Holy Hallucinations 16


Uploaded by TheLivingDinosaur on 10.01.2011

Transcript:
This is a response to PPSimmons’ video, ' Creation/Evolution - LET'S BE HONEST'
Well, PP, we really must stop meeting like this, and if you stopped spreading your repulsive
lies and deliberate misinformation like manure over the internet perhaps we wouldn’t have
to. This time you’ve elaborated on a subject
you touched upon previously, that is that scientists and creationists both look at the
same physical evidence provided by nature and draw their conclusions based on their
philosophical inclinations. Needless to say, there were a number of points that I took
issue with and I’d like to take this opportunity to address them.
So let’s get started and see whether you can live up to the title of your video and
display even the faintest modicum of honesty, or whether we’re in for just another endless
stream of fabrications, misrepresentations and falsehoods.
“Both the evolutionist and the creationist are observing the same evidence and they are
commenting on it, profusely. It is an undeniable fact both are producing books, journalistic
contributions, films, scientific study reports…” Woooah! Let’s hold it right there, shall
we PP? Is there any chance of your providing us with even one “scientific study report”
produced by a creationist on creationism? And if you should by some chance consider
supplying a piece of propaganda from one of the digital shit-pits that you’re so fond
of frequenting, then please think again. Just because a document contains a lot of long
words and acronyms, PP, doesn’t mean that it’s scientific no matter how many times,
or how fervently, you claim otherwise. Scientific papers are published in scientific
journals that are accepted as such by the scientific community of researcher who work
in the science departments of accredited Universities around the world and are subjected to the
rigorous quality control mechanism known as peer review. They contain a succinct but accurate
review of the field, novel experimental results to support the ideas being presented and most
importantly, extensive citations of all the relevant literature regardless of whether
they support or counter the authors’ thesis. Citations that oppose their contentions must
be explained either in the light of subsequent evidence or the data being presented, but
are never ignored. All this is aimed at understanding the true nature of reality by ensuring the
elimination of personal bias and opinion and the acceptance of conclusions that are backed
by empirical physical evidence. The outstanding and unequivocal success of this approach should
be evident to anyone who takes a moment to look at the world around them.
Creationist misinformation tracts, on the other hand, are never exposed to even the
faintest whiff of a peer review process and appear in nothing even vaguely resembling
a scientific journal. They contain no original data and if they do contain citations it’s
usually only to one or two articles whose conclusions can be twisted to make them seem
incompatible with whichever scientific theory is being besmirching at the time. Anything
that disagrees with the point they’re trying to make is simply ignored.
All of this is aimed at defending pre-existing beliefs and assumptions regardless of the
mountains of evidence that speak against them and your slimy little attempt to coat your
and your ‘colleagues’ repugnant lies with a veneer of credibility by calling them scientific
just doesn’t wash, PP. You can tell because of the smell that accompanies it.
As for you looking at the same evidence as real scientists, I think I adequately explained
in Holy Hallucinations 15 how you yourself consistently prove this to be an out and out
lie without any help from me. Lying for Jesus may make you feel good PP, but any god worth
its salt would be shuddering at the dishonorable depths to which you’re willing to sink in
its defense. “Both have their scientists lined up to
give either evolutionist or creationist commentary on the discovered evidence.”
It’s interesting how you chose your words to make it sound as if this were some kind
of evenly pitched battle, isn’t it PP? You didn’t see fit to mention that your “scientists”
are outnumbered by at anywhere from 20 to 1000 to 1, did you? Doesn’t sound quite
so impressive when that’s pointed out, does it?
You also fail to mention is that the majority of your “scientists” are in fact nothing
of the kind, but rather a bunch of shady spivs with dubious if not non-existent credentials,
while only a few of the remainder have advanced degrees in fields that are relevant to the
matters in question. Implying that your rag-tag group of misfits
and charlatans are some kind match for the vast majority of professional scientists is
comparable to betting your shorts on Pee Wee Herman in a fight against Mike Tyson.
“To be completely honest them, each side argues about who is interpreting it more scientifically.
Both sides will claim that the other is ignoring some piece of scientific given. It is the
same for both sides. Show me a mistake that a creation scientist has made and I will show
you a plethora of mistakes that have been made, and even printed in textbooks, by the
evolutionists for all to see. Start accusing a creationist of sloppy science and I will
show you where even some of the very foundational elements of evolution theory have completely
ignored pure scientific method and falsification processes.”
It’d certainly be a pleasant surprise to everyone to see you being completely honest,
PP, but as we all know the likelihood of this actually happening are about as high as Michael
Moore becoming the next chairman of the RNC. So let me reiterate that, despite your continued
assertions to the contrary, there is no such thing as a creation scientist. No creationist
has ever conducted an experiment that supported their assertions, let alone published it in
the scientific literature. All your freakish collection of nutjobs has ever done is inflict
upon us a seemingly unending torrent of unsupported speculation, fallacious logic and biased reasoning.
The creationist “mistakes” that you refer to are nothing of the kind but rather blatant
misinformation, deliberate omission and simply repugnant and reptilian lies.
On the other hand the vast majority of scientific mistakes that you refer to are changes and
adjustment made in the light of new evidence. Your simplistic and childlike view of the
world where there is only one “truth” and absolutely no shades of gray appears to
render you incapable of appreciating that the ability to change and improve is the true
strength of science and not the weakness that you perceive it to be. So if you can provide
me with any specific examples I’d be happy to explain exactly why you’re talking out
of your arse. Also, don’t you find it telling in any way,
PP, that these mistakes aren’t pointed out by creationists, who never generate any data
of their own, but by other scientists, and that the same can also be said for the very
small number of cases of actual academic fraud that have arisen? And don’t you think it’s
a little strange that creationists rarely admit to any mistakes themselves and continue
to brazenly propagate them after they have been pointed out? Apparently you don’t,
perhaps because that would involve using your brain to think rather than to excrete your
putrid and noxious lies. Comparing the “mistakes” of creationists
with those of the scientific community is like claiming that OJ Simpson is as innocent
as Maggie Simpson and you should be either begging your baby Jesus for forgiveness for
your repugnant dishonesty or for a cure for your brain disease.
And by the way, don’t think that I didn’t notice the shot of a book by what you presumably
consider to be one of your “scientists”. Harun Yahya, also known as Adnan Oktar, is
a religious nutjob of the Islamic variety with absolutely no scientific training and
a track record of dishonesty and deceit equally expansive and as brown as yours. Is this really
the best you can do to showcase the level intellectual talent you have mustered to your
cause? And finally, you were evidently unaware of
the irony in the example of evolutionary mistakes you just showed us. I’ll elaborate after
a couple more examples. “Additionally, show me an elemental scientific
theory of a creationist that was later proven to be wrong, and again I can point to, time
after time, where the same has been true with the evolutionist. Several of these evolutionist
blunders have been well publicized, documented and celebrated.”
Do you even realize that the article entitled “evolution’s greatest mistakes” that
you showcased here and in the previous clip is actually about the imperfections in biological
structures that pervade the natural world and that are both beautifully explained by
evolutionary theory and incompatible with the concept of a omnipotent and perfect designer,
PP? Do you also realize that three of the four
hits displayed on your Google search are pro-evolutionary while the fourth expounds on a number of old
and threadbare creationist arguments about Piltdown, Nebraska, Java and Orce men. All
of these are either examples of poor journalism, not science, or of the self-correcting scientific
mechanisms that I alluded to earlier and also of the dishonesty of creationists who refuse
to stop spreading their poison even after they’ve been corrected numerous times.
So the question I have, PP, is whether you are still willing to claim that you are looking
at the same evidence as scientists are? Because I’ve just provided you with concrete evidence
that you’re either illiterate or simply uninterested in reading anything that may
run counter to the fairytales that you’ve convinced yourself are true.
“In short then, since we are looking at the same evidence, how is it that we can arrive
at such different conclusions? The so-called evidence is what it is and it says simply
that it exists for our observation and interpretation. What the evidence means is then declared by
the scientist – either an evolution scientist or a creation scientist. The evolutionist
begins his examination of the evidence declaring that there is no intelligent designer. The
creationist, on the other hand, looks at the very same evidence, employs the principles
of scientific method and understanding from the beginning, that the amount of evidence
that we find that implies a designer is overwhelming.” With regard to the first part of the clip,
PP, I think that I’ve clearly demonstrated that we’re certainly not looking at the
same evidence because the creationist has absolutely no interest in searching for the
truth and instead is too preoccupied with doing anything it takes to prop up his crumbling,
ludicrous preconceptions. So now let’s address your second assertion.
Science is the enterprise of gathering knowledge of the physical world and the process by which
this is achieved. As a result it seeks to describe natural phenomena in terms of processes
that can be repeatedly measured and reproduced and not in terms of supernatural phenomena
that have never been observed. As a result, science has nothing to say regarding
the existence or non-existence of a god or gods because these entities, by their very
definition, are beyond its scope. All it does is to place limits on the claims that ignorant
fucktards can make as to how such an entity could have created the physical universe.
In fact, if a god does actually exist, science has done nothing other than open humanities
eyes to the sheer magnitude and magnificence of its creation while people like you who
insist on clinging to the primitive tales that their parents convinced them are true
do nothing but constrain their god in a small and insignificant box constructed thousands
of years ago by primitive people in a primitive age. If I were God, PP, I certainly wouldn’t
be grateful for the way you seem to be bent on minimizing me.
Of course, I don’t expect you to understand any of this PP, because you seem to be insistent
on projecting your inability to conceive of alternatives that don’t incorporate your
preconceptions and assumptions onto anyone who doesn’t share them.
The next clip demonstrates that you’re aware that science makes no claims with regard to
the existence of deities, and also your inability refute this without revealing either more
of your seemingly limitless ignorance or you willingness to spew falsehoods as like a dropped
can of cheap beer. “Since we are being honest, it has always
amazed me when an evolutionist says something like: ‘In the scientific study of evolution
we make no statement about religion or God - we merely examine the evidence. But this
simply is not honest. Their own literature bears this out. Their very examination of
the evidence in the first place presupposes that no intelligent design was involved.”
Do you really think that the Dawkins quotes you showed are part of the scientific literature,
PP? If so, then this at least explains your delusion about the “scientific reports”
being produced by creationists and again highlights your complete ignorance of the science and
the scientific method that you so eagerly to slander with your shameless chicanery.
The Blind Watchmaker is a popular science book that explains the principle of natural
selection to lay-persons and only a retard of epic proportions would consider it even
remotely comparable to a peer-reviewed publication. Similarly the Edinburgh Science Festival is
an event that promotes science to the general public and hardly a bona fide scientific conference.
Dawkins may be an atheist, and while having rational mindset may have predisposed him
to both atheism and a career in science, his philosophical beliefs have nothing to do with
his work as a scientist. The quotes you provided are of his exposition of the latter in non-technical
fora and your duplicitous use of his personal opinions to smear science with your vile and
filthy innuendos demonstrates exactly how effective your religion is at making you a
better person. I could equally use the same tactic to claim
that because Ted Haggard has a predilection for anal rumpy-pumpy and suspicious white
powders, Christianity must be a religion that condones the indiscriminate use of Vaseline
and angel dust. Of course I would never dream of engaging in such slander because, unlike
you, I know the difference between right and wrong and don’t need to concoct a fictitious
policeman in the sky in order to pretend that I do.
So, could you either supply us with an actual example of a peer-reviewed scientific publication
that comments on the supernatural or kindly retract that statement? Of course, I know
that you’ll never find the former and I’ll crap my pants in amazement if you do the latter.
“We also acknowledge that there are many wonders involving changes within species that
obviously are coded within the elemental makeup of the species, and then from the beginning
have followed a natural process of change initiated by the designer of the design. Same
evidence, different conclusion.” Nice try PP, but what you neglected to notice
is that your conclusion isn’t based on the evidence at all, but on what all of your arguments
invariably boil down to – ignorance and personal incredulity. Your standard formula
is to take some scientific observation, bollocks on for five minutes about how complicated
it is and then claim that it must be due to divine design. You don’t need any evidence
to come to that conclusion, PP, just a complete and utter lack of any kind of intellectual
curiosity or honesty. And if you think I’m exaggerating, then
let’s take a look at another example “Intelligence and design scream from one
end of the Earth to the other. It seems unthinkable to say that all of this obvious intelligence
had no intelligent input or intervention from the beginning.””
It may seem unthinkable to you, PP, but then I suppose that shouldn’t surprise me.
You inability or unwillingness to understand the science that explains this complexity
is not de facto evidence that a god (and particularly your god) did it any more than your inability
to stop talking shit means that a supreme that a divine entity is using your mind as
it’s personal toilet. In the same way, our inability to understand
any given natural phenomena is not an excuse to substitute any explanation that we find
convenient, because a lack of explanation is not positive evidence of the supernatural
but a reflection of our incomplete knowledge and if you can’t live with that kind of
intellectual honesty or uncertainty, PP, I suggest that you try growing up a little.
Of course I realize that this is falling on deaf ears, PP, because you have a track record
of flagrantly ignoring all the arguments and evidence that explain the phenomena that you
choose to highlight in terms of natural laws and forces. And that’s because you’re
not interested in learning about truth when it conflicts with your pre-imposed beliefs.
All you’re interesting in doing is slinging your shit like a monkey in a cage and hoping
that some of it will stick. And as long as you’re continue doing that,
PP, then rest assured that I’ll be there with my broom to clear up the mess you made
and to show you up for what you really are.