1.) I am the LORD your God…ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me. Even if I kill your family and the innocents and fuck you over, give someone else your job and have your wife or husband cheat on you.

2.)You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Unless it is the image of me, who is also the son, nailed on a cross that will be displayed in any religious context anywhere and even can ward off vampires.

3.) You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, unless you’re really pissed off because the word of the LORD really helps in every day moral issues.

4.) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, unless you are offered double time on the weekends. And of course the Sabbath Day is considered to be the sixth day of the week: Saturday.

5.) Honor your father and your mother even if they are physically or psychologically abusive to you. Remember that this love should be unconditional and if they beat you to a pulp when they are drunk or in a domestic dispute its because they love you.

6.) You shall not kill anyone who worships the same white god in the sky as you do. If they don’t believe everything that you do however, feel free to kill them.

7.) You shall not commit adultery because it is vital to stay with the same person for the rest of your life until death do you part. Preferably death.

8.) You shall not steal, unless it is the land of an inferior race of people who don’t have the same beliefs as you or are simply different, then its alright.

9.) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor provided that they also agree with everything that you say and believe.

10.) You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods because you should never buy anything and ever keep the economy of the society going.

“Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro (allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the United States, and previously served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2005-2008). Obama and his running mate Senator Joseph Biden won the presidential election after 23 months of campaigning that spent over $700 million, much of it raised from undisclosed or fraudulent donors. Obama spent far more per vote than McCain did: Obama spent $7.39 per vote, while McCain spent only $5.78 per vote.”
Within the first paragraph, they question his name, then they question his place of birth. These are what are known as Ad Hominem, which is an attack on the individual at hand rather than their opinions or policies. They question his place of birth because they simply do not want him to be President of the United States, because you have to be a born citizen of the nation to lead it. By questioning his place of birth, they question his legitimacy as President.

Furthermore, they add the issue of campaign spending to try to make it look like The Obama campaign purchased votes, and that because Senator McCain spent less, he is the more “virtuous” of the two candidates. They even add an allegation of financial fraud into the argument.

I figured that this ignorance would be limited just to political figures until I realized that many of the radical right are pro-Christianity in a fanatical manner. One of the more popular individuals for the fundamentalist Christians to ridicule is of course the famed British Naturalist, Charles Darwin.

Of course Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was one of the main reasons why these Conservatives started their own wiki, stating that it was the “Trustworthy Encyclopedia”. When someone claims that, you know that they are clearly against that motive. Of course much like Obama’s Wiki page, Darwin’s is filled with criticisms, and downright insulting remarks towards his personality. In his article there are in fact references to supposed racism, sexism, and downright hate. There are criticisms of his religious points of view where Darwin confirmed that he himself was an agnostic. It is recorded by friends and families that Darwin abandoned his belief in Christianity after the death of his daughter, that he could not understand why a merciful loving God would take the life of such an innocent and young child.

As for his supposed racism and sexism, comes from simple quote mining and misquoting of his own works. In his own time, the term “race” was akin to the term “species”. Simple changes in vocabulary in the day to the context of the age is easily used to explain the differences in the terms. Of course when you have a predetermined judgment you want to reach you do whatever you can to only present your point of view which is what these Young Earth Creationist Right Wingers like to do. They attempt any trick to try to eliminate any credibility to Charles Darwin himself, hoping that it will “rub off” on his scientific findings.

Of course with the Charles Darwin page there is every form of criticism presented. However it seems that this criticism is not always the case depending on who they want to support and who they want to defame.

Adolf Hitler’s page on the Wiki is a prime example where information is deliberately hidden, mainly Adolf Hitler’s religious points of view. Adolf Hitler’s reputation has lead to the creation of Godwin’s Law which is a side point to the issue. Hitler’s page is surprisingly lacking of any points towards Hitler’s religious views, that lead to his actions. It is no more just to the anti-semite than to be pro-Christian, because to eliminate the Jewish Race, the Race that executed Jesus is seen as a very distorted view of justice.

Hitler’s own words, in the Nuremberg rallies, in Mein Kampf all indicate that his views were clearly Christian, if not directly Roman Catholic. Hitler viewed his actions as inspired by the words of the bible and the traditional anti-simetic views of the Christian Churches, that Jews are the ones who killed Jesus Christ and that revenge was righteous. The Church officially preached anti-Semitic teachings until 1964.

Of course all this is kept conveniently out of the Conservative Wiki.

Why? Because it may make Christianity look slightly bad. And anything that makes Christianity look bad is wrong, and should never be included in the “Truth” of their encyclopedia.

Now onto today.

Today we had a lovely discussion regarding morality. A girl stated, in using the example of a green card marriage, that a marriage in itself really depends on who and what is involved and that the context of the situation, is what decides the morality of the situation. Basically context determines the moral outcome and moral standing. However a Christian fundamentalist in the room attempted to argue the otherwise side that there is only only one right or wrong, and that context doesn’t matter. A crime is a crime, and a sin is a sin.

However I indicated that even in the bible, in accordance to the 10 commandments of Exodus, specifically “Thou Shall Not Kill” even then is only applied when the context is appropriate. In the book of Numbers, Chapter 31, the very man who brought down the 10 Commandments, Moses, orders the Israelites to war against the people of Midian, the Midianites for occupying the Holy Land. Therefore this “Thou Shall Not Kill” is simply  only applied in context of Israelite vs Israelite, and not Israelite vs Midianite.

Interesting, that this “not kill” clause seems to be very easily discarded when dealing with people of another tribe or cultural group? So context, even in the case of the bible, matters, but interestingly enough it was ignored in the debate between these two people.

Religion, specifically the fringe ones have a strong opposition to Evolution because it is a scientific and naturalistic view of the world. Unlike Religion which makes human beings the center of the universe, Evolution and Science put that humans are a part of nature and are one of many living creatures on this planet.  There is no reason for this, but Science discounts or tries to filter out anything that they cannot test and evolution has been tested over and over and over again. It is funny how Religion tends to look upon science with a sense of hatred, because Science seems to take away from Religion, but in fact it is the other way around that should be more accurate.
Religion shouldn’t have stepped into explaining the natural world because it cannot. It interjected itself into explaining the natural world with superstition and mumbo jumbo without a shred of evidence. Then Science came and did the right thing which was use materialistic evidence and theories to explain observations in the natural world, proving itself correct by using the Scientific Method. Religion which seems to demand that people suspend critical thinking. It seems to demand that you cannot use critical thinking but accept them as truth without any evidence. This is what is destructive about religion.

Just like Gay Marriage, equality rights for women and minorities, slavery and child abuse, it is religion that stands in the way of public progress.

But 150 years since the publication of a scientific book and people still oppose it for religious reasons, I see this as a dark foreshadowing of what may be to come.

Science speaks nothing of religion or spirituality because you cannot test them. Science is agnostic on purpose and despite the scientists themselves be they religious or atheistic, they make no comment on God or any type of supernatural element when speaking in the context of religion at all.

Charles Darwin went out and started looking at the natural world, and discovered a vast diversity of life, specifically in the Galapagos Islands. There, he wondered how such an abundance of different species could have been so fine tuned for their natural environments, specifically an example are his Finches. It seemed strange that on various islands different Finches had different types of beaks and different ways of feeding, but it seemed odd to him that why would they only be so fine tuned, it seemed that if there was a creator of these finches or a divine force it had tuned them so well for each type of environment. Darwin spent his entire life categorizing and finding evidence. He spent years corresponding with various naturalists and scientists all over the world and he knew that his evidence pointed to a very controversial idea because he knew that if nature itself was able to produce such vast diversity of life, then was there really a need for a creator?

Early on in his time, Geologists had already come to a firm conclusion that the Earth itself must have been hundreds of millions of years older than the biblical account. In addition the basic observations of astronomy had also dis-proven the terracentric view, that the Earth was the center of the universe. Was it that plausible, that nature simply had better answers than the bible? Remember back then in Darwin’s time it was not the modern secular world that we live in today. It was ruled by an upper class that had invested interest in maintaining certain levels of theocratic dogma over the masses. It was the Church that opposed the use of the printing press centuries earlier to spread the biblical word because it allowed people to form ideas and opinions.

Darwin knew his idea was dangerous but as a man of science he could not deny the evidence that stood before him. Only today we have even more evidence to support his claims in the form of genetic information and dating methods. Darwin’s idea was so well put together that today we are still finding new evidence that supports his ideas. The astounding evidence set forth by genetic evidence wasn’t even known in Darwin’s day and everything that Genetics has revealed supports Darwin. The sheer similarities in the human and ape chromosomal pairings shows a clear relation between humans and the higher apes. It also showed that the concept of “superior” or “inferior” life really is entirely based on nothing more than opinion, for if an amoeba has 670,000,000,000 (Six Hundred and Seventy Billion) genes, and humans only have 2,900,000,000 (two billion, nine-hundred million) genes, does that mean that the Amoeba Dubia is more advanced than us?

Today, people try to use every fallacy imaginable to slander Darwin, and his work in an attempt to discredit the Origin of Species. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are only the latest. They attempted to link Darwin to Social Darwinism and Adolf Hitler, Slavery, Genocide, and Racism. Of course scientists and historians thoroughly discount these distortions based on the fact that there is little if any evidence to support these claims. They make the counter argument that the bible has supported more of these atrocities than the Origin of Species ever did.

Darwin didn’t have a death bed conversion and those that believe it are only those who want it to be true. The story of a death bed conversion came from someone who never knew Darwin and furthermore his loved ones, friends and family unanimously discount any event of a death bed conversion for Darwin. He firmly believed his research and he was not one to back track on an entire life’s work.

150 years later, his theory is standing the test of time and over and over again it is confirmed by continued evidence. Those who seek to undermine Darwin’s work realize they cannot discount his evidence or any modern evidence, but instead try to use any fallacy imaginable to attack Darwin himself. Hoping that if people don’t like Darwin, his evidence must be equally evil.

Worked on few shows, ranging from Fringe, to Psych locally, and some strange upcoming film called “Dancing Ninja” that is supposedly the sequel to Beverly Hills Ninja featuring the late Chris Farley. You’d think that they would learn once, but apparently its financed by Korean investors, with some kid from one of those High School Musical movies. Big seller eh?

The set was freezing cold and was filmed in the same large barn-facility that the late Flash Gordon series was also filmed. Most embarrassing was when the Stunt guys who were present were conscripted into a shameful dance routine. They’re stunt performers, not ballet artists….

But anyways after a nice late call to Fringe yesterday that lasted 15 hours I think I am happy to have slept in to almost 3:00pm today. Considering I arrived home at 6:00am I think I got enough rest….just.

Things were getting bad on the way home, fighting fatique from sitting in the car starring out into the road. I must have cranked the music and my voice so high to keep awake. Never again!

I do have to give him credit for listening and listening. I was pretty well aware that there would be no need to go to production or anything of the sort, a face to face direct talk was easier, well it was more of a lecture from me, but it stayed private and nothing else came out of it.

As for the rest of that day, 14 hours on set, with 4 heaters, shared between 90 people, in a tent that could only fit 60, was pretty bad. Not to mention that it was very very cold, and windy, and the indoor shoot in the studio was getting hotter and hotter as every hour passed by. It was pretty uncomfortable in and out of the set.

However, time and time again he displays a clear unease when around me. I’m not around him by choice, usually our encounters are around mutual friends that we have.

But this time I have gotten just about enough. His behavior is passive aggressive and if he thinks that I do not realize this he clearly underestimates how perceptive I am.

I’m fed up. He dared even to say that I creeped him out when he was the one who would go out of his way to pinpoint me out of an entire crowd by announcing my name to everyone. This isn’t the way that the typical person would act, and certainly is not a friendly action, though it may seem like it to the uneducated eye. I’m simply not going to tolerate this anymore.

Now I have two options: I can take this directly to the person at hand, sit down with them and discuss this like civilized people, or I can simply take this complaint of homophobia, and harassment to the production office where they may take more serious actions against the person in question.

I am considering the first option rather than the latter. Though a sadistic side of me would very well enjoy seeing him face potential repercussions, a more naive side of me may think that he is simply acting out of fear, rather than hatred. We can’t control what we fear, but it is easier to control where we target our hate.

I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him approach me. Hopefully this message will reach his ears and maybe he’ll be civilized enough to sit down and talk, after all we do share many of the same friends, and making peace is far more beneficial than making enemies.

Some people may find that this is just over the two words “hey you”. It isn’t, and in fact it is not just how he says it, but how often he says it, and why he says it that is important. The words themselves are of little consequence, its the overall message that is offensive, and his behavior that make his actions, unacceptable under any circumstance.

I truly do not enjoy early calltimes because it is entirely likely that people would fall asleep before they reach the actual set. Luckily weather reports indicate that today would be a relatively sunny day, but despite this, I am taking precautions, bringing gloves and a scarf and a set of thermals, top and bottom, because if you’re warm you can take something off, but if you’re cold and that’s all you have, then nothing can be done about that.

Today is about three weeks into my parents being gone and me living in the house alone. A 3 floor home, with a partially crippled dog can be a bit of a dread, since the poor puppy is now entering his 15th year of age, and he’s simply not as young as he used to be. The quiet of the house is also somewhat discomforting but what can I do? I leave some lights on but the place is still quiet.

I did have the honor of meeting Brent Ray Fraser, an artist on the set of Stargate Universe, and from what I saw, has amazing talent. Now I’ve met the occasional artist before, but not a truly professional one who has had success in the mainstream media. It would be great to see his work up close, or better yet, to see him actually do it.

To the reader: I spent the past few months doing a great deal of research into Evolution. I have come to the position that it is the dominant philosophical understanding of our scientific world and living world, for a reason, that it has evidence and that the evidence has withstood scrutiny not only from non-scientists, but scientists themselves.

The Theory of Evolution has been criticized as simply a “theory” while in a scientific context the term “theory” actually means “a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). “In essence a “theory” in terms of science is actually nearly a fact in that it is based by supporting evidence that validates its reasoning with logic and observation based on controlled environments.

Creationists always attempt to destroy evolution by stating that it is simply only a “theory” because they still believe that the “Theory of Evolution” is actually the “Guess of Evolution”, while this simply is not the case at all. If they stated that as an excuse, then they don’t even know the definition of Theory, in a scientific context, which proves their ignorance. In terms of a scientific fact, evolution has not only surpassed the test of time (literally) but it has also withstood the criticism of skeptics but religion cannot possibly undermined a fundamental scientific principle such as Evolution.

Is Creationism a science?

A science is something that can proven based on observation, hypothesis and then reproduction through controlled environments and scenarios of a specific natural occurring phenomenon and most importantly, can be tested; which means that creationism is not a science. Creationism or “Intelligent Design” which is based on religious teaching are essentially tales of myth, not recreated science. In terms of accuracy to history, archaeology, anthropology and geography, the Judeo-Christian myths of written literature such as the Koran, Bible and Torah are mythological at best. There are very few sources outside the bible that possibly can even remotely suggest any confirmation of any facts or assertions stated in the bible.

Claims such as the Grand Canyon being a result of the flood mentioned in the bible that involved Noah’s Arc are not substantiated at all by any geological evidence. Even the famous parting of the Red Sea has been known to be an inaccurate statement of what happened. It was more than likely that there was a misprint within the bible, that the Sea of Reeds that the body of water that Moses and the Israelites crossed. While on the subject of Moses and the Israelites, there is no archeological evidence whatsoever that has ever proven that they were enslaved in Egypt. There is mention that the Israelites existed as a wandering tribe, and not a nation within the Egyptian texts but none whatsoever that state that they were in any way of form, enslaved.

The accuracies of the bible’s writings are questionable at best since they have been edited and changed and re-written and re-translated over the course of 2000 years for the New Testament, and more than even more so for the Old Testament. It is a known issue that any text that teaches dogmatic ideas is bound to be altered to support one point of view over another. Even modern documents such as the Declaration of Independence, or international treaties and legal documents are constantly twisted and modified to suit one point of view over another, therefore it is highly unlikely that such a dogmatic piece of literature such as the Bible would escape this.

As for the issue of Creation being a science, it is not. The people who believe that it is a science will use pseudo-scientific method, cherry picking evidence and non-academic statements to support one point of view while they disregard other piece of evidence entirely. Creation is also not a science in that it cannot be proven by any scientific method. It relies on hearsay and speculation, not actual evidence in any method due to the fact that Creationists fear that science will prove Creation wrong, which it has.

Why should Creation not be taught in schools?

In the tradition of states that practice secular education, and following with the separation of Church and State western democratic nations should always keep religion out of politics. It is also a fact that voting in these western democracies is not based on religious beliefs, so why are some religious beliefs supported while others are not? In the core of the argument is the idea that Creationists beleive that their own beliefs are more valid than others. In a secular state where church and state are not mixed it would be extremely inappropriate to involve one with the other. The State is formed by people of all religious beliefs, creeds, genders and sexual orientations, so why are Christian values more valid than Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic, Zoroastrian, or Shinto beliefs? The answer is arrogance and intolerance. The belief that one’s own beliefs should reign supreme over all others is arrogance.

Furthermore, people from all religions pay taxes to the government, therefore they are all valid and so are their beliefs. To satisfy them and treat them all equally, Government has two options, either teach all beliefs of all religious groups within their nations, or teach none. But Creationists do not believe this at all, rather they support their own belief and attempt to enforce it on a non-Christian population, which is intolerance.

Ironically America, is a nation that has the separation of Church and State written within its own constitution while Canada’s own Constitution directly addresses the Christian God. Oddly Canada is far more secular than America and the issue of bringing religious beliefs into the Canadian Educational System has been a massive failure. On the other hand, an “officially secular” state such as the United States has reverted to supporting Christian teaching in the publicly funded school system while the American Government seems happy to collect taxes from non-Christians.

If a teacher supports Creationism being taught in public schools, then that teacher should not be teaching anymore. A teacher must uphold the constitution of their nation and teach truth, not opinion. Religion is entirely an opinion and there is no two people who share identical opinions when it comes to religious teachings, so who is more valid than the other? There is no reason for one religious belief that should take precedence to another. There is no reason for it, aside from intolerance itself.

Why attack science?

The attack on science is based on two main issues. One is the fact that science encourages debate, and it encourages questions and observations regarding subjects that religion sees as “God’s work”. Another, which shall be addressed separately, is based on the fact that evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern science. In religion, it is seen as extremely inappropriate to question the dogmatic rhetoric of faith rather than to simply take it at the word of those who preach it. There is a clear difference between religion and faith. Religion is the bureaucracy of faith. For many Christians they are as faithful as any other but they do not practice the formalities of religion such as the ceremonies, rather they believe that their own faith is as strong without the need to physically demonstrate it.

Science encourages debate. When science observes something, they wish to better understand it which is why they start to investigate and ask questions. Religion has always tried to enforce its will by keeping people ignorant. Keeping the population ignorant with only one source of information, the Church ruled Europe before, and during that time it was called the Dark Ages. In other parts of the world, religion has never sought to be ever so dominant with the acceptation of Theocratic states. In enlightened nations the idea of religion taking a subordinate position to the state has always been prominent in the cultures of China and India.

The very fact that science encourages independent thought is against the power that religious institutions wish to hold against their followers. They wish to keep their churches as uniform as possible, believing that rituals and customs are more important than the questions that people ask. The contrary can be even more productive for a religion, in that if a religion encourages questions then people have a better understanding of their religion and the wonders that they behold. It is not a sin to question one’s religion, in fact to eliminate free thought would be to do religion an enormous disfavor.

One finds it fascinating that the Christian Fundamentalist movement enjoys claiming credit for the invention of morality. It seems that they believe that if one is not Christian then one is not able to contemplate social morals. This is entirely false. There have been societies throughout the world that have evolved their own laws and cultural morals despite their lack of any Christian contact throughout history. The Code of Hamurabi is one example of a fine set of laws put forth before the bible was even written. Throughout world civilizations rules of fairness and common sense became the backbone of legal systems and social acceptable values, not a single dictation from an all-knowing god.

Science need not prove itself to Creationists. Because it is Creation that wants to be taught in the science classes, it is Creation that has to prove itself to the scientific community, not use the excuse of “fairness” to intrude into the public education system. If Creationist wish for their ideas to be taught in the public school system, then it should be limited to the social studies classes since that is entirely based on a study of history, anthropology and cultural groups. Science is for facts and absolute theories that can be proven or disprove, not suspicions of one cultural group that wishes to dominate others.

There are flaws in the evolutionary theory but that doesn’t disprove that evolution is not the most logical form of growth for a species through adaptation and natural selection. So far when it comes to evidence, evolution heavily outweighs any evidence that Creation has provided, if Creation has provided any evidence at all.

If one wishes for immediate evidence of evolution, that human beings evolved from an aquatic species millions of years ago, one needs not look any farther than one’s own hands. Notice the residual webbing between the fingers, most prominently between the thumb and index fingers. This webbing has no true practical purpose for human beings, but it is not difficult to assume even from strict observation that there was a use for them at one time. That is because human limbs are not that dissimilar from the maneuvering appendages of marine life, from seals, to even fish themselves. We all have the same number of limbs which suggests that we may have had a common ancestor through the evolutionary period, and that adaptation through environmental changes were made for a species to survive. However those mutations through adaptation had to be small enough for the species to procreate and pass their genetics along the generations.

As stated before, many Creationists want Evolutionists to produce “immediate proof of evolution”. In essence they want to see a species evolving before their eyes. (see later points on virus immunities) Every species on the planet is constantly changing by generations. It is similar to animation. A single cell of a cartoon is not moving, but done in concert and sequence it produces a movement that cannot be seen looking at the animation one cell at a time. By looking at the samples of life we have from previous forms, we can see the full evolution of a species similar to how we see the cells of a cartoon moving. It is not the cells that are moving but rather it produces the movement of the cartoon.

It is important to realize that Evolution is agreed upon by the scientific community as the most plausible method in which living organisms reached their current level of being for a reason. Scientists accept all forms of evidence regardless of their outcomes, and so far all the evidence points towards Evolution, so that is why Scientists support it. Scientists are not supporting Evolution because they want to piss off Jesus. They support it because the evidence supports it. There is a reason for this. Pseudo-Scientists like Creationists disregard evidence which contradicts their theories, and cherry-pick evidence that supports them. This is not science but the manipulation of the facts to prove a private agenda.

When it comes down to a comparison of facts, the scientific community can easily and instantly debunk any kind of argument that pseudo-scientists like creationists put forth, because the facts support science. Science is based on unbiased evidence, which be it supporting or against evolution, is always taken into consideration. There are no facts which can be discarded when the question of evolution, or for that matter any scientific principle is being evaluated because it would be seen as cherrypicking evidence. Cherrypicking evidence is not science, it is in fact bad science and should be entirely disregarded as any basis of fact or knowledge.

With little or no proof, intelligent design claims to be a science, well in fact the proof claims to be otherwise. It is not even a theory, it is a guess, not even worthy of the term hypothesis, because it is not educated in the slightest. Any educated individual when presented with the facts of evolution such as fossils, dating methods, gene research can tell beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is valuable unquestionable evidence on the proof that evolution is by far more of a reasonable, logical, and conclusive method in the origins of life.

“Creationism makes sense”

This is one of the more common statements made by the uneducated. They wish to state that creationism makes sense because they really have no idea on what they are talking about. If creationism made sense, then why would there be species that existed on one time that do not exist anymore? Human beings have faced extinction many times before in their earlier forms of life because they were not the dominant force on the planet. Without the evolution of communication and language, humans would have easily been one lifeform in a vast chain of life that would have resulted in them being predator and prey.

Genetically everything in the body has a function. Even when brought to its most basic parts, human beings are in fact machines and in some cases these machines have parts which are not entirely functional or have any true practical use. Intelligent Designers would claim that there is little question that every part of the body is designed for a purpose, while in fact this is clearly not the case. Dogs for instance have thumbs, but these thumbs are not used in any noticeable function in their bodies such as locomotion or movement. There is no evidence that Dog Thumbs are ever used at all through their lifetimes, yet they have them. This goes to question whether they had a directly designed purpose.

Science vs Religion

The term “vs” implies some type of conflict. There is no conflict actually at all. Science is not at war with Creationism or religion. Rather it is Religion which is trying to discredit science as any method of looking at the natural world. This is one particular point of view which comes out of a desire for one to discredit the other. Scientific Theories do not touch the issue of religion at all. In fact Science makes no references to religion or takes religion into consideration at all, they leave it alone. Scientists are interested only in the facts.

The only reason that religious fanatics use argument, that science attacks religion, is actually religion attacking science, and science defending itself using evidence and logic. If science and darwin’s evolutionary theory were religious ideas, they would be considered unconstitutional to be taught in public schools, but that is not the case.

It is also a simple psychological tactic that Creationists are trying to use, claiming that they are the victims of an attack by evil scientists, making themselves look like the victims to gain sympathy, clearly this is not the true case of the situation, it is deception in its purest form.

Clearly when they use this method, religion finds that it is outmatched easily and thus they attempt to picture themselves as the victims to gain sympathy.

“It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creationism”

Personally I have heard this statement numerous times and it is simply a bad debating technique put forth by creationists in an attempt to intellectually discredit Evolution without providing any arguments whatsoever for it. For the intelligent, all that is required for an idea to be accepted as a theory, based on fact, is evidence and there is plenty more evidence for evolution than creationism in the world. All one needs to do is look at a fossil and there is proof in their own hands of the evidence for evolution. The truth is, it takes faith to believe in Creationism because there simply is no proof at all. The very definition of faith, is the willing to believe in something without evidence, so to apply this argument to Evolution, that it requires more faith to believe in it, simply makes no sense and is ludicrous to consider it so.

“Show me proof that evolution happened”

Viral immunity is one prominent example that evolution happens. Viral and bacterial cells can replicate and reproduce at an exponential rate. This mean that in a single week of our time, billions upon billions of viral cells can reproduce, and that means that mass numbers of generations of viral cells can be produced. Many times some viruses suddenly become immune to medication that previously had worked against them. How did this happen?

Well according to the process of natural selection and scientific/biological evidence that we have, the reproductive process of all biological organisms is not perfect, and that means that mutations will and can occur in every single form of life there is to exist. These mutations are random, but how these mutations are played out in the greater scheme of the evolutionary process is not random.

These mutations may be beneficial, or harmful to the organism, such as viruses. These random mutations would take generations to come into effect, but in the timeline of a virus’ lifespan this can be a very short time compared in the perspective of a human being. Viruses can develop immunities to medicines because over the period of their reproduction, though the mass majority have been eliminated by drugs, a few viral cells that have randomly developed a mutation that proved to make them more resilient to drugs have survived. This random trait proved beneficial for them, and thus they were able to reproduce. When they reproduce, their offspring will inherit this now normal mutation that is a part of their natural reproductive process. Now it is possible that their offspring will develop a counter-mutation that will eliminate their advantage, this is very likely. How can humans evolve to the modern day, with many still suffering harmful mutations in their genetics that would normally not make them productive and able to reproduce? These mutations are random, but in the larger scheme of their species’ survival they are selected by nature to survive.

“Teaching Creationism in school is more fair

There is no fairness in letting creationism get a free ride to the science classes at all. Creationism/Intelligent Design has to face the scrutiny that every single scientific theory has to go through before it becomes taught. Creationists want to cheat their way, in other words, cut in line to get to the school rooms.

* 1. General Hypothesis

* 2. Research and experimentation

* 3. Conclusion

* 4. Scrutiny by the general scientific community by evidence and r esearch methodology through peer review

* 5. Consensus by the general scientific community

* 6. Schoolrooms and universities

There are steps to these methods before they become taught in schools because you cannot teach a false fact and state it as a real one, that simply is not science, that is deception and lying to manipulate individuals for another purpose.

Creationism in this case has not even passed step 1 before it can go to step 6. Let us be generous for the moment and state that Creationism is a hypothesis, an “educated” guess. If it is so, then they must proceed to the next step, which is proving their hypothesis by research and experimentation. Creationism will not pass this step because the evidence simply will not withstand any scientific or scholarly scrutiny at all. If it doesn’t pass this state then the theory has been debunked simply as bad science, or lack of evidence.

Instead, Creationists want to cheat the system and get a free ride into the classrooms by going through legislatures and school boards rather than through the scientific community which holds all authority over what happens in the science rooms. They refuse to submit their hypothesis to evidence, and when they do have “evidence” they refuse to absolutely accept any contradictory evidence as having and credibility to debunk them. In the case of the Dover trial, one creationist refused to accept 53 scholarly pieces of evidence that support the evolutionary theory. He disregarded them as “not enough” to convince him. In other words, he was cherry picking evidence, disregarding what didn’t agree with him, and accepting only what he wanted.

“Atheists have no morals”

Let it be made clear, that Christians did not invent morality. If Christians followed the morality they preached then they would never kill, they would never lie, and never steal at all. This is not the case. Therefore morality itself is at fault because no one follows pure morality by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, examination of old testament texts illustrate a theological deity with little morals of its own. Atheists follow their own morality which is based on society’s common sense and what is seen as socially appropriate. To claim that Christianity holds all morality then the rest of the world, all non-Christians did not have any sense of morality. Furthermore before the invention of Christianity how did other cultures in the world, such as the Greeks, the Mesopotamians, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Chinese and Japanese get their moral codes? Certainly they did not get them from Christians. There is a fundamental flaw in this statement because there is no proof that Christianity and the Bible were source of all morality in existence.

Because one side believes themselves to hold a monopoly on morality then they should examine that morality in refined detail. The Old Testament is not by any means an accurate demonstration of morality that should ever be used. There is justification for capital punishment, murder, and slavery within the old testament. There are contradictions within the new testament a swell and there are questions to be asked on which parts of the bible are authentic and which have been modified over the years. The authenticity of the bible itself is questionable to say the least and there is little if any evidence to show the physical existence of anyone named Jesus of Nazareth. There is some evidence to his existence in that there were historical records that were written about him by Roman historians, including the fact that he was crucified and died but even that evidence came more than a century after he supposedly was executed.

Nature is too complex

One of the most ridiculous claims is that Nature itself is too complex for evolution to have arisen through natural selection. To declare that nature is too complex is a judgment call that is not based on any fact. The Creationists have declared that nature is too complex, and thus the debate and thinking processes end right there without debate because they have deemed it so. The problem is that they then will refuse to accept any type of evidence that comes out of the arguments for evolution because they dismiss them as “too complex” while in fact they are simply attempting again to discredit the evolutionary theory. This is a dangerous step because they simply want to stop any type of debate by declaring a dead stop using the words “too complex”. This is neither fair nor justified as it simply cannot hold to scrutiny.

The judgment that life is too complex is not subject to experimental testing because the judgment has stopped all inquiry because it has declared that there is no possible way that it can be figured out by human understanding. This is not satisfying to scientists because something that is not subject to experimental testing, is not considered scientific, but rather supernatural. The supernatural is never considered when taken into scientific situations.

Did we evolve from monkeys?

We evolved from an earlier primate form, which shares a common ancestry from the modern greater apes. There is a normal misconception that we evolved from chimpanzees. This is one of the main fallacies that creationists use to attempt to discredit evolution because they do not understand the idea of the common ancestry. They question that if humans evolved from chimpanzees, why are there chimpanzees around?

Charles Darwin pictured the tree of life, which every organism is a branch or twig on the tree that eventually goes back to the trunk of the tree, a single common ancestor for all forms of life. Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees and humans are related in that we share a common ancestor. Think of the situation as the relationship between you and your cousins and you and your grandparents. You and your cousin share a common ancestor, your grandparents, but you and your cousin came from different branches of the family. Your lineage is separate but shares a common source. This is how monkeys also evolved from their previous forms, to better suit their own adaptation to nature. Humans evolved in another way to suit their own adaptation to nature.

How did something come from nothing?

No one said that life came from nothing. In fact before there was life on the earth, there was the earth itself. Matter and energy cannot be destroyed, it only changes form. Essentially according to the laws of thermodynamics, if matter and energy can’t be destroyed that can lead to the conclusion that matter and energy are eternal, and have always existed in one form or another. This means that we didn’t come from nothing, we came from something, and that is matter.

There is still discussion within the scientific community on the origins of life on earth but many of the proposed ideas state that the conditions were simply just right for life to emerge which was spontaneous. Life was not planned on earth but the chance came up in random circumstances that allowed for a certain mix of acids, salts, chemical mixtures involving heat and very likely electricity that resulted in the creation of the first basic organic materials.

Creationists would often use the fallacy of stating that if scientists can’t give the answer, then by default the Creationist is right. Creationists have their answer and need not look for another. However for scientists, that is not a good enough answer because it cannot be tested. Scientists are still searching for the origins of life on the earth, there is no currently known absolute theory on the matter but they are certain that life began at the molecular level.

A few of these posts will be completely unrelated to the film biz, but will be personal in nature. I’m pretty anti-religious so you’ll notice a common theme amongst them and I’m also a diehard skeptic when it comes to things like astrology, or magnet therapy, or tarot cards, ghost sightings and anything that goes down to the pseudoscientific to the nonsensical.

I love the real world and usually things like this blog are good for me to vent anything I have to vent. Sometimes they are just taken right from my personal facebook page.

http://twitter.com/venixer is my twitter!

Well I was gonna wait for a while to post my first rant but here is the first one, that I call:

Wisdom from the Judge

“If it doesn’t make sense, its usually not true” – Judge Judy

Oh how this little tidbit from the Judge has made my life so much easier in telling apart the bullshiters from the truth tellers.

People act naturally to every circumstance and every action. If something doesn’t sound quite right you know something is wrong and I love to catch people who are trying to pull something over my eyes and are completely unaware that their webs are falling apart.

Similarly, if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck, nuff said. Sure it very well could be a chicken in disguise, but what would make a far more reasonable and likely answer? Sure you can play the numbers game and say its always possible, but still, whats reasonable is the rule not the exception.

Many people will find that if you are able to detect lies or sense that things aren’t quite right, they themselves will start to get very hostile towards you, and may even try to use your own honesty against you by attempting to guild trip you. Don’t let them. If you caught them in a lie tell them that you know about it. If they try to counter you with a nonsense-argument, basically with another lie, confront them with it. You don’t need to take anything from a liar.

The pieces don’t quite fit when a liar talks because they need lies to backup other lies, and simply, they can’t keep up with them all. If you tell the truth you don’t need a good memory. No one gets in trouble for telling the truth. People who are upset at the truth are unhappy with reality in general.

Enjoy and do more spatterchat!