Poepol of the Week Award goes to noChimp

Standard

This is a classic example of rotting brains. This wanker tells the whole story. The sad part is that he was mentally ill, tried to get help from his universities’ counselling service, and the councilor took advantage of this young man’s condition to point him straight back into religion. It worked. Read the crap he writes here:

Why Creationism?

23 April 2012, 15:16

Whilst at university, I threw off all my parents’ religion, partying and going wild with my friends. However, as I was also battling with depression, I decided to make use of the free counselling service offered by the university. After introduction, my counsellor told me I needed to go to church. After the 3rd session of her telling me this, I decided to go to church once, so that I could get her off my back. As I walked through the church door the following Sunday, God spoke to me. Although it was a mere one sentence, it cut right to my core, changing my life forever.

As a young Christian who believed evolution, I attended a seminar by Duane Gish on creationism. He said a whole lot of hair brained stuff, or so it seemed at the time. However, he did say some interesting points, and as a result I bought the only book I could afford, one on the earth’s magnetism. It was the weirdest book I had ever read, showing that the magnetism of the earth was exponentially decaying, and that if the earth were not young, then 10,000 years ago it would have been a magnetic star. I dismissed the book as pure bunkum.

However as my engineering classes were right next door to the geology department, I decided to pay them a visit and ask about the earth’s magnetism. I was quickly introduced to a graduate who was doing his doctorate on the magnetism in South Africa. Looking at the graphs of the magnetism of South Africa over the past 100 years, we saw it followed the exact pattern I had read in the book. When I showed the fellow the book, and that the book was talking of a young earth, his reply was “We all know the earth is billions of years old, you must go, I have another appointment.” The sudden hostility caught me totally by surprise, I had touched (more like hammered) a raw nerve. (I have since read much about geomagnetic reversals and the problems with them, but that is another discussion). I left his office thinking “Is he not wanting to know truth, or is he trying to protect something he is not sure of?”

I was given a pile of Nature magazines, which I devoured, they were at my level. They were strongly evolutionary, calling creationists “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. What struck me was that in almost every magazine 2 or 3 times a statement would be made that if true hit against some part of the evolutionary chain, eg. A discovery of a protein in a cell being so complex that it needed the cell to form the protein, however the cell could not exist without the protein. After bumping into hundreds of these anomalies, I was convinced that life and the complexities in life needed a designer, and that no amount of random processes could ever account for life. (Please note that other than the one book on magnetism, I had not seen any creationist literature at all, this conclusion was drawn after reading evolutionary based material.) Being an engineering student and not a theologian, the theological ramifications of the different viewpoints was never an issue.

Now after 30 years later, having read many creationist publications as well as evolutionary publications, I am more convinced than ever that the evolutionary model stands on shaky ground. This conclusion is based purely in what I see in nature around me, how the evolutionary model has to change their viewpoints with many of the new discoveries eg. Mt St Helens erupting, soft tissue found in a T Rex bone, the different weight and consequently different place in history given to Lucy by different research groups, and the fanatism of the evolutionists, as if they are trying desperately to protect ground that is eroding under their feet. (I personally saw a professor explode at someone for mentioning a flaw in the evolutionary model).

As I look at our origin, there are a few possible models:

  1. Atheistic evolution – it all happened by random chance
  2. Theistic evolution – same as 1 above, except whenever chance cannot explain a process, God intervened.
  3. Aliens from outer space put life on this earth – this was big twenty years ago, in movies, the SETI project, and even music and literature; however it has fallen out of favour in recent years.
  4. Creationism

The intelligent design movement is not actually separate, but would accept points 2,3, and 4 above as being possible ways to explain life today.

The creationism model is not without flaws and many of them, however evolution as the alternative (both theistic and atheistic) is so full of flaws that it falls apart at the seams (see http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/What-is-evolution-20120418), aliens seem more remote now than ever with NASA shifting its attention from intelligent life to any possible life (looking for water, instead of radio signals). So although I am a creationist, it is not because I think creationism is just so perfectly right, but because the alternatives are just so horribly wrong.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Poepol of the Week Award goes to noChimp

  1. There is a very interesting debate going on at present whether we, as humans, have free will. The first contention is that indeed, we do have free will, and the second one is that all lie in the genes, and we will make the same decisions again if you could rewind and replay the action. The “for” contenders are Daniel Dennett (and of course all the godbots, but for different reasons than Dennett’s), and the “against” Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne. (An interesting experiment done by neuroscientists do prove free will, but a lot of debate is going on about their findings as well.)

    Now my question: Are we not born religious? Do we have a free choice in the matter, even when all the facts disproving the existence of any god(s) stare us in the face. We who have discarded religious’ yoke only did so when we looked at science and applied rational thinking. Analfa and his ilk may have no other way to turn – their genes would not allow them to.

    Like

    • Aha!!!!! The thousand and thousands of years old argument. The philosophers telling the scientists how things really work. Don’t get me wrong, I really like Dennet, but the philosophers just can’t stay out of the realm of science. They always step in as if to say: “Ha-ha!!!!! Good point, but……..” or something like: “You almost have it right. You are lucky I am here now to complete your theory for you.” or “I see your point, but you are totally wrong. I have been working on this problem for a long time, and this is the best answer. Nice try though.”

      And of course, the fundies shat themselves when they heard the evil scientists have taken away their godly gift of free will. The free will that caused all the shit on earth and the reason why his son was sent down to be brutally tortured and murdered by a very angry mob, so that we can be forgiven for the trouble we cause with our free will, and then all the shit that followed right after till this day.

      Basically, in the fundie circles, free will means getting a hard-on and using it. Or getting a tingle in your vagina and then to proceed to have that taken care off. Most religious are obsessed with what people do with their sexual organs. Meanwhile back at the ranch…………………

      It’s a very interesting subject. We are discovering many interesting things about the brain. The main computer for the genes OS in my opinion. That’s where we run the software etc.

      The philosophers will define free will one way, the scientists in another, and the fundies have their own version.

      To me, free will means what type of car I will buy, given certain options, what beer I prefer, what type of dogs I own, what I do for a living etc etc etc. It might also mean what type of women you have children with etc. I don’t believe these things are set in stone. There is a lot of room to play with. But the scientists do have a point. These things, given certain wide perimeters, should keep our decisions within certain boundaries, because we are hardwired in this way. Of course everyone can make mistakes, some disastrous ones, and some people can get really lucky too.

      Like

  2. Interesting Savage.
    Some time ago I posted a piece here on a a hipothetical bunch of apemen, basically showing that we all have (in varying degrees) the “non-questioning” irrasional gene in our bones. We need this for survival simply because as young ones it is important to listen to the elders and follow them blindly without questioning. One could argue that if this was not the case, the human race’s survival would be at stake. Consider the example of the youngster blindly believing his parents when told the river is a crocodile infested one. The ones with a non-questioning genes will ignore the warning, jump in and be eaten up, thereby eliminating (over time) the “questioning” gene pool. The opposite would happen to the “non-questioning” gene pool. They will believe blindly and the genes carried forth. The end-result is non-questioning (religious?) adults. If this hipothesis holds true, then religion is indeed a by-product of survival.
    ……..I can only thank Batgod that there is some glimmer of the “questioning” genes evident in my being. I thank Him that I don’t have to live like Analfa, unquestioning and scared of a superficial man-in-the-sky, created by my forefarthers many years ago.

    Like

    • Thanks, guys for your opinions. I am certain we have free will in making rational choices (and also some not so rational). I have one example of my hardwired non-free-will and that is when I get a sudden fright – I immediately get angry and attack verbally and close to physically. An example is when I suddenly almost get knocked down by a motorist when I’m cycling (fuck these South African motorist are pathetic). I’ve tried hard to stem my anger but, shit, next time it happens, it is the same old story.

      The argument between the scientists and philosophers continue unabated. Laurence Krauss (a damn good scientist fighting hard for science against the creationists) defending science against the meddling of the philosophers, is at present going on on the web. But as you say, McBrolloks, you don’t easily get them (the philosophers now) to stick to their own discipline. No, through the ages they have tried to lay scientific eggs, but the eggs were mostly wrotten.

      I have a long list I gathered through the years of sayings of scientists regarding philosophers. Give me your e-mail address, McBrolloks, and I’ll post it to you, perhaps you can make use of it. (It is too long to post here.)

      Like

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 )

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