs are found in the appendix, along with several counter-arguments.
2. Logical proof that Atheism produces a non-reducible necessary paradox.
(See the Paradox of the Non-Contingent Effect, in the appendix).
3. Physical proof of very high intelligence content of a contingent effect.
(See the Probabilities of DNA, and Anthony Flew, in the appendix).

So Atheism, which is falsifiable, is logically and physically falsified.”

Um…where did the conclusion come from?

27.42. “The Atheist’s best friend, Darwinist Evolutionary Theory, has been falsified, over and over.”
I disagree with the personification. Theories do not make friends. If they did, they would not make friends with beliefs. And even if they did, atheism and evolution would not be friends; they aren’t at all related.

Evolutionary Theory has not been falsified. As we uncover more and more, it looks better and better. I may talk more about this later.

Misuses: 59

Well, that’s the whole article. I’ve added up all the misuses of “atheist” or “atheism”. Let’s see how many there are. (drumroll please)

And the grand total is… A WHOPPING SUM OF 59 MISUSES!!!!! That is simply amazing.

This post is very long as it is, so I’m not going to review any of the other websites on this post. I’ll write another post soon enough.

REFERENCES (not necessarily in order of use)


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: