Posted by on June 19, 2011 at 03:01:40
In Reply to: Re: EU on (against) creationism posted by Farmer on June 16, 2011 at 12:48:46:
Just got back from my job interview. It was bogus--selling conversion over to "green energy" door-to-door in the Houston heat (100*F+ lately, plus HUMID!!!). So much for that. I'll be back after it next Monday--those of you who pray: please pray I find a good summer job!! Thanks.
Anyway, herre's a partial rebuttal to the European Coucil crap. It started getting redundant, so I didn't answer all the points--their main points were merely repeated ad nauseum:
1. The resolution itself is a farce: One can have a limitless amount of opinions. The pretense here is that this “Council of Europe” has all good motives—honest, examinable philosophy and true science (actually based on observation of physical phenomena).
One cannot have one’s own facts, such as merely assuming the existence of data sets disproving an already iron-clad proof demonstrating the universal existence of entropy in every possible physical/chemical reaction ever observed, or even rigorously theorized.
Intellectually sloppy atheists, as well as intellectually sloppy creationists, must both better define science itself. “Scientia” (Latin) means “I know”, not “I’m guessing/merely assuming”. Actual real science intelligently analyzes real data, and false science's supposed adherents may even at times try futilely to logically connect sloppy and weak hypotheses, such as those construing the so-called “theory” of evolution, but a lack of success in linearly connecting the attempt at logic literally means “no science here”.
Guessing is moot, as is the condescending statement that “science and belief “must” be able to coexist".
That implies an a priori acceptance of a false premise, without any logical proof of necessity--that the weak arguments’ “necessity” is a given when it is not, or at least not proven.
Guesses, even elaborate ones, don’t count.
Neither do ad hominem/appeal to authority attacks, or any other “twisted logic”, such as false premise, incomplete middle, begging the question, or circular argumentation.
Bad “science” reeks of these—and so does any unintelligent and badly argued attempt at merely arguing for creationism, without any intellectual rigor.
2. If creationism has meaning, that meaning is universal, whether or not its truth, both scientific and philosophical, is acknowledged.
Good for one is good for all, or there is no meaning, despite the attempt to condescend to those believing in God and in His creation.
The universal inevitability of the fact of physical entropy, plus all the data “proving” the godless “Big Bang” (weak) hypothesis, does point toward special creation, like it or not.
The “singularity” of the Big Bang has, very suspiciously, most of the same attributes of the God of Judeo-Christian Scripture—not a “book” per se, but a complete library written by over 40 authors over a 1500-year period.
The “educational system” needs to redefine science, and to define acceptable religious beliefs, such as the various justifications for the “god-commanded” violence radical jihad, and its religious and philosophical relatives.
Pointing out the fanaticism of jihadist murderers/suicides as a fear tactic does not justify banning the study of intelligent design/special creation in general. Many of the world system’s beliefs are accepted without any proof or legitimate justification; including “reasons” for unjustifiable land-grab wars, and so on.
“Meaning of life” cannot be justifiably dictated by government bodies; even international ones. If, say, Ted Turner had his way, a justification could easily be made from within his absurdly laughable personal philosophy of near annihilation of most humans, where he personally justifies reducing the population of the Earth to 1 billion or so.
That would “justify” the annihilation of over 5 billlion human beings. Being rich and powerful, his catregorically stupid statement is considered by “some people” to be a genuine consideration for worldwide action; ridiculous as it is.
And, state terrorism has, in just the 20th Century, killed far more people than ever killed in the name of any deity, throughout history, imagined or otherwise.
The real threat is not a belief in an all-powerful being who has granted free will to humans and angels; it is contrarily the “belief”, completely unjustified, in an idea that “there are absolutely no absolutes”; inescapably an absurdity on its face.
These European would-be “world leaders” are merely seeking power, which is the sole reason for their pseudo-philosophical obscurantism.
They are not concerned with their stated goals. Their actual goals are Machiavellianism taken to its absolute extreme.
Truth of any kind, scientific or otherwise, is not their ultimate concern. “The Emperor has no clothes!”
3. Creationism is born of an actual meta-analysis of massive amounts of real data, not a denial of anything established. The only argument made is an “argument from authority” (also known as appeal to authority) which is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
The most general structure of this argument is:
1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.
See .
4. “Appeal to authority” only. Europe has historically been almost exclusively Christian, in one way or another (regardless of the relative purity of Christianity thee throughout its history).
The “new threat” there now is strictly Koran & Hadith-based Muslim jihadism, inherently violent since the 70s.
True education must include all points of view, with the wisest and the best for all prevailing; the use and abuse of a real or perceived threat is a tool for controlling the state, and for justifying a state-sponsored “protective terrorism” of and bt the state, which is intended to abrogate basic human rights, such as free inquiry and free speech; not an exclusively state-dictated and poorly-designed education—at that point, it becomes propaganda.
The spurious argument made is akin to saying that, because of the mere possibility of someone “yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, it is justifiable to either shut down the theater completely, or even to burn it down, and then to replace it with only state-approved “entertainment”.
Free thinking and open debate SHOULD be incumbent upon ALL of the “Council of European member states”.
5. True creationists hold to an extremely strict scientific method—so should all true scientists, and not as a matter of state-sponsored propaganda.
The Soviet Union made infamous the practice of “scientifically” labeling dissidents of all kinds, including Christian, as “insane”, and sending them off to the Gulag, which is where the one-worlders want to ultimately relegate those disagreeing with their definition of “science”.
I say SHOW the “actual evidence” of a val9d data set actually demonstrating the validity of the weak hypotheses of evolution, as something other than a mere “belief”.
They turn the argument around, accusing their opponents of what they themselves are guilty.
They have not defined what is “objective” analysis—mere inference is touted as proof and justification—“appeal to authority”, not linear argument of proof of any kind.
6. They have not “established” anything per se. They are merely claiming without examination of logic that only evolutuion can possibly be true, in very grandiose terms.
I'm exhausted, now. Got to go!
OT2