Just when you thought it was safe for intellectuals and rationalists, after I posted several recent blogs: e.g. showing how the course of evolution could have been turned had the asteroid strike 65 mY ago not occurred, and also showed how advanced alien species are not proscribed by the chemical and physical laws in the universe, the moronic fundie bible bangers have escaped from their caverns again to make noise. One wishes, at the very least (as I noted in an earlier blog) they would at least keep their pseudo-scientific nonsense to themselves so as not to make total public asses of themselves. But it appears their lack of a sense of irony extends even to appreciating how THEY make THEMSELVES look like blinking, bare idiots.
I noted also we need to have sympathy for those who only have a high school G.E.D., but also that this sympathy doesn't extend to giving them carte blanche to spout any baloney they want.
Let's look at some of the most recent garbage to be emitted from this particular blog - which I do hope isn't representative of all fundies:
He writes, launching into his tendentious idiot harangue:
"In spite of all the evidence of God , they have the audacity to us Christians "delusional," "nut cases," "freaks," etc , for our belief in God . Yet , these poor misguided souls of Satan , can tell you , with a straight face , that there are "aliens" on other planets , that have abducted humans , that "lizard-like species" could have been "superior," and that our ancestors are APES ! "
Now, first note that this moron - though he has repeatedly written there is "evidence for God" - hasn't delivered one, single solitary piece that we can weigh, measure or examine. In other words it's all in this bozo's head. Next, he gets confused, saying we can "tell people there ARE aliens on other planets". As usual, the guy can't read, but what do you expect with someone at G.E.D. level? They never learned how! WHAT we said, is that it's PROBABLE that alien species can exist throughout the universe, given the same chemical and physical laws that apply on Earth also apply to other, distant orbs - borne out by spectroscopic analysis.
That is a separate claim from stating without qualification there ARE aliens, but what do you expect of a nut that repeatedly confuses quantum cosmologists with evolutionists, and evolutionists with ontogenesists. Moreover, the probabilistic claim is still based on a PHYSICAL principle or sets of PHYSICAL laws, which we've already seen operative on Earth. Yet he has failed to show ANY supernatural agent can exist, far less a God!
In addition, the claim of "alien abductions" is a separate one from the claim that it is probable that advanced aliens can exist. But never mind, as we know from the way this jagoff works and operates, he likes to conflate absurdities with actual claims in order to create straw men he can more easily put down - since he lacks the ability to do so on the claims own merits.
But undaunted by his limited cranial density on display, he marches on- and this next bit of idiocy gives his shtick away:
"The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and earth and put man on it. But let me propose some reasons why I believe there is no life on other planets.The Bible says there is one Trinitarian God. Jesus was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8), second person of the Trinity, and died for our sins (Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24). If there were other beings on other planets that have sinned, then they would need a redeemer. God would have to die for them as well . "
So we see he's not basing his "case" for no aliens (if you can call it that!) on any research or physical and chemical evidence, but what some ancient book of babble and fables says. (Never mind the number of stars even known at the time was no more than 6,000 and none of those probable scribes knew even two of them, far less knew how to write catalytic chemical reaction).
But the falsehood on which his whole stupid and superstitious cases pivots is betrayed in the last line: that if aliens existed they'd need a "redeemer" too. No - they would not, because the whole "redeemer' jabberwocky is based on plagiarized pagan myths (from the legend of Mithra - see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/pastor-mikey-bungles-mithraism.html
Moreover, the formidable amassed evidence from modern textual analysis discloses the Jesus -God myth was just that, fabricated by Paul to attempt to build a gentile -saving church worldwide, despite the fact Jesus rebuked such a notion. (Geza Vermes, 'The Authentic Gospel of Jesus', p. 415). As Vermes observes, Jesus constructed a prophetic idea (based on the old Greek Septuagint) for which the Jews were to be the central characters, NOT Gentiles. This is supported by the work of religious scholar Elaine Pagels, in her Gnostic Gospels.
Jesus' (Yeshua's) ministry was rabbinic. Jesus related scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).Jesus called himself "Son of Man", but never ever "the Son of God" - those last words represented later additions that are totally unsupported by the stringent tests of textual analysis and exegesis.
Meanwhile, Yeshua would have been appalled to even remotely consider approaching Gentiles for "salvation". This is utter nonsense of the type that only a meat head dedicated to the corrupt KJV would embrace. Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the weasily Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews possessed every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).
So what this confused bozo is doing, is using a bastardized, baseless interpretation of Yeshua's purported "godhood" and by extension his supposed salvation of GENTILES to assert Aliens can't exist! Can anyone spell I-D-I-O-T here? I bet he can't.
Let's go on to more of his codswallop:
"Second, if there were life on other planets, would it be possible that they never sinned and don't need a redeemer ? Second, if there were life on other planets, would it be possible that they never sinned and don't need a redeemer ? "
Again, the premise is false, so the argument is based on a moot point. There is no need for a 'redeemer' for ANYONE (humans as well as aliens) since the whole redeemer-salvation kitsch nonsense was manufactured by Paul, it would never have been countenanced by Yeshua. All those citations, or claimed quotes that the bible bangers claim to support it were all later additions, as Vermes shows in the 2nd half of his excellent book. Paul, indeed, probably managed to get hold of the Mithra god-man legends while living in Rome and figured it would be an excellent match to confabulate a "redeemer-Savior". Hell, he wouldn't even have had to do any work - since the whole template was already there for the taking, including the miracles, the resurrection, the whole shebang.
Thus, our brain-jacked hapless fundie is barking up the wrong tree, using an "argument" from authority (a key logical fallacy) that ends up hoist on the petard of its own false authority.
Now, as if we haven't seen enough - more brainless, ignorant, foolishness - so much it boggles the mind how he got it all into one paragraph:
"Third, there are only two options available to explain our existence: creation and evolution. I have studied the theory of evolution and do not believe it is a viable option to explain how we got here. I do not accept evolution for two reasons: (1) the Bible says God created life on earth; that means it did NOT evolve, and (2) the problems of spontaneous life formation are so immense that it is impossible ! Also, missing links abound, the fossil record is spotty at best, DNA mutation theory is insufficient to account for life-form development, and more....but this post is not a refutation of evolution."
Okay, let's dissect this rubbish sentence by sentence. He said he has "studied the theory of evolution" but one must ask HOW? Did he take one course? If he has, and if inded he truly has STUDIED it - as opposed to imbibing the recycled BS from fellow Bible bangers, then he ought to be able to pass a simple test on evolution. After all, the logical way by which we discern whether a person has "studied" (or mastered) material or not is to test it! The following is a very basic evolution test, covering only the key principles and examples. There are 10 questions with 10 points each. IF he has studied evolution, then he ought to score at least a 70% - and that's being generous. If he punks out and doesn't attempt it, we may ascertain he's a loudmouthed, blustering, blabbering clown and hasn't studied a damned thing, certainly not evolution:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/test-on-evolution-for-fundie-critics.html
He can even put the answers up on his own blog, if he so desires, since he'd likely not be comfortable taking it here. But opting out is not an option - and my bet is he hasn't even read Darwin's Origin of Species. Note that the test even incorporates a knowledge of basic terms, such as "allele" which no true student of evolution would have problems with. (Though a fraud would!).
In ordinary terms, he'd be flunked before he even begins using stupid appeal to authority arguments like "(1) the Bible says God created life on earth; that means it did NOT evolve,"
Hey, Genius! Einstein Wannabe! We don't care what the damned bible says! You can't invoke that as any argument! Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and hence doesn't garner any points. You flunk out! In addition, puerile appeals to "spontaneous life formation" (not the province of evolution, but ontogenesis) or missing or spotty fossil records, doesn't cut it. We know tectonic plates shift the crust of the planet and hence disturb fossil layers. This is why it is more reliable to go by genetic sequences - such as the fact that the cytochrome -c sequence in chimps and humans exactly match. HOW explain that, maestro? Or will you go back and rely on your fairy story on Adam and Even again?
And finally, ta da:
"The Bible gives us NO reason to believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, the Bible gives us several key reasons why there cannot be. "
Right, an antiquated book with not one solitary ounce of real science anywhere in it, gives us NO reason to believe life exists elsewhere in the universe! No reason! No reason is right! The bible has no knowledge, no inquiry or reason. And yet you seek to elicit its dubious authority to insist - based on the musings of ancient, pre-scientific nomads, no life can exist beyond Earth.
And then we wonder why most Europeans regard the average American as no more serious in his debates or insights than a backward child. As we behold here, a "backward" European child with only an average IQ would run rings around this clown. While likely scoring a 95% in the evolution test, to boot.
I noted also we need to have sympathy for those who only have a high school G.E.D., but also that this sympathy doesn't extend to giving them carte blanche to spout any baloney they want.
Let's look at some of the most recent garbage to be emitted from this particular blog - which I do hope isn't representative of all fundies:
He writes, launching into his tendentious idiot harangue:
"In spite of all the evidence of God , they have the audacity to us Christians "delusional," "nut cases," "freaks," etc , for our belief in God . Yet , these poor misguided souls of Satan , can tell you , with a straight face , that there are "aliens" on other planets , that have abducted humans , that "lizard-like species" could have been "superior," and that our ancestors are APES ! "
Now, first note that this moron - though he has repeatedly written there is "evidence for God" - hasn't delivered one, single solitary piece that we can weigh, measure or examine. In other words it's all in this bozo's head. Next, he gets confused, saying we can "tell people there ARE aliens on other planets". As usual, the guy can't read, but what do you expect with someone at G.E.D. level? They never learned how! WHAT we said, is that it's PROBABLE that alien species can exist throughout the universe, given the same chemical and physical laws that apply on Earth also apply to other, distant orbs - borne out by spectroscopic analysis.
That is a separate claim from stating without qualification there ARE aliens, but what do you expect of a nut that repeatedly confuses quantum cosmologists with evolutionists, and evolutionists with ontogenesists. Moreover, the probabilistic claim is still based on a PHYSICAL principle or sets of PHYSICAL laws, which we've already seen operative on Earth. Yet he has failed to show ANY supernatural agent can exist, far less a God!
In addition, the claim of "alien abductions" is a separate one from the claim that it is probable that advanced aliens can exist. But never mind, as we know from the way this jagoff works and operates, he likes to conflate absurdities with actual claims in order to create straw men he can more easily put down - since he lacks the ability to do so on the claims own merits.
But undaunted by his limited cranial density on display, he marches on- and this next bit of idiocy gives his shtick away:
"The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and earth and put man on it. But let me propose some reasons why I believe there is no life on other planets.The Bible says there is one Trinitarian God. Jesus was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8), second person of the Trinity, and died for our sins (Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24). If there were other beings on other planets that have sinned, then they would need a redeemer. God would have to die for them as well . "
So we see he's not basing his "case" for no aliens (if you can call it that!) on any research or physical and chemical evidence, but what some ancient book of babble and fables says. (Never mind the number of stars even known at the time was no more than 6,000 and none of those probable scribes knew even two of them, far less knew how to write catalytic chemical reaction).
But the falsehood on which his whole stupid and superstitious cases pivots is betrayed in the last line: that if aliens existed they'd need a "redeemer" too. No - they would not, because the whole "redeemer' jabberwocky is based on plagiarized pagan myths (from the legend of Mithra - see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/pastor-mikey-bungles-mithraism.html
Moreover, the formidable amassed evidence from modern textual analysis discloses the Jesus -God myth was just that, fabricated by Paul to attempt to build a gentile -saving church worldwide, despite the fact Jesus rebuked such a notion. (Geza Vermes, 'The Authentic Gospel of Jesus', p. 415). As Vermes observes, Jesus constructed a prophetic idea (based on the old Greek Septuagint) for which the Jews were to be the central characters, NOT Gentiles. This is supported by the work of religious scholar Elaine Pagels, in her Gnostic Gospels.
Jesus' (Yeshua's) ministry was rabbinic. Jesus related scripture and God's laws to everyday life, teaching by personal example. He engaged in healing and acts of mercy. He told stories or parables--a rabbinic method of teaching. He went to the synagogue (Matthew 12:9), taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23, 13:54; Mark 1:39), expressed concern for Jairus, "one of the rulers of the synagogue" (Mark 5:36) and it "was his custom" to go to the synagogue (Luke 4:16).Jesus called himself "Son of Man", but never ever "the Son of God" - those last words represented later additions that are totally unsupported by the stringent tests of textual analysis and exegesis.
Meanwhile, Yeshua would have been appalled to even remotely consider approaching Gentiles for "salvation". This is utter nonsense of the type that only a meat head dedicated to the corrupt KJV would embrace. Jesus regarded the gentiles as "dogs." His gospel was intended for the Jewish people. Even the weasily Paul admits that the gospel was first intended for the Jews, and that the Jews possessed every advantage over the gentiles in this regard (Romans 1:16, 3:1-2).
So what this confused bozo is doing, is using a bastardized, baseless interpretation of Yeshua's purported "godhood" and by extension his supposed salvation of GENTILES to assert Aliens can't exist! Can anyone spell I-D-I-O-T here? I bet he can't.
Let's go on to more of his codswallop:
"Second, if there were life on other planets, would it be possible that they never sinned and don't need a redeemer ? Second, if there were life on other planets, would it be possible that they never sinned and don't need a redeemer ? "
Again, the premise is false, so the argument is based on a moot point. There is no need for a 'redeemer' for ANYONE (humans as well as aliens) since the whole redeemer-salvation kitsch nonsense was manufactured by Paul, it would never have been countenanced by Yeshua. All those citations, or claimed quotes that the bible bangers claim to support it were all later additions, as Vermes shows in the 2nd half of his excellent book. Paul, indeed, probably managed to get hold of the Mithra god-man legends while living in Rome and figured it would be an excellent match to confabulate a "redeemer-Savior". Hell, he wouldn't even have had to do any work - since the whole template was already there for the taking, including the miracles, the resurrection, the whole shebang.
Thus, our brain-jacked hapless fundie is barking up the wrong tree, using an "argument" from authority (a key logical fallacy) that ends up hoist on the petard of its own false authority.
Now, as if we haven't seen enough - more brainless, ignorant, foolishness - so much it boggles the mind how he got it all into one paragraph:
"Third, there are only two options available to explain our existence: creation and evolution. I have studied the theory of evolution and do not believe it is a viable option to explain how we got here. I do not accept evolution for two reasons: (1) the Bible says God created life on earth; that means it did NOT evolve, and (2) the problems of spontaneous life formation are so immense that it is impossible ! Also, missing links abound, the fossil record is spotty at best, DNA mutation theory is insufficient to account for life-form development, and more....but this post is not a refutation of evolution."
Okay, let's dissect this rubbish sentence by sentence. He said he has "studied the theory of evolution" but one must ask HOW? Did he take one course? If he has, and if inded he truly has STUDIED it - as opposed to imbibing the recycled BS from fellow Bible bangers, then he ought to be able to pass a simple test on evolution. After all, the logical way by which we discern whether a person has "studied" (or mastered) material or not is to test it! The following is a very basic evolution test, covering only the key principles and examples. There are 10 questions with 10 points each. IF he has studied evolution, then he ought to score at least a 70% - and that's being generous. If he punks out and doesn't attempt it, we may ascertain he's a loudmouthed, blustering, blabbering clown and hasn't studied a damned thing, certainly not evolution:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/test-on-evolution-for-fundie-critics.html
He can even put the answers up on his own blog, if he so desires, since he'd likely not be comfortable taking it here. But opting out is not an option - and my bet is he hasn't even read Darwin's Origin of Species. Note that the test even incorporates a knowledge of basic terms, such as "allele" which no true student of evolution would have problems with. (Though a fraud would!).
In ordinary terms, he'd be flunked before he even begins using stupid appeal to authority arguments like "(1) the Bible says God created life on earth; that means it did NOT evolve,"
Hey, Genius! Einstein Wannabe! We don't care what the damned bible says! You can't invoke that as any argument! Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and hence doesn't garner any points. You flunk out! In addition, puerile appeals to "spontaneous life formation" (not the province of evolution, but ontogenesis) or missing or spotty fossil records, doesn't cut it. We know tectonic plates shift the crust of the planet and hence disturb fossil layers. This is why it is more reliable to go by genetic sequences - such as the fact that the cytochrome -c sequence in chimps and humans exactly match. HOW explain that, maestro? Or will you go back and rely on your fairy story on Adam and Even again?
And finally, ta da:
"The Bible gives us NO reason to believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe. In fact, the Bible gives us several key reasons why there cannot be. "
Right, an antiquated book with not one solitary ounce of real science anywhere in it, gives us NO reason to believe life exists elsewhere in the universe! No reason! No reason is right! The bible has no knowledge, no inquiry or reason. And yet you seek to elicit its dubious authority to insist - based on the musings of ancient, pre-scientific nomads, no life can exist beyond Earth.
And then we wonder why most Europeans regard the average American as no more serious in his debates or insights than a backward child. As we behold here, a "backward" European child with only an average IQ would run rings around this clown. While likely scoring a 95% in the evolution test, to boot.
1 comment:
"But let me propose some reasons why I believe there is no life on other planets.The Bible says there is one Trinitarian God. Jesus was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8), second person of the Trinity, and died for our sins (Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24). If there were other beings on other planets that have sinned, then they would need a redeemer. God would have to die for them as well . "
I can't believe this guy is that stupid! In other words, he imagines that humanity is the BEST that his creator God could make! That a species so full of hang ups, not to mention a deformed brain as you've often elaborated, represents the *ultimate* of intelligence!
Then his God really is a loser! If humans - near apes that they are- is the best this god can do it isn't worth much.
The universe was around nearly 14 billion years BEFORE humans arrived in even a primitive form, so he's claiming that God just couldn't figure out what to create that was reasonanbly intelligent on other words before that?
How dumb and limited can one person's mind be? I do agree that anyone who thinks in these terms IS an idiot or moron. They totally lack perspective on reality.
However, I still leave open that some bible readers could be intelligent provided they allow open inquiry and knowledge, and that doesn't stop at the bible.
If it does stop at the bible, then yes, they are idiots like this fool whose deity is so lame it can only create one intelligent species in 14 billion years!
Post a Comment