All I’ve Got To Say About a Monument

Am I the only one who reads the article from Fox news, sees an alternative that acknowledges just about everybody

“Silverman said way for the city to avoid a lawsuit is to create a free speech zone where plaques representing all religions could be posted.”

suggested by American Atheists and works with each of the reasons made for using just one beam

“I’m fighting to have this cross there because I believe that someone’s story is behind that. That story needs to be told. It has nothing to do with religious faith. It has something to do with telling history.””

along with

“…There’s so much behind that. If we do not show the cross, we are leaving out someone’s story. We are basically saying someone’s emotions that day didn’t matter.”

and then notices that the alternative doesn’t even get a second glance, even seemingly ignored in favor of a method that has less work which not all people who pass by it may see, made all the more absurd by noticing details that would suggest the alternative might be fairly easy to do, such as

“James explained that in the days after the terrorist attacks, symbols like the cross and the Star of David were routinely cut out of the beams and given to family members.”

So, somebody can point to a group of atheists organized to promote alternatives that are more inclusive yet consistent with the reasons provided for using the single beam in question, and willing to use the law to do what they can to see it happen. I’m sorry if I come across as an asshole, but somehow that doesn’t come across as something to be worried about, or even decent criticism, especially when compared to the way one quote could be restated.

There’s so much behind that. If we do not show the Star of David, we are leaving out someone’s story. We are basically saying someone’s emotions that day didn’t matter.”

There’s so much behind that. If we do not show the lotus, we are leaving out someone’s story. We are basically saying someone’s emotions that day didn’t matter.”

One could go on with other images that could be used.

But, perhaps the image that might be most appropriate, and perhaps most overlooked, is an image of the flag of the United States of America, especially if such images are to be in the middle of such beams, for if the beam were to represent a mast, and the flag were to represent a nation, it would represent a nation in constant mourning and remembrance of what happened. While it would ignore what other nations lost on that day, they could have their own flags flown at half mast near the symbol.

Ten Years Ago

Ten years ago, she saw what happened. For the last ten years, she knew what was happening. She did nothing. I’m not upset anymore. I’m actually happy. I’m happy that I won’t have to see somebody who was a passive spectator to cruelty. I’m happy that I won’t have to see somebody who contributed to an amount of anger where I have to fight the constant urge to hurt or kill others. And I’m certainly happy that I won’t have to fight the urge to let my anger out on somebody with no excuse for inaction.

I’m not upset anymore, because I feel fucking homicidal.

I’ll be brutally honest. This year, my mom died. Terminal cancer which she found out about in December. She died a few months later. Among those who were alive when that happened was my grandmother. My mom’s mom.

So, a few weeks ago, a few months after my mom’s funeral, we had my mom’s burial in a small town in Canada. My mom had grown up in the area, and had family there, most notably, my grandma. My sister and I had a private ceremony a few hours before everybody else. During the private ceremony, we buried the urn with my mom’s ashes. This upset a few people, once again, notably, my grandma.

After the funeral, we went down to the town hall, had a lunch, and so forth. When I wanted to leave there, I said told her I was leaving, to which she replied that she wanted to talk to me.

About ten hours later, around midnight, I recalled that she wanted to talk to me, so I walked from my uncle’s place to hers. I put up with her upset at what she regarded as problems with the burial related to what my sister and I had done, specifically that we

• disregarded her wishes, as well as those of my mom’s sisters and my mom herself
• buried her without any blessings having been performed (excluding those at the funeral, which my grandma had attended)
• having agreed to not bury my mom’s urn (due to having stated that doing so was agreeable, a point of disagreement based on the definition of the word and differences between how we use it)

While going over that for about two hours with my aunt (one of my mom’s sisters), one thing stood out. I joked about it at first, but I kept thinking about it. This is now two or three weeks after the events I’m describing occurred, so I’ll state that its to the best of my memory. She described something that occurred ten years ago. From the details she provided, it was winter. What she stated was to the effect that her and my grandpa were visiting for a bit, and I was having difficulty finding my mitts or gloves. My mom said to not be late. What she described my dad doing, is the reason for the first paragraph. She described him as shaking me roughly and saying something along the lines of

“don’t screw up you little bastard.”

Now, to her credit, she did say she was upset and wanted to hit my dad when she saw that.  But thats it. She saw something that was far too common, that everybody in that house experienced. And she did nothing. A passive spectator to cruelty. She knew what was going on for ten years. She saw what was going on. And she did nothing.

So with problems such as those described, not to mention outliving a daughter to cancer, a disease which my grandmother has seen a number of people die from, you can guess that there were a few issues between us.

Despite all of the problems between my grandma and my sister and I, we decided we’d see our grandma before we left town to say goodbye. When we did, she was still understandably upset, however, she said

I don’t care if I don’t ever see you two again.

She may be upset that she said that, and wished she hadn’t said that afterwards. However, such sentiments describe how I feel about her. It doesn’t bother me if I never see her again. I don’t have enough respect for somebody who had enough cowardice to be a passive spectator to cruelty, especially when that cruelty was also directed at her daughter, to want to see them again. Burying her ashes early may have been against my mom’s wishes (unrecorded as they are), but I doubt any of my mom’s wishes included somebody who did nothing in the face of harm to her being her mother.

 

I’ve got my own problems relating to her knowing about what happened. At the best of times, I can make myself appear calm, mimic the signs most people show when happy, if I’m not actually somewhat happy myself. At the worst, I try to keep myself away from others because I can’t control my anger. The rest of the time, I’m merely content to control the urge to harm or kill others to such a degree that I appear normal. I normally appear strong, as though what is going on isn’t getting to me. It does, just not as much as anger, so I can control that with comparable ease. That is the product of the strain I went through. I have no problem with being easy on the one who did it, as, for the most part, I don’t see him very often, and don’t have reason to suspect that he was entirely in control whenever it occurred (the possibility of some mental issues). But despite that, some good has come out of it (although not through the best means of doing so). The paranoia I’ve lived with as a result is controlled through skepticism, something which I’ve attempted to use quite a lot while writing, as I would hope is evident here.  So I can live with what my grandma permitted to happen to me. Despite the amount of anger I have to control, I can even ignore it to some extent. However, I cannot ignore what she ended up doing to my mom and sister as a result. And for that, I don’t think I’d want to see her again. If she should read this, I’ll be brutally honest, and perhaps a bit petty.

You’re eighty one years old. At best, you have another ten years. I do regret not having taken into consideration the desires of your daughters. But knowing what you permitted to happen to mom by means of inaction, I don’t regret failing to take into consideration your desires. To the contrary. I hope you live another ten years. And I hope my actions hurt you, as much as your inaction hurt your daughter.

To anybody else reading this, I’ve attempted to provide as much detail for the basis of actions and statements made by those mentioned so as to avoid attempting to make anybody look great or horrible, while attempting to present something from which to consider for what has happened. I acknowledge that I may be unaware of a few of the factors behind some of the actions done and statements made. However, to the best of my ability, this expresses what I think.  I have no problem with saying I may have be cruel with some of the statements made.

In Angulis Intelligence Sporecast – Two Questions

Aside from reading and writing on various subjects related to religion, skepticism, science, and so forth, I spend a lot of time writing sci-fi. One of the ones I’ve been working on lately has been a series called In Angulis Intelligence, a collection of short stories, novellas, and novels which tells four stories.

1. The collapse of the Progenitors, a technologically advanced species with unparalleled achievements, with an understanding of engineering that permitted them to build star ships that were large enough that the only sensible units of measurement would be Astronautical Units or Light Years, and an understanding of biology that permitted them to not only modify organisms through the splicing of genes, but create new species through the creation of novel genes without known parallel. Their technological development paved the way for a violent future, and their gradual collapse through the products of their work.
2. The rise of the Uplifters, an insectoid assistant to and creation of the Progenitors, who took over, continuing the work of their creators. While less sophisticated than their predecessors, they could only modify what was already there, but like their predecessors, their actions caused their own destruction, and the radical alteration of the galaxy.
3. The Contact War. In the year 2396 C.E., the Hil’le La, a species of anthropoid-like aliens ruled by a hierarchy referred to as the Echelon, discovered Earth. Between their support from other species and the superiority of spacecraft over aircraft, The Contact War was a brief event, lasting three years. During that time, efforts were made to ensure the survival of Homo sapiens in the face of the near elimination of life on Earth. This epoch ends with human beings beginning to spread out among the stars.
4. Horizon. Human beings have been nomads for nearly five centuries, operating from armored shuttles to get by through paramilitary efforts, transport of precious cargo, bartering, among other methods. The few who have had a planetside home for more than three years in total is limited to a very small percentage, with the highest estimates suggesting only as many as twenty thousand individuals, out of a conservative estimate of twenty billion members of the species Homo sapiens. This changes with the discovery of one Horizon class ship, a spacecraft with what little remains of the Progenitor’s technology, and connected to a network of Progenitor systems with later connections to Uplifter systems, such as the Archives. Not only did the discovery result in a surge in technology, but the means to obtain planets for colonization, to ensure strong alliances, and develop the means to organize defense measures against other species capable of travelling through space. This epoch ends with a siege on the Horizon class ship owned by Homo sapiens.

Now, this is what I’m wondering. I’ve been using Spore to create a lot of the other intelligent species such as the Hil’le La, the Venshaw, and the Nicton among a total of about twenty that I’ve considered for one point or another, as well as create a number of ships, alien creatures, buildings, and so forth, which I’d say has helped with exploring other details that I haven’t considered when working on In Angulis Intelligence’s timeline (still a work in progress), so I’m working on details for each, going back to see how the events in any given section may effect a later one, or require events in an earlier epoch, which takes a lot of effort, but leaves me inclined to create to look at a particular idea.

Now, I know that those who have subscribed to the In Angulis Intelligence sporecast (not a lot, but still more than I’ve seen before) and those who’re subscribed to my regular creations may have something that they enjoy. For instance, seeing the life from the hot house water world of Cicero IV, or the technology that makes comfortable life on many worlds possible, such as Democritus I’s RaSPNet. So, is there a particular detail of the IAI world that you’d like to see created?

Of course, it also would help if I was better with some of the creators, but if you have any tips, feel free to provide them. So, the second question. What commentary do you have for any general themes? Such as the Nicton castes that were done recently, or the Ulutau. Those who are good at making themed creations may be better at commenting on that subject.

And my apologies for seeming a little disorganized. Writing at 7 in the morning after having been up since 2 am yesterday isn’t helping. I’ll be headed to sleep once I’ve posted this.

For those who haven’t subscribed yet, the In Angulis Intelligence Sporecast

No More Meaning Than a Rock or Tree

Rereading an earlier post, I found a comment, that should be addressed thoroughly. It has been done so repeatedly by others, but, to be able to better at addressing it, I should do it myself.

The truth is that if someone really were to be an atheist, he could never complain about being judged.  Judgment, justice and injustice would have no more meaning to the atheist than to a rock or a tree.  When you think about it, if there is no God, there is no purpose in anything.

I really have to ask. How does one conclude that concepts such as justice and injustice have no more meaning to somebody than things which one doesn’t tend to put value on? The problem with the thinking presented is that it ignores how we tend to react as a species.

We are, regardless of how we came to be, a social species. Among social species, a few behaviors have been observed. Among them are

1. Positive
2. Negative

The first one consists of rewards for good behavior. This can range from treats, to favorable treatment, and other responses to behavior which benefits the group.

The second one consists of punishments for bad behavior. This can vary significantly, although, it isn’t good for those that go through it.

And, regardless of if a society holds a belief in a deity, these are still acknowledged. Why would that be? Is it because these ideas are of value because a deity exists, or are they of value because we are part of a society which has the goal of prospering?

Less than a millisecond per person, or eight per second. Take your pick

I just had one of those oddball thoughts run through my head. The general idea among Christians is that Jesus had sacrificed himself to provide people with a means through which they could be saved seems odd in a few different ways, but there was one way in particular that stood out, and for a particular reason. How long one would’ve been dead, or even on the cross, if the events described are even accurate. The reason this seemed odd to me is that growing up, there were a few who had said something along the lines of “he was thinking of you on the cross.” So how long was he on the cross and dead? For the purposes of this post, I’ll go with a week. Its more than the three days mentioned in the Gospels for his death before the resurrection, and still more if you decide to include the time spent on the cross.

(60 (seconds) * 60 (minutes) * 24 (hours) * 7 (days)) / 8,000,000,000 (rounded the number of people currently living on the planet

The total comes out to roughly 0.0000756 seconds per person living today. That is, of course, ignoring everybody who had lived before, and everybody who will ever live. But, why not go with his entire lifetime? He lived to be roughly 30 (most I’ve seen have said 33), but I’ll say 35 for the sake of easy measurements.

60*60*24*365*35+(8(highest number of leap years)*60*60*24)= 1,104,451,200

In other words, one billion, one hundred four million, four hundred fifty one thousand, two hundred seconds. Thinking of roughly eight people per second during his entire lifetime. And thats just for those who’re alive today, ignoring everybody else who has been, or ever will be.

Shoot, depending on when you think the “soul” enters the fetus, then we’d have an even more for him to think of in both instances.

Now, might those who wish to say that he was thinking of anybody or everybody while on the cross try to support their claim? Because, just looking at the numbers, it seems rather unlikely. This is, of course, ignoring how much time you loose for trying to think of individual people, when in pain.

Problem of Conspiracy Theory Shows Applied to Religion – Introduction

Is there anything less credible than shows that take the stance of buying into conspiracy theories, and say that so and so controls the media? Because either

1. the group does exists and controls the media, in which case one can say that they’re inaccurate enough that the group doesn’t care to take them off TV, or disrupt their Internet access so they can’t post online, as there is nothing being revealed about them
2. the group doesn’t exist or can’t control the media, in which case they get significant aspects wrong
3. one could propose a third set, that the group exists, they control the media, but it does so much more to discredit the claims by leaving them as is.

The difference in outcomes between the three simply can’t be distinguished, in which case, we can’t determine which one accurately explains the outcome of having a show taken off TV, preventing a particular episode from reappearing, or conspiracy theorists prevented from posting online. A similar set can be proposed in response to various criticisms regarding the involvement of a deity

1. a deity does exist and does have absolute control, it simply doesn’t care about the concerns of humanity to intervene
2. no deities exist or, if at least one exists, it doesn’t have control, meaning that significant aspects of religions are wrong
3. a deity does exist, and does have absolute control, it simply lets bad things happen to test our faith

While variations of #1 and #2 aren’t used very often by theists or apologists, they do provide just as much of an explanation as to why a deity would not be involved. So then, how do conspiracy theorists and theists conclude their respective versions of #3? Posts entitled PoCTSAtR will be looking at the explanations provided for coming to that conclusion.

Disappointed by Marvel

Quite frankly, I’m rather disappointed by Marvel. With the dvd of their most recent movie, The Avengers, I found an advertisement for “Colantotte’s Megatitan NEO Legend.” Now, if they promoted it as simply merchandise for the movie (which is one way it is advertised as), I wouldn’t have a problem with it. However, there are two comments, that I think is misleading, and they are as follows.

“Approved as a medical device by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare”

What makes it misleading, is that looking at the site of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, and searching for Colantotte, ANSPO (I’ll mention why that one is important later on), and “Megatitan NEO Legend” turned up no results. Now, to be fair, I looked up things that might show up, specifically, Morphine, Oxytocin, Paracetamol, and magnet. The first three were to find out if specific drugs would show up, and all of them did (particular variants of the third, Advil and Tylenol didn’t however). For the last one, a few results did come up for magnet. Among them, two were on the subject of foods produced by recombinant DNA techniques, two, while discussing the subject of magnets didn’t make any mention of Colantotte, or any related searches, and the final one was an MS EXCEL spreadsheet (which didn’t load). While the two that were most likely to make reference to it in regards to being an approved product were in Japanese, one did provide websites in English which could be searched. Once again, no results. So I looked at the website (http://www.colantotte.eu/tf/AboutUs), and found this at the bottom of the page

“Approved Class 1 Medical Device”

Hey, finally getting somewhere. This lead to looking on the MHLW’s website for that class of medical devices.http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/wp-hw5/dl/23010231e.pdfWhere it gets funny. Class one devices, Under Regulatory Requirements, quote (http://www.std.pmda.go.jp/scripts/stdDB/pubeng/stdDB_pubeng_regulation.cgi) “Approval of the product is not required, but marketing notification is necessary.”
So, basically, if it does absolutely nothing, with no adverse reactions in the case that it malfunctions or serious side effects, it can be approved as a medical device, “and is allowed to launch a medical device onto the Japanese market by submitting the marketing notification for the medical device to PMDA.”

So, the question is, does it actually do anything? Well, here’s where they shoot themselves in the foot, and its the second comment.

“Colantotte products use axially magnetized magnets in a unique Alternating North-South Polarity Orientation (ANSPO) to maximize the magnetic field flow.”

No details for what it actually does medically? You know, the type of thing you’d want to know if it was “approved as a medical device by the Japanese MHLW”? So, more looking. It lead me to this part of their site (http://www.colantotte.eu/tc/MagneticTherapy). What I found

“…deemed a ‘no health risk’ by the World Health Organisation.”

So, why is Magnetic Therapy deemed a ‘no health risk’ by the WHO? A search on the WHO website for Magnetic Therapy produced seven results (http://search.who.int/search?q=%22Magnetic+therapy%22&ie=utf8&site=default_collection&client=_en&proxystylesheet=_en&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=utf8). Unfortunately, among them, I couldn’t find anything on statements regarding the health risk, or the basis for it. After some more looking, from what I can gather, the likely basis is that there is no effect when it comes to health, either positive or negative, for Magnetic Therapy.

So, why am I disappointed by Marvel? I’ll summarize it. For permitting Colantotte to advertise the product as though it has any sort of medical effect, as indicated by “Approved as a medical device” with no qualifiers. I certainly hope nobody will consider buying it for medical use without bothering to look into claims like that.

Quantum Jumping is rather ingeneous

At scamming people. I mean it. Really. Consider half the stuff they do. Typing the words “Quantum Jumping Scam” comes up with a few results, one being a .org site, the other being a .com site. I kid you not. But thats not the brilliant thing. No, not in the least. The brilliant thing is that the .org site is run by a person who claims to have been skeptical of it, tried it, and it worked. The other one is very obvious in its fallacious reasoning.

Taking them one at a time. No, wait, ignore the .com site. Read it for the laughs though. The .org site makes the following statement

“People are shocked by the concept of parallel universes and so it’s in their natural instinct to feel like they’re being tricked in some way.”

No, I’ll be honest. The concept of parallel universes isn’t that shocking. What makes people think that they’re being tricked is the idea that they can access a parallel dimension only using their brains. What makes people think that they’re being tricked is the claim that

“some of the finest minds on the planet are starting to discover powerful evidence supporting my claims. Creative and scientific geniuses like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku and Neil Turok, all of whom are responsible for unbelievable breakthroughs in the field of quantum physics.”

when they’ve never said anything that would support the validity of Quantum Jumping, combined with a lack of references to anything to support the claim. While they’ve commented on quantum physics (I can’t say to what extent, such as if they were talking about it from the position of an informed professional from another field), I’d like to see the people responsible for the quotes or data from any of them that supports the basic idea behind Quantum Jumping, that there are parallel universes which have alternate versions of you (bad luck to you if all of the alternate yous were suicidal), that you can interact with to obtain knowledge and skills. Of course, I’m pretty certain that even the guy running it thought that too, because he’s gone towards more of a

Quantum Jumping is an advanced visualization technique where you visualize yourself jumping into alternate universes, and communicating with alternate versions of yourself. It’s the result of over 31 years of study in fields like hypnosis, yoga, meditation and remote viewing, to name a few.

Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised. On a related note, I’m not surprised that he’d consider them to be fields of study. What the brain and body do while one thinks they’re engaging in it might be, but how to do them isn’t one that I’m aware of. Honestly, I’d be interested to find out that there is a reputable and qualified scientist engaging in a serious pursuit to study what people call remote viewing. Because of course, if this is the case, there wouldn’t be a need for to “visualize yourself jumping into alternate universes, and communicating with alternate versions of yourself,” since you could really do it (assuming of course that one can view things in parallel universes).

And of course, if it really was just a visualization technique, any realist wouldn’t feel the need to mislead people by appealing to the authority people give scientists, instead, presenting the evidence for the claims. Not anecdotal evidence, but the stuff submitted to journals and evaluated by those working in the field by means of testing.

After having gone over the Quantum Jumping sites, I have a few questions for Burt Goldman or anybody involved. These are a little old as I sent them a message asking these questions last year, and have yet to receive a response.

1.) In the section “A Message from Burt Goldman,” it states that

•  Goldman had “spent over five decades of my life traveling the world and studying spiritual pursuits like meditation, visualization and Qigong under the guidance of the world’s greatest spiritual masters.”

While closer to the bottom, in the section “This revelation may be a little hard to swallow…” it states that

• Goldman has been keeping it [Quantum Jumping] a secret for “over three decades.”

What I would like to know is

a) If Goldman had been spending his time with “spiritual masters,” where would he have found out about something such as Quantum Jumping?

b) What are Burt Goldman’s qualifications in the fields of Physics or Quantum Physics, which peer reviewed papers has he published, which accredited university did he attend to earn a degree in those fields, and in the case that there isn’t an adequate answer to either question, among those who are working on the development of the program, who does have qualifications in the fields of Physics/Quantum Physics, the peer reviewed papers that have been published by them, and the university they attended. For the universities, please include their level of education, if it was their major or minor, and what their other degrees were.

2.) It states in the section entitled “This revelation may be a little hard to swallow…” that it was kept secret “until now—when experiments conducted by some of the world’s most prestigious and reputable universities are starting to support the idea of human thought transference.” What I would like to know is

a) Which papers describing the experiments conducted have been peer reviewed conclusively enough to be able to support your claims are you referring to when you state that “experiments conducted by some of the world’s most prestigious and reputable universities are starting to support the idea of human thought transference,” and on what scale is human thought transference occurring in the experiments? Local (within ten miles), Regional (within one hundred miles), Variable, or between the Multiverses?

b) In what way do you think that the experiments support your product? Please reference your sources.

3.) Michio Kaku is mentioned on the page, and has stated how a way to travel between universes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWHC081B_Do&feature=related). One detail in particular is a vast amount of energy required to achieve this. Now, the Quantum Jumping you are stating does not involve moving between Universes, but merely accessing a specific portion of them. In what way is the energy required to access an alternate universe achieved?

As a note, it states “To change your current reality, all you need to do is change the frequency of your thoughts.” To me, stating this would be an inadequate response as

a) frequency of thoughts, as something capable of changing reality, is something I’ve never seen in a psychology text book, or in any bit of psychological or physics research. If you can point to a peer reviewed paper that does suggest this, could you please state which one?

b) It may be that “To change your perception of reality,” was intended, and if this is the case, I can overlook it, as there are many documented cases of where either willful or chemical means of changing somebody’s mind changes their perception of reality and making them more positive, making them better more creative, and similar things.

4.) In the “The 6-Part FREE Quantum Jumping Introductory Course,” I had noticed something peculiar. “Part 5: Burt’s Live Quantum Healing Technique,” it says “Now that you’ve learned how to jump, it’s time you saw what else Quantum Jumping can be used for. Watch Burt as he performs a live Quantum Healing technique on one of his students.”

Quantum Healing is something that has been promoted by others who advertise themselves as being very spiritual (Burt Goldman states that he has spent the last five decades under the guidance of “the world’s greatest spiritual masters,” so I would regard him as advertising himself as being very spiritual), such as Deepak Chopra, or very religious such as in churches that heal people by “laying hands/slaying in the spirit/etc” In what way does the Quantum Healing promoted by this site differ from the Quantum Healing promoted by Deepak Chopra or the “laying hands” performed in churches?

Note, it has since been updated to Quantum Wellness. To see it in the original “Quantum Healing” version, click here.

5.) In the two testimonials, its states “Please note that these results are not typical.” If this is the case, what are the average results, and of those who see no results, what reasons are attributed to the failure of Quantum Jumping in those cases? What percentage of cases are like the testimonials provided?

6.) It says that Burt Goldman has his work in multiple galleries around the world. Can a list be provided of the galleries which display or have displayed his work?

I look forward to getting a response to each of these questions and concerns.

Recommended reading

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry – Quantum Quackery

Skepacabra – Have trouble laughing your ass off? Try Quantum Jumping

Source of material referred to

Quantum Jumping Index

Special thanks goes to Jerry Coyne for recommending a physicist to contact in regards to quantum jumping, and the physicist recommended, Sean Carroll, who’s quote I’ll end the post with.

I don’t have time to offer anything substantial. I can say without looking to hard, however, that multiple universes might be real, but the idea that they can help you in your everyday life is utter crap.

If religion were to vanish, what would fail to improve?

Its not uncommon for some to ask if religion were to vanish, what would change? Of course, most tend to focus on the means through which it vanishes, as that would have some impact (a discussion to take place at a later date), but I’ll focus mainly on what would happen if religion were to vanish as determined by the impact of religion which ultimately depends on religious ideas or practices. To make it unambiguous, that means that there will be that there is no other justification for the actions or ideas than those provided by religion. After all, if religion were to disappear, the things which are dependent upon it would likely go too.

Under Christian rule, homosexuals have been denied the right to express their love in much the same way as heterosexuals do by entering into legal agreements that would give them the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. In some instances, influenced by fundamentalist ideologies, there are those such as Pastor Martin Sempa of Uganda who have not simply been content to deny those rights, but to actively support laws which would result in death. Under Islamic rule, the same has been the case, often taken to the extreme of murder even in modern times, along with pressure not to practice any other religion, as Coptics (a denomination of christianity, perhaps older than Catholicism) experience in Egypt. Under both religions, free speech has been suppressed until such time as the religions ceased to be influential in government.

Regarding rights, be they influenced by religion or not, the ultimate question being asked is “what rights are we willing to deny others?” Of course, any person hearing that question without bias would say that there are no rights that we would be willing to grant to ourselves that we should be willing to deny others, either by active intention or by negligent complacency. But if the rights that devoutly religious people have been willing to deny others is any indication, that sense of equality does not apply among everybody else in the society. Take for instance the numerous right wing priests who’ve made declarations regarding religious minorities (a large number of which can be seen on the youtube channels RightWingWatch and OnKneesforJesus, along with the site RightWingWatch.org) in North America. Or one can also include the Imams and other religious authorities within Islam who are more than willing to condemn people to death, for the act of no longer believing, the “crime” called apostasy. In what other way could these be justified? Without religious dictates of what rights other people should have, in what way could the actions be justified?

While tying into rights, the ability to find better reasons for any of the rights or actions than what religions have provided or practice would be an example of what would improve. As an example, donating to help people. All to often within religion, donating tends to be done with the hope of a reward to be obtained during the afterlife, otherwise obtained through guilt and peer pressure. So which is a better reason? Personal greed for something for which there is no reason to think exists, fear of being rejected from the group, or compassion, empathy, and the desire to see improvement in the lives of others? While there are those who are religious who donate to help others without expecting any type of reward, they would do so without religious influence, as religions don’t produce good people, good people join religions.

The Abrahamic religions have imposed guilt for engaging in behaviors that are perfectly healthy (such as masturbation), instilled a sense of terror for thinking any thoughts which are considered blasphemous, both by means of childhood indoctrination with emotional manipulation, and do not need to be experienced. By establishing thought crimes and fear of eternal punishment for finite acts, religious parents and the various authority figures have caused undue fear, guilt, and regret for things that children and those who join do not need to fear. Perhaps most damning of religion is the abuse of a psychological process known as regression, combined with the use of emotional manipulation to convert people and keep them in the religion. In what way is the emotional health of those who endure it considered? Is it even considered?

In regards to the desire to help people, which ultimately lies at the heart of religious attempts to convert people who are going through regression, it can be done through means which do not leave people dependent. Through the application of therapy by those qualified to do so, one can begin to adjust to their situation, take control, empower themselves, and be prepared for similar situations in the future. While not entirely perfect, the therapies are gradually improved upon by those with the same desire to help people in need, but also possessing the desire to see it happen in such a manner that those going through it are as healthy as possible at the end of the process, with the practice of careful consideration for the ethics behind the methods.
When it comes to medicine and the health of people, religion has a long tradition of claiming to know what is best for health. Starting with the likes of Martin Luther, who claimed that doctors were fools for not thinking of diseases as though they were the product of demonic possession.

Then you get the likes of Ellen G. White during the late 1800s who made claims of divine inspiration when it came to health, yet made claims that had already been deduced by medical science shortly before, or were blatantly false. Worth noting is that she had discouraged the Seventh Day Adventists from going to hospitals. Rather interestingly, they ignore that by going to the extent of running their own hospitals. Unfortunately, I’m unable to comment on the quality of their medical care, if they still follow most of her claims, etc.

Even in the last few decades, the practitioners of Christian science and faith healing who believe that all diseases can be cured through prayer. This is problematic in cases where, by relying exclusively on prayer, children end up dying as a direct result of negligence and ignorance, as they don’t have the right to act on behalf of their own medical interest. Within the last few years, one of the better known examples would be Madeline Newman.

But how about we ease off of Christianity when it comes to health. In the case of of Shoura, a Shiite ceremony primarily carried out by radicals in modern times, those involved create wounds with the intention of bleeding. Where this creates problems for those engaging in the practice is that they have been attacked. When paramedics show up on the scene, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine who was attacked and who wasn’t due to the amount of blood at the scene. Between the unnecessary exposure to the risk of infection, the possibility of attack, and the problems that follow from an attack, it puts the health of those involved at risk.

Of course, the one thing that allows you to read this now, is the knowledge developed through years of meticulous investigation. With the numerous claims of religious people who practice what can only be described as an idolatry of “sacred” texts are guilty of the next, the knowledge produced through that means is frequently misrepresented. The active denial and rewriting of reality to conform with their beliefs. Take for instance the frequent quote mining by creationists and apologists. As an example, William Lain Craig in the debate with Christopher Hitchens quoted a book by John Barrow and Frank Tipler (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 1986) citing it as contemporary cosmology. The problem is, the author (John D. Barrow) has pointed out that the opinion quoted is no longer contemporary.

As another example of quote mining, creationists have no limit to quote mines. It is such that it seems as though the only means of supporting their position is to do so. Take for instance the following quotes

“Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed“

– Eric Lombard

“We conclude–unexpectedly–that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.”

–  Jerry Coyne

In the first example, the quote was taken from Lombard, R. E. 1979. Evolutionary Principles of the Mammalian Middle Ear by Gerald Fleischer. Evolution 33: 1230, in which the details left out by those who’d engage in quote mining leave out that he had expressed disappointment that Gerald Fleischer had not tried to use the data available on the mammalian middle ear in a means that might improve the understanding of the evolutionary relationships among mammals.

In the second example, Jerry Coyne addresses it himself in the link provided.

It is so widespread that anybody wanting to find quote mines of biologists has no trouble running across anything, and finding anything which addresses the quote mines is rather limited.

If we were to actively deny and rewrite reality to conform with our beliefs in any other field, we would be considered willfully ignorant. So in what way does doing such a thing improve our understanding of reality? In practice, it leaves those who’re exposed to it ill informed as they frequently don’t investigate the source, and more frequently, the context.  I doubt any would be inclined to say that misinforming people, hence limiting their knowledge, is ever acceptable

No matter which approach for evaluation you wish to use, if religion were to vanish overnight, or to cease to exist as a product of our continued progress, the disappearance of religion would infinitely improve everything. Be it the rights that have been long denied to people, the reasons we have for moral actions, the psychological, emotional, and physical health of people, and the denial of knowledge going all the way to misinforming others, I will ask. If religion were to vanish, what would fail to improve?

Now of course, some at this point might be saying something along the lines of “That might not be the case” while more perceptive readers might be saying “You stated earlier that they would likely go away.” Now of course, this could indeed be the case. What it depends on is if these elements of religion are indeed products of religion. Regardless of the case, outside of religion, there are no good reasons for any of the things mentioned. So as societies consider their actions more, the basis to those actions, and their impact, even if religions are not directly responsible for any of the things mentioned, it would be the case that societies would be less likely to endorse or condone these types of things.

References

Regression

Stress and Regression

Oh, those Preachers in my Town…

This might be part of an ongoing series of posts, depending on how well I can avoid shouting out “You’re damned wrong!” whenever they open their mouth.

So, luckily, one of them is a blogger (no opportunity to make things hard on myself without necessity), and I’ve decided to go over his recent book, The Beausejour Pulpit. After a discussion in the local bookstore (a christian one by the way. I’d like it if there were something devoted to philosophy, science, critical thinking, or even a general bookstore in town, but it doesn’t look like either of those are going to be on the horizon any time soon), and a few e-mails, I had asked him if he had changed his opinions about anything from the origins chapters in his book (chapters seven, eight, and nine)(which, due to the quality of the response, I’m considering doing a bit of a review, posting inaccurate statements from those chapters, and addressing them). The link he had sent me lead me to his wordpress post entitled “A Response to the Critics.”

I’ll be blunt. Some of it was, to put lightly, worse than what some of his other critics have said. I’m not going to bother wasting time stating how I view it (as that would take several paragraphs that would end up making the Sophisticates joke look, rather, polite), instead, putting more emphasis on what I view negatively and where opinions differ. I will point out, that anybody who can honestly state that

“My knowledge of the sciences is primarily limited to the courses I took in high school – biology, chemistry and physics (because at that time I was planning on pursuing a career in marine biology)”

shouldn’t have that much of an excuse to get so much of the subject of evolution so wrong as they should have a basic understanding of biology, and specifically, evolution. Now granted, maybe he didn’t have the type of biology teacher who said “The stuff on the curriculum is stuff that you’ve already learned in health repeatedly, so I’m going to teach you something that you can use” and then taught the class about biochemistry and genetics, even at an introductory level, the types of things that are very useful when studying the subject of evolution, so I’ll give him a pass.

I will state that I’m unable to find the source of the criticism, and I’ll give him a pass on that. If he is unintentionally or intentionally misrepresenting and quote mining the statements made by the critic, I’ll leave the unnamed critic to go point that out. Because I’m fully aware of the ability of authors to alter posts on wordpress, I’ll be using the program snapashot to post photos of the comments in question whenever possible instead of quoting.

In regards to “but to say that I am lying or willfully misrepresenting things is both unfair and exhausting,” I will point out the following

“It is a shame that people use their positions of power to pass on their ignorance,… to people who will take their word at face value.”

Undue emphasis was put on the words that indicated intent, while the critic in question had stated that it was indeed a possibility for the author to simply be mistaken or ignorant about the subject in question (which would be unintentional), and passing on their poorly founded basis. And that is not, even by the most generous interpretation, saying that there is an attempt to lie or willfully misrepresent.

But I will state that should the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, the evidence for either theory be fully explained, and understood by the author, with continued erroneous statements that run contrary to those details, when the author knows better, then I wouldn’t merely be saying that Chris Jordan is lying, I’ll be demonstrating that he IS lying, without leaving the option of merely being mistaken or ignorant on the subject.

“I personally have failed to see any such evidences that support these claims. I do not believe that there is any evidence for macro-evolution. Micro-evolution within a species, yes, de-evolution, yes, but the idea that new information can be added to the genetic code and that one kind of animal can become another kind, I disagree with. A cat will never give birth to a dog. It’s a physical impossibility. To say that we are near cousins to the slug of the banana is reprehensible!”

Give me a second to calm down and quit slamming my head against a brick wall.

Okay, better. On the point of

“I personally have failed to see any such evidences that support these claims. I do not believe there is any evidence for macro-evolution.”

Then I’ll ask. What would be considered evidence for “macro-evolution”? To use a less common example, I’ll use cetaceans, a group that includes modern day whales. The evidence indicating their evolution from small terrestrial tetrapods consists of a number of things from multiple aspects. Due to the length of this post, and the quality of the effort put into the research, I’ll provide a link to one of the best researched blogs on the subject etb-whales.blogspot.ca.

Now of course, somebody could say “But those things are signs of a common designer, not a common ancestry.” Well then, I’d like you to think that over a bit. In what way you say that signs of common ancestry differ from common designer? Would the same means of preventing hiccups in some vertebrates (ex: mammals, birds, reptiles) causing other vertebrates (ex: amphibians) to suffocate be common design, or ancestry?

On the point of

“Micro-evolution within a species, yes”

Then, perhaps we should look at a few speciation events (meaning a new species has developed) that have occurred and have been documented in the last one hundred years. Now of course, the typical defense is to say that it is still a lizard, or still a fly, or still a bacteria, and, when the problems with that defense are sorted out, to resort to the fact that there is some ambiguity as to what a species is. To tackle the first defense, well, first, I will point out that the taxon in which the groups listed above (lizard, fly, often fruit fly as that is the common example, and bacteria) are well above the species level. In addition, given the fact that creationists have provided their definition as  variation within a species, a new species would not be micro-evolution, and attempting to say that is all evolution is limited to micro-evolution as creationists have defined it is, to put lightly, no, wait, I said I’d try to avoid that. Fine. Pretty dishonest.

For those wanting to become familiar with observed speciation events, the talkorigins pages would be good starting points (Observed instances of speciation, and More instances of speciation), as they go over what constitutes a species from a few different perspectives, and cite documented examples.

On the point of

“de-evolution, yes”

and here is where one really demonstrates a poor understanding of evolution, which is saying something given the competition for the award of demonstrating a poor understanding of evolution. I had explained it to him once, and I’ll explain it again. Evolution, when it comes to science, meaning that I will not using the layman definition of change over time which is applicable to so many instances, is defined as the variation of allele frequencies (for any other definitions, I’d recommend part one of an ongoing series, with the part in question focusing on the definitions for the rest of the series). So, with that in mind, how does “de-evolution” differ from evolution?

On the point of

the idea that new information can be added to the genetic code and that one kind of animal can become another kind, I disagree with.

quite frankly, doesn’t impress me. As has been said so many times, define information. Even in the post by AIG (Answers In Genesis, a group that is referred to and recommended in the blog I’m responding to) entitled Feedback: That Depends on What Your Definition of ‘Information’ is, fails to provide a definition of “information” as it relates to biology as creationists insist it does. Having gone through their index page on the subject of “information theory,” asked creationists what they mean by information, and yet to find a definition which isn’t either inapplicable to biology at best or completely useless at worst, vaguely defined, in any situation, no means of measuring the information such that we can tell the difference in the amount of information it takes to produce an ancestral species and a species descended from that, leaving no means by which we can measure or test, and no reason to accept the claim.

Although, that is the creationist idea of information. I’ve heard of one or two different definitions as it relates to biology (skip to 18:30), but of course, I’ll leave it to the creationists to figure out what they are.

On the point of

“A cat will never give birth to a dog. It’s a physical impossibility.”

I just have to shout, YOU FINALLY GOT SOMETHING RIGHT ON THE FIRST SHOT! WAY TO GO! Undue sarcasm aside, as I’ve said before in other places, find an evolutionist who’d say that something like this would even be permitted. That within a single generation, a member of a species would undergo enough mutations in order to become infertile with other members of its species (such as Felis catus, or as some prefer, Felis silvesterus catus) and simultaneously become able to produce fertile offspring with members of another extant species (such as Canis lupus familiarus), while also demonstrating all of the traits indicative of the later species, especially when they diverged roughly 50 mya. Because that is precisely what is being asked for here if it would be considered evidence of evolution.

There are two issues that I have with this response.

The first, is the entire design argument.  From the perspective of psychology, we’re great at implying intent, and hence, design. To use an example of such from earlier

Quote 1, taken February 24, 2012 @ 7:13 pm CST

You’ll find at least two parts that demonstrate people inferring intent.

1. It is a shame that people use their positions of power to pass on their ignorance, or their lies, to people who will take their word at face value.
2. It is wholly unfair to make assumptions about another person’s motives in sharing information…. but to say that I am lying or willfully misrepresenting things is both unfair and exhausting.

In the first part, the critic is making a statement about the actions, and in the response, Chris Jordan, makes an inference about the intent. As is more common, especially when dealing with those that we disagree with,

to say that I am lying or willfully misrepresenting

we pick up on what is there (“lying or willfully misrepresenting”), inferring only negative intentions with the statement, while forgetting the one that didn’t suggest intent (“pass on their ignorance”). There is an overgeneralization in regards to intent. This is kind of one of the downsides. We’re great at getting hits when it comes to intent and design, but it is only by means assuming that everything has intent or design. As an example, people rarely mistake a robber for a shadow, but will mistake shadows for robbers.

Now, that is only an example of people inferring intention and overgeneralizing intent. But, how does that relate to design? Well, the first question to be asked, is how do we infer design? It tends to consist of a few things.

1. Interaction. We can determine that a watch, a cell phone, or a television is designed because they cannot come about without human interaction. We know the stages involved, such as the extraction of resources, the refinement of those resources, the shaping of those resources, and the application of those items, etc. and the only means that we’ve seen those stages occur is the direct action of human beings. Even if we were to replace one stage, or all of them, with machines to carry out the process, it wouldn’t change it as a) the items would still be designed by a being of some sort, b) the items would be designed by beings created by human beings. It is the interaction between a being (human beings, machines, intelligent species, etc) and matter that produces design. Now, there are a few things that blur the line at that point, so the second criteria used is
2. Intention. With things such as very primitive tools (rocks used as knives, twigs used to obtain insects), it can be difficult to identify them as designed. As an example, the tools employed by chimpanzees for various purposes do not differ that much from the raw resources. They don’t appear to be altered significantly. So identifying the tool as designed is rather difficult unless one is familiar with chimpanzees or has observed the use of the tools. Yet the tools fit the basic criteria. The resources are extracted (small twig removed from a tree), refined (leaves and anything unwanted is removed), and applied (used to get termites out of a hole). Of course, somebody might say that the twig or resources were already designed, because it met the criteria that somebody was looking for. This is the point of intention. If a rock is produced by the processes of nature, it isn’t designed. There is no intent behind its production, nor behind the combination of the chemicals from which it is composed, just as there is no intent behind the hundreds of thousands of other rocks out there. It might be shaped by the environment through forces such as erosion, but there is no intent behind it. When dealing with intent, it can be very easy to overgeneralize (part of the reason I started with that as an intro to looking at design), and see intent where there is none, pardon the horrible joke, intended. As another example of this, there was one interview which stands out in my mind. About part way through an interview between Richard Dawkins and <Insert name>, they began to speak of natural selection as though it were a being with intent.
3. By contrasting things which are undesigned/uncreated with those that are designed/created. This final stage is useful for when we’ve recreated the conditions under which something develops (such as the development of diamonds), normally without human interaction. In this instance, we look for ways in which those without human (or, given that there are other species we know of  with the capacity to produce tools , one might be more inclined to say intentional) interaction differ from processes that occur without intention. As an example, we can go with diamonds compared to cubic zirconia.  These are two things that are visually identical without any further inspection. And there lies the problem with creationism, is that its proponents say that everything is created or designed, in which case, we don’t have any means of producing a contrast using any criteria, regardless of how much inspection occurs.

One of the problems with attempting to state that anything biological is designed is that organisms tend to do one thing that the example of tools and technology can’t do. Organisms can reproduce, and when they do, the offspring are not usually perfect genetic replicates of either parent (or in the case of organisms that reproduce asexually, of the parent), and pass on those changes to the next generation.

But what the arguments for Intelligent Design tend to center around consist of things which their proponents regard as irreducibly complex, in other words, the removal of one part or more renders it unable to function. As an example of this, the popular example, used by the likes of Michael Behe during the Dover Trial, is the bacterial flagellum. Despite the quotes describing the bacterial flagellum, the description of how it works, what it resembles, or quotes about how it could not have evolved, those who specialize in the study of any system claimed to be irreducibly complex are more than capable of seeing ways in which it had evolved. For an example of this, I’d recommend viewing Judgement Day: Evolution on Trial.

Of course, in the instance of not finding any evidence of said combination, the defense might be that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to which I point out that it is unsupported, and unfalsifiable, leaving a very poor basis for one to accept the claim.

It should go without saying that there might be other factors for determining if something is designed that I’m unaware of, and in that case, feel free to state what you think the signs of it are.

Of course, that is ignoring the other problems with Intelligent Design, such as even if people such as myself were to grant that there is a designer, then how did the designer do the production of anything that some would think to be intelligently designed?

The second issue I have, is in regards to

“the Bible is the only one that I have come across that has withstood criticisms and in my humble opinion, is the only true historical account for how we came to be here.”

Great. As a criticism of the basis for that statement, feel free to quote me on this, can the author, Chris Jordan

1. cite the criticism of the biblical account of creation?
2. cite the evidence for the biblical account of creation?
3. cite the criticism of the account of creation from at least two other religions that exist today?
4. cite the evidence for those two accounts of creation?
5. cite the criticism for the claims made by scientists in relevant fields in regards to the big bang theory and the theory of evolution?
6. cite the evidence presented for either claim?
7. demonstrate an understanding of the evidence and criticism requested of at least four of the above questions?

and if not, on what basis can the statement quoted above be justified? After all, if an understanding of the evidence indicative of a claim and the criticism of said claim cannot be demonstrated, it would leave “the Bible is the only one that I have come across” the only accurate segment from that quote.

Unfortunately, given that a number of sites that are from christian creationists do something which makes me wonder if he’d even be aware of the errors and problems with the Bible. I’ll quote two sites as an example.

From Answers In Genesis, Section four of their Statement of Faith

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”

From Eric Hovind’s Statement of Faith on CreationToday.Org

“No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture.”

Unfortunately, there are others, but this will be sufficient as an example. Overall, there are two problems. The first is that it indicates what they want, and the second is what they will do to get what they want. It indicates that they want to believe something so much that they will ignore all evidence that points to the contrary. Now, if that doesn’t seem absurd, imagine the practitioners of another religion doing much the same thing.

Of course, one might argue that AiG does provide a reason for why they do so. They clearly state in the second sentence provided

“Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.”

Now, each of these is equally applicable to the people making the statement. The difference is, science does have a few methods which eliminate each of these problems. Evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people, and double checked by others who are more than happy to prove them wrong on any point, or on each, in a process known as peer review. Should the interpretation be shown to be wrong in peer review, it is corrected.

Worth noting is that Chris Jordan has recommended AiG, among other creationist sources.

Quite frankly, the answer strikes me as an attempt to dodge, to avoid deep thinking, hard questions, and the investigation that they require, while hindering us from developing as doing so has permitted us to do so in all aspects of life. I think Carl Sagan captured this point perfectly, so I’ll provide the quote in question.

   “If the general picture of a big bang, followed by an expanding universe, is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter, and then the matter, suddenly, somehow created? How did that happen?

In many cultures, the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must ask the next question.Where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step, and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed? That there’s no need for a creation, that it was always here.

These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once only treated in religion and myth.”

As well as the inability to test the qualities of supernatural beings (such as deities, demons, demi-gods, etc), the statement is untestable, and hence, unverifiable. With no way to really know as we can claim to know something in science, the statement is without basis, and as a result, to people such as myself, those that would be considered critics, are without a sound basis on which to accept the claim made that the deity in question always existed.

As for the final part

“It’s amazing to me how people can have a hard time believing that an all-powerful being could have created the universe, and yet choose to believe the more unbelievable idea that everything that exists came from nothing, or by chance.”

I’m not even going to bother going over it unless the author can understand the quantum fluctuations that some cosmologists such as Lawrence Krauss have described (and to which the statement “that everything that exists came from nothing” more than likely refers, if not to an old strawman of the Big Bang), or mutations shaped by selection mechanisms, with successful ones spreading throughout a population.

And luckily, I had taken pictures of the commentss in question, so, I have one advantage, given that sometime after it was posted, it was replaced with this little statement.

Cute. No response? Depend on an ad hom. Weak response? Replace it with an ad hom. Because depending on a valid response and well supported argument is pretty difficult. Of course, one can always say that it wasn’t edited. Well then, I’d recommend that you look into that.

From http://lzyixing.com/my_critics_critic_for_you.html?s=10

Or, if you prefer, try google http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=the+beausejour+pulpit+wordpress+response+to+the+critics&pbx=1&oq=the+beausejour+pulpit+wordpress+response+to+the+critics&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=8899l10335l1l11028l6l2l4l0l0l0l106l164l1.1l6l0&gs_l=serp.3…8899l10335l1l11029l6l2l4l0l0l0l106l164l1j1l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=5cd5ecda6aaa9604&biw=1600&bih=771

Should Chris Jordan deny the alteration of the post in question, then I’ll be inclined to ask him to provide a picture of when the post was last edited.

As a side note, the verse goes on to say a bit more. Even if you are unfamiliar with the language used, or even the meaning of the word fool as used by the author, it becomes pretty easy to see what was intended. The authors were speaking of immoral people as opposed to stupid people.

Relevant links

Pastor Chris Jordan’s Blog

A Response to the Critics

Origins #1 Creation Part 1

Origins #1 Creation Part 2

Origins #2 The Fall Part 1

Origins #2 The Fall Part 2

Recommended viewing

On Intelligent Design

Neil DeGrasse Tyson presenting at the Amazing meeting, start from 57:10

C0nc0rdance vs The Discovery Institute

Nova – Intelligent Design on Trial

IDiots once again justify their name

References without sources

The Carl Sagan excerpt is from Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

Links recommended for Chris Jordan

For the basics

Evolution 101 – evolution.berkeley.edu

Evolution index – PBS

Evogenvideos and Lithodidman – Youtube (somewhat crude)

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5