Creationist Arguments

Creationist Arguments Refuted

Asimov

Creationism, while not as rampant as it was in the past, is still alive and kicking. First, to avoid any confusion, I will provide some definitions. Creationism is defined as “the belief that the universe and all life were created by the deliberate act of God as described in the Bible” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism). This is not the same as the more common Creation belief, that God created the Universe. Creationism has been around since the Middle Ages, when most people believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
It wasn’t until the Renaissance, when these ideas were challenged, as new information arose and challenged this interpretation. Darwin, who published his book “The Origin of Species” in 1859, further widened the gap between literal interpretations and science. This ongoing debate between secular and literal theistic groups, has virtually disappeared in all areas of the world, except North America, more specifically, the United States. Modern Christianity is in direct conflict with Fundamentalist Christianity ideas, holding the viewpoint that a literal interpretation does not correspond with reality. Fundamentalist Christianity supports the idea of Creationism.
Now that we have this out of the way, I’d like to point out some arguments that Creationists use, in order to further their ideas that the Bible is literally true in all ways.

Argument 1 – Fossilization

Fossils are perhaps one of the largest contributors of indirect observation and evidence that support Evolution. Creationists, however, would disagree. Creationists cleverly ask misinformed questions, such as “why are there no fossils being formed today on a large scale like they did many years ago”. Using the example that when a fish dies it doesn’t sink to the bottom of the ocean and become a fossil; it decays and is eaten by other fish or animals. In answering these questions, one must first ask what is meant by “many years ago”? Is it, 100 years ago? Or is it 1000 years ago? The answer is that “many years ago” is simply part of the rhetoric that is spouted by Creationists in order to try and win over the masses of scientifically uneducated people in this day and age. Fossilization does happen. If one has ever seen a landslide or a mudslide or yes, even a flood, one would see that plants and animals are buried under these slides, and will eventually become fossils.
However, these analogies put forth would only be used by Creationists to support their idea that all of these happened in a worldwide flood. Let me direct you to the Eocene Fossil Forests in Yellowstone National Park. In the National Park, we find in situ fossil forests in areas such as Specimen Ridge. In situ means that they were buried “as is”. They didn’t have time to decay, and die like most trees do. These trees were rooted in fine-grained tuffaceous sandstone and encased in conglomerated mudflows. You might think that this is a perfect example of a global flood. However, we find layers of these fossil forests one on top of another, each layer with roots intact, and rapidly buried in mudflows. For Specimen Ridge, there are estimates of nine to twelve layers of these fossil forests. Just think for one second. We have 9-12 forests of trees one on top of each other, separated by layers. Did the global flood wait for these forests to grow?
Fossil beds are another argument that Creationists say are a perfect example of a bunch of animals being killed and buried by a global flood. Let me direct you to the fossil bed found in the Burgess Shale of none other than British Columbia. This may hit close to home for some of you, I know it does for me. These are found in the Canadian Rocky's, and the shale has produced some amazing fossils. We find Anomalocaris, Opibinia, and Pikaia, all from the Cambrian era. Amazingly enough, we find no modern taxa, or vertebrates, or even any land-dwelling animals. Doesn’t it strike you as odd, that there is no mixing of fossils? How is it, that we find no dinosaur bones? Or human bones? Or a whalebone? How is it, that only marine fossils are found in this one area?
These types of fossil beds are found everywhere. The Morrison Formation in Colorado, the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, all of these have fossil beds and all have fossils that do not have any other fossil from any other time frame in the geologic column. If there were a global flood, all of these fossils would have been mixed together. Even the La Brea tar pits do not have dinosaurs in them. Strange, isn’t it? So yes it is true that fossil beds are found all over the world, but the fossil beds are not mixed up, like a global flood would have done. These are specified to the age that geology organizes them, and evolution predicts.

(http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm)
(http://christianforums.com/t43339)


Argument 2 – Sudden appearance of life forms

Creationists enjoy ad homing evolution every chance they get. What they don’t enjoy, is the truth. Their argument is that there are no fossils found in the lower 2/3 of the Earth’s crust. This is known as the pre-Cambrian era. Then, Creationists move on to say that all of a sudden, in huge numbers, fossils of “advanced” life forms appear. This is commonly known as the Cambrian Explosion. This explosion of life happened around 540 million years ago, however Creationists are wrong in claiming that this is the origin of advanced life forms. We’ve seen evidence of multicellular life, and diverse fossil forms from 590 Mya, to 555 Mya. Scientists have found worm-like burrows in India of animals over a billion years ago. Microorganism fossils have been found that were from 3465 Mya.
Transitional fossils, such as the lobopods were found. The lobopods are a transition between arthropods and worms. Plants aren’t found in the Cambrian explosion era. And flowering plants, which are a dominant species today, appear until only 140 Mya. What we do know, is that unless an organism has hard parts on it’s body, fossilization is unlikely, animals like jellyfish, with no shells, or bones to speak of, would not fossilize at all. There is evidence to suggest this, such as increased phosphate in the oceans at the time. Increased oxygen in the atmosphere of the Earth. Radiation, causing change. Natural selection at work, due to increase of predators, would have selected organisms with harder bodies to protect them from said predators.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html)
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/285/5430/1025)
(http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4457)
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213)
(http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html)

Argument 2a – Permanence of kinds – There is no evidence where any creature ‘turned’ into another in the fossil record.

Creationists like to posit the idea that there is no evidence of “creatures” turning into other “creatures”. They say that we have no evidence that kinds can change into other kinds, citing rubbish such as dogs giving birth to monkeys, or a pinecone evolving into a dog. This is the type of misinformation that Creationists use to try and discredit the Evolutionary Theory. If any Creationist, any at all, can define what a kind is, I’d like to know. If you can point out a kind to me then please let me know. What is interesting though, is that Creationists only mention the fossil record as proof that species have not diverged. They even cite Darwin “admitting” this, although I have yet to see them actually cite the book, and page number in full context. What is interesting, is that they refuse to acknowledge modern scientific discoveries that have basically proven what Creationists claim does not happen! Let me use, for example, the much-debated Humans ape ancestry. Humans are apes, and we share a common ancestry with other apes. Genetics pretty much proves this to be true. One way that molecular evidence shows common ancestry is retroviral insertions, also known as endogenous retroviruses. These ER’s are “molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection”. This means that a retrovirus such as the AIDS virus or the HTLV1 virus copies their DNA and inserts it into their host’s genome. If the host happens to be a germ line cell, as in a sperm or egg cell, the offspring, and thus the descendants of the original host will inherit the DNA of the retrovirus. This process is very rare, and quite random, so if we view these “identical chromosomal positions” of different species, the conclusion will be common ancestry. The picture below shows the different retroviral insertions that scientists have found, which shows our common ancestry to apes.






That being said, we have found these insertions in humans and chimps. Furthermore, we have many fossils that show transitions from:

1. primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
2. primitive fish to bony fish
3. fish to amphibians
4. amphibians to first reptiles
5. transitions among reptiles
6. transitions from reptiles to first mammals
7. transition from reptiles to birds

I’ve included some links for you to view the evidence of these fossil findings; it is up to you to reject them. It’s interesting how Creationists say there are no transitional fossils, then when they are shown them they say “that’s not a transitional!” So, I leave it up to you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

Argument 3: What about “macro-evolution”?

The pages given to me define macroevolution as vertical transformation, or the changing of one kind of organism into another. As the article does not even cite any source for this information, I conclude it is made up jibber-jabber! Talkorigins.org define macroevolution as the “transformation of one species into another”. Wikipedia defines macroevolution as “the evolution of species and higher taxa.” The dictionary (dictionary.com) defines macroevolution as “Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups”. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t see anything about kinds. They use the familiar argument that dogs do not become horses (understandably), Hawthorne plants do not become rosebushes (obviously) and parakeets do not become crows (indubitably). They claim, and amazingly enough use a scientific classification that certain species of animals have their own boundaries. Of course species have their own boundaries! That is the definition of a species! Species interbreeding to create new species is not evolution, nor is it macroevolution. A horse and a donkey creating a mule, is not evolution, a lion and a tiger creating a liger, is not evolution. Macroevolution is evolution at the species level, or above. That is populations evolving into different taxonomic groups. By breeding a horse and donkey, you are working backwards, as horses and donkeys diverged from a common ancestor. Let me reiterate for you; populations evolve not individuals.
Now, in order to fully clarify what macroevolution is, we need to know what microevolution is. Microevolution is evolution below the species level. That is, small changes over a small period of time. Macroevolution is thus basically (given the references) evolution at or above the species level or large changes over a large period of time. Where the confusion lies, is the belief that there is a barrier between microevolution and macroevolution. This barrier exists only in the minds of the uneducated laymen known as Creationists. Micro evolutionary changes account for macro evolutionary changes over a period of thousands if not millions of years. That is, if a population of species experiences small changes due to the environment, over time (thousands to millions of years), these changes will transform the species into a new species. The new species would be unable to breed with the old species. This happens in cases with geographical isolation. Two populations of the same species are separated by geography. The two populations are sexually isolated from each other. Over a period of time, the species will be unable to breed together. Thus they are two new species, and macroevolution has occurred.
Speciation has not only been observed in the fossil record as shown in my previous argument, but it has also been observed in the world today. In 1905, while studying genetics of the Oenothera lamarckiana, a scientist known as de Vries observed a variant in his evening primrose. This variant had a different chromosome count, and was unable to breed with the original O. lamarckiana. This variant was named O. gigas. This is but one of many speciation events that have been observed. Unfortunately, these events are hard to come by, as they generally happen over large periods of time, and we have only been studying this for 150 years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


In conclusion, Creationist arguments have virtually no weight to them. What they put forth is not science, and will not ever be science. My case is not against God, or even the Bible in this instance. It is against improper interpretations of the Bible, leading to the spread of misinformation and lies. Creationists have duped many Christians. In order to get their arguments across, Creationists lie, quote of context, and misrepresent what they are arguing against. I offer you facts, citation to these facts, quotes with reference in full context, and further reading, so that you may educate yourself in this manner. This is in the interest of education, and knowledge, not of salvation. To clarify, science itself never claims to be perfect. As our technology increases, our knowledge of the world increases. Ideas change, and what was once thought to be true, is now known to be false. This is the core of science, self-correction. All the time, scientists are trying to discredit and falsify others’ findings and even their own findings. This is the way of science. Creationism holds to a literal interpretation, and the belief that they are right. In no way do they think they are wrong, or that they have the capacity to be wrong. They believe that their views are superior over others views. Let me direct you to a quote from the very source that you hold so dear. Romans 1:21-25 “21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised.” I leave it up to you to conclude for yourself who is speaking truth and who is speaking lies. I know that truth comes from three things: logic, evidence, and reason. Is Creationism logical? Do Creationists have evidence? Are their arguments reasonable? Ask yourself these questions, but do not take what I say, or what they say, on faith alone. Look it up for yourself. I have provided a starting point of truth; it’s up to you to follow it

Bible and Gay Marriage

A big issue in North America today is gay marriages. There are many sides to this issue, one of which is the religious aspect against it. While very few religious groups claim to have no problem with homosexuals, or them getting married (such as John Shelby Spong), the majority have railed against the issue faster than you can say "Jesus". The problem with the religious (specifically Christianity) issue against homosexuality lies in two areas. The first area is that the verses in Scripture which support anti-homosexuality are either ambiguously translated, or contain bias due to the cultural and societal beliefs of the times. The second area is that religious beliefs should not be a factor in whether or not gay marriage should be allowed.

I'm sure that we can all agree that the Bible was written by men, who claim to be inspired by God. Whether that means God specifically wrote the bible through the men, or he was just the inspiration for it is moot in this instance, as we are not exploring God himself, but the words of the Bible themselves. The verses in the Bible which are frequently used are:

Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10
Deuteronomy 23:17-18

The verses in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, and Deuteronomy were poorly translated. Corinthians refers to catamites, or boys who engage in sexual relationships with older men. Timothy refers to sodomites, or those who rape other men for sexual pleasure (sexual immorality, male prositution). Deuteronomy also refers to male prostitutes.

Unfortunately, the most compelling verses against homosexuals are the leviticus verses:

"Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

"Leviticus 20
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

The Christians who are against gay marriages usually cite these verses as the reason why they are against the issue.

Unfortunately for the Christians, these verses (once one actually scratches beneath the surface) prove to show the bias and hatred against homosexuals that Christians have. The Christian people who are against gay marriages love to pick and choose which verses apply to them today, especially in regards to major issues such as abortion and homosexuals. This behaviour is only slightly hypocritical, in that if you view the other scriptures around those homosexual ones, you find that they contain Mosaic Laws that would not apply to today. For instance, Levirate marriage is a custom where, when a wife loses her husband, the husbands brother must impregnate and marry her. If the brother refuses, he is to be spat upon and fined one shoe. Jesus supported this custom in Mark 12:18-27. If you tell me that you don't support this custom, and yet are a "True Christian", yet you don't support homosexual marriage, even though Jesus did not specifically say anything about homosexuals, then you are most likely a hypocrite.

The second custom, which isn't denounced by Jesus, is in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. This law states that if a man finds a virgin girl and rapes her, and they are caught, the man must pay the father 50 sheckels and marry the girl. I have never once seen a Christian girl marry her rapist after the fact. If Christians don't hold to this law (and Jesus said that the Law was perfect, and he came to fulfill it, not do away with it), then they are once again hypocrites.

Unless of course, Christians realise that these laws were put down by a patriarchal society with different social mores than we do today. If this is the case, then Christians against homosexuals have no case biblically, and should live and let live.

Refutation of Marylin Adamson's

Refutation to Marilyn Adamson’sIs there a God?http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.htmlIf you look here, you will see the inane ramblings of a supposed ex-atheist woman named Marilyn Adamson. She posits 6 reasons why we should believe in God, not just a God, but the Christian God. So, I wrote an essay refuting her points.Marilyn Adamson’s article from EveryStudent.com on the argument for the existence of a God is interesting at best, and extremely misinformed at worst. Her arguments are as follows:1. Most cultures believing in God2. Irreducible complexity (Intelligent Design)3. Argument from probability4. Inherent sense of right and wrong5. God revealed in nature, and the bible6. Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.These arguments are the core of Adamson’s argument, and from that, she attempts to give credibility not to “a” God, but to her bias for the Christian God. While “a” god in any form can be defined as anything and therefore never can be proved or disproved, defining this God as the Christian God allows me to further refute her arguments.

Refutation of Argument 1:

Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God. Adamson uses this argument to show that because the majority of people believe in a God, and have believed in a God, it must lend credibility to there being the Christian God. First of all, each culture who had the early religions, such as the Sumerians, Chinese, Indian, and Native American peoples, all have very different religions. From these religions, as cultures diverge into differing cultures, stems other religions, and so on, much like the denominations of Christianity. These early cultures were extremely primitive in thinking, believing that lightening and earthquakes were caused by God. Crops failing and crops flourishing, natural disasters of all kinds were attributed to this God. Not one of these cultures had the same ideas as to what this God was like. Furthermore, polytheism was inherent in many cultures such as Sumerian myth, Greek myth, among others. These Gods took on roles of different aspects of human personality, and different aspects of nature. Using this as an argument for the existence of God, would be adding credibility to all of the religions, which would not bode well for Christianity, nor does it offer support to the existence of the Christian God.

Refutation of Argument 2: The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Adamson, in her infinite ignorance, attempts to show that the apparent design found on our planet offers compelling existence for a God. More specifically, the Christian God. She explains that the Earth is the right size and shape for life. That if it were any further from the sun, or with a different combination of gases, that life would be impossible. This is a rather humorous argument, as it equates to an analogy made by Douglas Adams about a puddle of water: “Oh look at this hole I’ve found, I fit so perfectly into it that it must have been made for me!”. If you don’t’ understand this, the water thinks that the hole it has found is perfectly designed for it, because the water fits right into the hole, not thinking that the water itself conforms to the conditions the hole has. The only life we have seen, has been life on Earth, that does not mean that life can only exist in the way we see it on Earth. If conditions were different on Earth, it’s possible that life would have come about differently.Next, she uses the argument that the human brain is too complicated to have “come about by chance”. This stems from the belief that a) Evolution is goal oriented and that Evolution operates on chance. Through observation and other aspects of the Scientific Method, we know that there are rudimentary brains from which ours have evolved from. The ability to reason and function can be seen in related species such as Chimpanzees, and Gorillas among the Great Ape family. Our brain is no more or less special than any other organisms abilities. The ability to communicate and reason is nothing new among animals.

Refutation of Argument 3: Mere “chance” is not an adequate explanation of creation.

Adamson uses this argument to show that natural processes can not explain the complexity of our universe. She gives us an analogy about looking at Mt. Rushmore, and seeing the faces, and knowing that they must have been created. This is much like the idea that if one is walking in a forest, and finds a watch, the person deduces that the watch must have been created, and could not have come about naturally. This idea is fallacious, as we know that watches do not come about naturally, and have never seen a watch come about naturally. We can observe mountains forming through plate tectonics. We can observe the trees forming, and dirt being made. We can observe these processes happening naturally, without a God being right there all the time, creating every tree, and every human. Adamson also points to Sir Frederick Hoyle, who “showed” how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. I’d like to point out that Hoyle was an astronomer, and not, a biologist. His credentials equate to an english teacher trying to disprove complex mathematics. Anyways, I will get into specifics about Hoyles argument. Hoyle tries to show that life is statistically improbable. He wrote about it in his book “Evolution From Space”. He says that the statistic of life coming about naturally is 10^40,000 (p.24). Specifically, he states that a 20 amino acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme. Hoyle leaves this out, but there is a minimum specificity of this one specific possibility. That is 10^20. Hoyle mentions it by saying "by itself, this small probability could be faced" Even though it doesn't account that any number of the first organisms could be a possibility in having enzymes come together. He then states that the problem is there are 2000 enzymes. And therefore the chance of obtaining them is (10^20)*2000=10^40,000There are three flaws in Hoyles conclusion:1)Natural Selection is random.2)That all 2000 enzymes had to be hit upon all at once.3)That life began with complex enzymes working together.In answer to these flaws, natural selection is not random, but selective. It does not operate on chance, but on selecting what works from what doesn’t. What works moves on what doesn’t, doesn’t. Organisms do not use all 2000 enzymes, different organisms use different enzymes to function. Biologists all agree that life before is not as complex as it is now, therefore even if organisms today used all 2000 enzymes, it is not logical to believe they did in the past. Furthermore, calculating statistical probability on past events is a rather dangerous thing to do, as you cannot possibly account for all the factors that are involved in calculating the probability, one could come up with any astronomical answer, that doesn’t make it true.I would also like to add that current studies in science have shown that amino acids can come together “randomly” to form protocells, the studies have been done, and repeated:http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htmhttp://www.siu.edu/~protocell/http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Refutation of Argument 4: Humankinds inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.

Adamson argues that humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong, and that these must have come from God. I would like to point out that children in their formative years, do not have an inherent sense of right and wrong. Where do they learn that stealing is bad? Where do they learn that calling names is bad, or that hitting is bad?? They learn these things from their parents. Before a child can properly function in society, it has to learn how to function in society. Humans are not born with the knowledge of how to function in society, or there would be no need for laws. The Bible itself has a bunch of rules and regulations (ie the 10 Commandments), if we are inherently born with this sense of right and wrong, then why is there the need for these laws, and commandments? I wonder….I would also like to add that different cultures have different ideas about what is right and what is wrong.

Refutation of Argument 5: God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.

Well, first I’d like to add that God has not revealed himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life. If he has, then everyone would all believe the same thing, which we don’t. Adamson uses an odd example showing that archaeological findings confirm the accuracy of the Bible. Such as confirming the existence of King David, the supposed author of many of the Psalms. The Dead Sea Scrolls, and other unnamed historical findings. Confirming the existence of King David offers nothing to the credibility of the Bible’s other stories, no more than the confirmation of finding the remains of the City of Troy confirms that Achilles really existed. It’s just another piece in the puzzle of history. As to the Dead Sea Scrolls, they do not offer credibility to the Bible arguments. These are not secular sources that confirm things in the Bible, rather they are actual books of the Bible, that show that scribes copying the books weren’t as meticulous as previously thought. Through the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have found stories changed, added to, and rearranged from our other manuscripts found and dated about about 800 AD. http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/...4/4jerem90.htmlFurthermore, Adamson tells us that the Bible was written over a 1500 year span, by (allegedly) 40 different authors, in different locations and on separate continents, in 3 different languages, covering diverse subject matters at different points in history. And yet she says there is consistency in this?? I’m surprised Adamson claims she has read the Bible, and there is consistency! We find contradictions in stories, numerical errors in dates, false information, translation errors. Not only that, but even the personality of God is conflicting in the Bible. He ranges from loving and forgiving, to hateful and death oriented, killing anyone and everyone.

Refutation of Argument 6: Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.

I would like to point out that claiming that your religion is unique because Jesus says this, or does this, is nothing new. Each religion has their own unique little quirks that no other religion has. This does not add credibility to your argument, nor does it discredit your argument. It’s a moot point.Adamson claims Jesus was divine because he did things that people can’t do. Performing miracles. I’d like to ask if she’s ever seen Jesus perform any miracles. If she can show us where Jesus is performing miracles right now that were discussed in the bible. And if these miracles can be repeated, tested, and verified to be true. If any claims of Jesus performing miracles can be shown to me, I will sell one of my kidneys on the black market. But wait a second…isn’t Jesus not on Earth? Well, if he isn’t, then I guess she can’t prove that Jesus did perform miracles. The Gospels were written by men, at the earliest 30 years after Jesus died, at the latest, 100 years after he died, by people who did not know him, and who, by many accounts, do not agree with each other on what he did, and how he did them. So, I would like to ask, why do you believe this book that claims Jesus did miracles. When there is no outside reference to Jesus doing miracles. There is more veracity that Bigfoot exists (which he does not), than there is that Jesus even existed, let alone performed miracles. Adamson also tries to pull at my heartstrings by portraying God as gentle, loving, and aware of our self-centerdness and shortcomings. She states that we are all sinners, worthy of punishment. God is not gentle. A God who willingly slaughters, and orders the slaughter, of men women and children, is not gentle, or loving. A God who destroys the entire Earth and everything on it, is not gentle, or loving. A God who claims to be wrathful! Who admits to creating evil!! (Isaiah 45:7) is not gentle and loving. How is this loving? As to humans deserving punishment, if God is all-knowing, and all-powerful (and created evil), and God is the creator of everything, then God knowingly created us to sin. We are destined to do his will, and to follow his grand Plan for the Universe. If this is true, then we are no more deserving of punishment than the chair I’m sitting on. This also negates free will and choice. If God is omniscient, and omnipotent, and he created everything, then we do not choose our path, he chose it for us. Anyways, Adamson also uses the tear-jerking story of Jesus’ crucifixion to compel her listeners to bow down and repent. I would like to acknowledge that if Jesus is God in the flesh, then God sacrificing himself (an all-powerful, all-knowing being), to a few hours of pain, isn’t exactly much of a sacrifice. Jesus may have died, but he was resurrected, and currently resides in Heaven. Where is the sacrifice? Did Jesus stay dead?? No.She also offers that Jesus’ resurrection is the most conclusive proof of Jesus’ divinity. Once again, I’m amazed that Adamson can claim to have read the Bible, and the Gospel accounts. On the points of Jesus Resurrection, all four books have something different to say. These accounts are so differing, as to render the veracity of the Resurrection to nothing more than a story. She melds the four accounts into one, without offering the different details, and states that over years of legal, historical, and logical analysis concludes that Jesus rose from the dead. Well…I’m going to let you analyze the four stories yourselves. But let me ask you some questions. Who arrived at the tomb? Who was there at the tomb at the time the people arrived? Who was told about the body being gone? What was Jesus’ lineage? How did Judas die? How was the field that Judas was buried in named?These are among the many strange contradictions in a supposed 100% infallible inerrant Word of God. Thank you for taking the time to read this refutation.

Son of Governments

Ok, so now that I've established my basis for my dislike of governments, I am going to add and extrapolate from that.

My previous assertion that fundamentalist religion is the destruction of freedom in societies is justified by what we see today. In democracies, it's the people who allegedly hold the power to how the governments run their society. They choose what is taught in schools, they choose whether or not homosexuals should marry, they choose the legalization of drugs/abortion. The politicians appeal to people not because they do what is right, but because they do what the people want. If they want to be elected, it's not because they are smart, or wise. It's because they say what people want to hear. It's a two way corruption of rule. Not only that, but the justice system is clearly FUBAR.

The reason why the justice system is FUBAR, is due to the people getting what they want! It's generally all about "the children".

Someone who rapes a woman doesn't get as much time as someone who sells or is caught with drugs???

By that line of incredible logic, raping women is not as bad as drugs! As long as you don't kill the woman, you can rape as many as you want, and still get away with it!

Not to mention, a system that is based on peers judging a person? People are generally not very intelligent, and are easily swayed by emotion, faith, and appealing to authority. Basically, if you sound smart, get em riled up, and talk about God, you've either prosecuted or defended the person properly.

It has nothing to do with objective truth.

Extrapolating from that, we can conclude (or not) a few things:

1)Democracy is based on what the people want.
2)Religion is seeping it's way into the government.
3)The majority is not always right (as Democracy seems to work).
4)People are too stupid to know what's good for them.

What is needed, is a mix of democracy, and dictatorship.

The problem with a dictatorship, is that whoever rules, rules absolutely. The problem with a democracy, is that the people rule, and the government is either too involved, or not involved enough, or too afraid to get involved.

My proposition for Government, has not been named yet, as I'm not familiar with latin. But it's a Benevolent Government.

Certain people contain certain qualities. These people are natural leaders, early on, they are known for doing what is for the good of the people. As they age though, they become corrupted by the political system.

This person is not elected, he is appointed by a group of twelve people. The twelve people are initially elected by the people, but after that, they obtain proteges with the same qualities, and are thereafter appointed.

The twelve people are - Economist, Ecologist, Human Relations, Trade Relations, Farming, and Judicial.

2 Economists, 2 Ecologists, 2 Trade Relations, 2 Judicial, 2 Farming, 2 Human Relations.

These 12 people function as one Cell, each two people function as sub-Cells. Their jobs, as a whole, are to provide a system that works together, both Economically, and Ecologically.

Economy - 2 people who excel at knowing what is good for the economy.
Ecology - 2 people who excel at knowing what should be done for the environment, to minimize the damage.
Human Relations - 2 people who focus on Health Care, and Education.
Trade Relations - 2 people who work with the builders and tradespersons.
Farming - Food, and Food resources.
Judicial - Laws, Law-making, Police, and other Emergency systems (Firemen, Ambulances...)

These 12 people must appoint a leader. This leader is chosen from an early age. He/She is taught about each of these 6 areas, taught about morals, and for doing selflessly what is good for the people. Essentially, he is indoctrinated in leadership skills.

Basically, the twelve people must unanimously choose this one person to be appointed. Basically the Cell makes the laws by unanimously agreeing on something. An issue is brought up, and if after 2 sessions of discussion, no agreement has been made, the Leader decides. He is the final authority.

It is possible however, for the Leader to become corrupt anyways. Therefore the Cell has the power to impeach him, if he is not acting on moral grounds.

These 12 people together come up with a system of governing on how people should be educated, what laws should come into effect, what should be built...the basic needs of society, coupled with what the environment needs to sustain us.

Our laws would be based on morals, what is good for society, what isn't good for society.

Basically, physical harm is morally wrong.

Physical and Emotional abuse of any kind is morally wrong.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want to do, as long as it does not physically harm someone, or emotionally abuse someone.

Aside from that, it is required of everyone to work, when they reach a certain age. Classrooms will function in the beginning as a regular public school. Then each child will be selected based on his/her skills and interests after 4 years of schooling.

The children will be set up in different schools, and taught in what they are skillfull at, with basic knowledge leaning towards their skills, and a supplementary courses on other necessary things.

In conclusion, I believe that this system is a good ideal one. In terms of health care and education, they are the two most important aspects of society. Focused education is important. A child will develop more quickly if his/her needs are met according to their skills.

Governments

I don't pretend to know much about politics. When someone brings it up in discussion, I generally tend to sit and listen, in order to absorb as much information as possible. I am an advocate of freedom and peace, and I believe the road to freedom and peace lie on other areas than democracy. It seems that humans nowadays are so stuck in traditional government that we have actually forgotten the point of it. To govern.

This may seem to be common sense to you, however to many people, it isn't. In order to uphold the idea of freedom in this country, we must uphold it absolutely. I would have to say that the number one enemy of freedom is not terrorism (they fight for freedom as well), nor is it dictatorships, communism, or un-patriotic persons. The enemy of freedom is religion. Religion is the single most destructive force when it comes to people being able to think what they want, do what they want, and live how they want. I'm not saying people shouldn't be religious. Nor am I saying that religions should exist in the sense that a group of people congregate together and worship. Faith is an important part of many lives, and it gives them purpose. This is not what I'm arguing against. It is the function of religion in our society that is destructive. When our government leaders use God as a justification to go to war, or when the church is influential to the government, or when people try to get laws passed that are religious in nature, is when the freedom ends, and theocracy begins.

Those who are fundamentaly religious, who hypocritically fight for freedom, yet try to limit freedoms in their own countries, are the destructive agents in the world. Those who attempt to ban such issues as homosexual marriages, and abortion, or euthanasia with no basis other than a religious book, that those who want such things do not accept!!

The case becomes worse when the disease that is religious fundamentalism spreads to our education. As we speak, certain states are bidding to have Intelligent Design (Creationism) being taught in our schools as an alternative theory to Evolution. Teaching our children something that isn't even science, in science classrooms! This is the future of America! Children being indoctrinated by biblical idiots whose only drive in life is to spread their infectious misinformation, outright lies, and theocratic visions.

Unfortuneatly, this idea is spreading to other states as well. Separation of Church and State is being demolished into nothing more than "Jesus says so and we believe it, therefore it's true". That is the basis of our lawmaking.

This isn't even restricted to Christian doctrine in the US. In Canada, we have Muslim extremists who want their own set of laws, including a court system, to deal with Muslims. They think it's an infringement of their religious belief, because they are not allowed to stone people to death for going against their holy book.

We already have laws for the Jewish culture, who deal with family matter (not legal matters), such as divorce, monetary issues, deaths, and births. We have laws set aside for the Native Americans, so they may deal with their own according to their traditional laws. Why is it that our government is so eager to appease to the religious, because they don't wish to infringe on their beliefs, yet so repulsed at allowing something as trivial as medicinal marijuana? Or even legalising it entirely?

Anyways, I've gone on a rant, and I'm finished. I will post my solution to governments and how they should regulate law in another post. Thanks for taking the time to read through this.

Hey Guys

Hey all, I'm just tryin this out, I'll be posting mainly about religion, politics, and science. I hope you enjoy my stuff!

:D