Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument of William Lane Craig

I found this video at the great site known as ExChristian.net (please give them a visit), then with my usual vigor I investigated all its claims and links I possibly could to my own delight. I found much of the documentation accessible, and I am still finding interesting connections.


Kodos to SkydivePhil

This video shows, with dramatic clarity, the gaping holes in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. By evidencing and evincing the contradictions, theistic claims contradicted by the evidence, and apologetic claims contradicted by the scientists themselves this argument is laid to rest.

If you follow along with Alan Guth's dialog you will here mention "pocket universes" and if his writing is consistent with my understanding of what he is saying here (which I have no doubt it will be) I will show documented agreement with my accumulation of expansion concept caused by multiple black hole bursts as each one releases the matter as it becomes too weak to hold the singularity of compressed matter due to Hawking Radiation, the dissipation of the energy needed to contain matter in that state of compression. Have you ever asked yourself why the cosmos has Black Holes? Could it be that it is merely the balance of matter and energy that necessitates their existence? That is, too much matter in too close a proximity and gravity does the rest, well that is until the energy (gravity in this case) equals the atomic energy of the accumulation of electrons in  the singularity that are being pulled around the nucleus of the atom much like the stator windings being pulled around the anchored armature of a electric motor. This is the point where distance between the electron and the nucleus is proportional  to the energy of the orbit and bang massive instantaneous expansion. Oh, this also works in consideration of string theory as the vibrating strings unfold the membrane in a similar massive expansion; I would think.

I will be updating this post as I read the documentation and books that I have discovered in this video.

A Note to Self-Proclaimed Pro-Life Proponents

Only in America can one be pro-draft, pro-war, pro-drone strikes, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-landmines, pro-death-penalty, and still call yourself pro-life.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are some of the inalienable rights which the Founding Fathers decided we were all entitled. So, there is a balance to be attained with life and happiness in the elimination of suffering. Suffering in the form of pain, poverty, starvation, serfdom, and slavery. And if one honestly stood with limited government, they would vote to keep government out of the private decisions of a mother trying to make a very difficult choice concerning her baby's well-being at a point of no suffering: 1st trimester of embryonic development. They, would vote to enable the government to defend against corporatists practices and policy manipulation that produces an overpopulation of unprotected consumers wherein competition for a living wage would be usurped by self preservation and the immediate need to survive. Why else would one think killers (see above) like Conservative Republicans give a crap about abortion; a flooded consumer and labor market suits their needs and goals. Might those professing to be pro-life actually be anti-choice?

Now even a limited government still needs to be strong enough to ensure that someone's rights and views stop where another's rights start. Since "We the People" are our government many prefer a stronger government that protects our rights from strong greed motivated capitalist interests, strong international oligarchies like churches, and strong national & international corporate interests, etc. —these are all the enemies within. The afore mentioned Inalienable Rights are why regulations that protect the populace from the poisonous profit driven shortcuts regarding safety, environmental protection, financial gaming, etc. are in place.

Yes, if you're thinking this would make Social Conservatives, the Religiose, T-Partiers, and Libertarians mindless tools of corporate ambitions to install their own servitude (not to mention poisoning), you're getting warm. Opinion manipulation through rhetorical ploys that are emotionally charged appeals to the baser reactions to xenophobia and mob mentality is the oldest form of politics known to man.

Further, many would suspect most cultural conservatives don't even know what life is, if, as we also suspect, they have a clergy's eye view of it. The time table resulting from Roe v. Wade is tied to consciousness, that is, the ability to suffer.

Lastly, some seem to think that liberals don't defend the free market, when in fact, we do. The free market of ideas that Thomas Jefferson idealized and the free market competition that improves the qualities of commerce. But, the free market that libertarians and capitalists rale on about is subordinate to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that We the People are entitled.

Now, I have a question for you dear reader: Does anyone think the German people thought for a minute that the fascist they were putting into power, the man supported by the Catholic, Protestant (and eventually the Central) churches, a man that hated all the same people they hated (ie. homosexuals, Gypsies, Jews, outsiders, etc.), was the Hitler we know today, or do you think they thought he was just a good Christian, and a patriotic German?

The reason I ask is because we have a portion of the population that idealizes Austrian economics (Hitler's home country and an economic foundation of fascism), a party (Republicans, & same portion of the population) that uses religio-political concepts as evinced by the Nazi state thinker, Carl Schmitt, and that same party is obviously protective (if not outright sock-puppets) of the same international corporatists (the political foundation of fascism). Then, as the judicial practitioners of Nazi Germany later found out, it is the lack of protection of a fellow citizen's civil rights that permits, and not only through compounding, the atrocities that we now know decimated Europe. Maybe, conservatives should think harder about imposing their opinion on the the very people who's fate they will share.

An Anachronistic Message

On 07-28-11, I had an interesting conversation with a Christian @lauramzy. She did the usual bible quoting and unsupported assertions, followed by ranting in all capitals; you know, generally losing her cool. Only, in so doing the usual quoting et cetera, she gave me an opportunity to see where people get that their deity is a loving peaceful deity contrary to everything I know about it.

The first Bible verse I received was 1 John 4:7

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Now the first thing one will notice is that this verse is claiming in the third person to know god and further to know god is love. Ok, interesting observation considering the content of the books that precede this particular verse. This is not, however, evidence that the Christian god is love; it is merely a claim of such. And in the context in which this verse was written it seems to be a sermon of praise and platitudes. No one, well except Christians grasping at straws, would expect this to be factual anymore than public comments at a wedding reception.


Now, this next one contradicts her claim in that her deity is professing to do the fighting as opposed to diplomacy. Deuteronomy 3:22

Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you.

The previous verse has an interesting assertion about:

 Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings

So, this just doesn't sound like a peace loving god which is directly contradicting her claim. Is she confusing her own feelings of security for those of peace? I don't understand why she would use it unless it just fit her search criteria and she didn't read further. Most importantly, this is a case of a first person narration of a particular opinion not that of direct observation, nor is it a record of any deity making such a claim. In the next verse Exodus 14:14 is the same problem:

The LORD shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.

It is starting to look like my interlocutor searched for the word peace and love in an attempt to find confirmation for her theses regarding her deity's disposition. Again, the verse she has chosen shows not diplomacy but vigilante violence. So far, no sign of a loving, peaceful god even in her choice of verses.


Then in her next exchange she actually asks if I am embarrassed about my stance. This as she proffers a verse straight out of the battle of David and Goliath 1 Samuel 17:47

And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hands.

This deity offers the enemy up for slaughter. I would not consider this peaceful under any circumstance. In the verse preceding the above David is bragging about the Lord delivering Goliath so that David will take his head. If this is a peaceful, loving deity, what would a violent deity be? In my view this is a nationalistic god of war. It should not be surprising as Yahweh Sabaoth means God of War or Armies, yet it is the rare fundamentalist that knows these facts.


Still haven't seen evidence of the peaceful god of which my interlocutor writes. I hate to tell her that after many  decades of study, nothing even close to a peaceful, loving deity has emerged. The verses she has presented so far are not evidence of anything of the sort. From what I have learned from reading the bible, Yahweh is a god of war, and even considering her quoted verses this still stands, so far. Many of her quoted verses were clipped. Out of 1Samuel 25:33 she removed 33b & 33c but cited 33a & 33d.

And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand.

But this verse isn't talking to, or about, Laura's deity; rather, it reflects David's thanking of Abigail for calming him down. While it is claimed in a previous verse that the Lord sent Abigail, this is not what the cited verse is about as David mentions the advice. Considering that David is also a literary construct, as are most of the main characters of the Bible, this verse is, at most, a bit in the mythology of David. I can't help but to think that there has to be better examples that @lauramzy could have cherry-picked in her attempt to frustrate my case.

Psalm 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Now Psalm 11:5 as she quoted it: "The soul of the Lord hates those who love violence," is close enough, but the next verse shows that the Lord hateth those that mirror himself. 

Psalm 11:6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

 Of course, these are verses of lyrical poetry, so their value as to factual anything is vacuous. Still, it is easy to see that the authors viewed their deity as, well, violent. In my opinion, this character of Hebrew polytheistic mythology reflects the barbarity, to be precise, of the era.

 Psalms 33:16 A king is not saved by his great army...

This is talking about being saved spiritually not by armies but by favor in the eyes of the Lord. Only, it is but a few verses later that the violence of this deity are highlighted in that mankind should be in fear of this god of war. Psalm 33:18

Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;

I was 6-years-old when I first realized that no one should fear a loving deity. I read The Book of Mormon in the second grade after reading Wagons West about Joseph Smith & Brigham Young. I was then convinced that religion was a fantasy; it was started by the idea that no one should fear someone that loves them. I finished the Bible the first time at 11 (my sixth grade teacher said she could read it in a year). I was never so credulous as to believe Santa or the Easter Bunny—that I can remember (I told my 4 and 5 year old brothers that those things were pretend just before my sixth birthday). I was motivated by the word fear in all the ecclesiastical discourse to start finding my own evidence, and I never looked back. The next proffering was:

 Psalms 20:7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.

While this is another case where mankind's war power is put in a secondary position in relation to faith, it says nothing of the deity's passiveness or love. And in a verse just previous to this one:

 Psalm 20:3 Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice; Selah.

Burnt sacrifices have never struck me as something needed by a loving entity of any kind. Am I missing something? I know we are taking about lyrical verse that describes someone's perception and their practices in relationship with this entity not the acts of the entity themselves, but it is indicative of the verses being presented as evidence of a peaceful loving deity. Then she sends Psalm 140:1-2 along with the typical insults of those suffering from cognitive dissonance and the fear engendered in their faith as a deterrent from apostasy.

Protect me from the violent who...stir up wars continually. r u satisfied yet? do u feel stupid yet?

As far as a relationship with the deity goes, this verse is asking for protection from violent sorts. Then in just a few verses after, this author is asking the deity to: Let burning coals fall upon them: let them be cast into the fire; into deep pits, that they rise not up again (140:10). Again, an appeal to the violence innate in this belief system, and that vengeance seemingly expected from their deity. So, to this point Laura Ramzy has shown nothing evidentiarily to support her claim that her deity is a peaceful loving entity, and I have used the same chapters or psalms to show that she is, in fact, wrong in her stance without, as yet, referencing my own material evidence.


If she had done as I and many others have done and actually read the books, she would know what I and others know about this war god of Hebrew mythology, but she, like many of her mindset, have let interpreters, middlemen, woo woo salespeople, and charlatans tell her what they want her to know concerning this deity regardless of the literary evidence and historical facts. People read into the verses what they want to see instead of reading the verses as they are written.


People need to understand that the Bible really is that bad, and the reason it is that bad is because the book was trapped by the advent of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440 (Gutenberg Bible, Vulgate, 1450s) in the configuration that it's currently in after almost a millennium of exclusively priestly interpretation. This is the translation from which the King James version was taken in 1611. It wasn't even until the Council of Trent 1546 CE that the Catholic Church canonized the books in the Bible and still there are many different canons (ie. Greek, Ethiopian, Syriac, etc.).  Prior to this, even long after, the public was not permitted to read the Bible; in fact, many English translations were destroyed for this very reason.


Maybe, it is because of this betrayed trust, by those she accepted interpretations from, that she is motivated to get so violently defensive of her view: misdirected anger? Alas, this is nothing we haven't come to expect from the professed Christians of the world. 


Please note that there are many of these maxims I whole-heartily agree with, for instance, this next bit on wisdom.

 Ecclesiastes 9:18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war

Actually, other than the idea of sin expressed therein the rest of the verse is quite compelling if one merely replaces sinner with bungler (NRSV), delusionally dishonest, malcontent, or psychotic, etc. Ecc 9:18 "Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good." As sinner encompasses much considered thought crimes and innately human drives as commanded by supposedly absolute moral dictate. This is not, however, the words of my interlocutor's deity. No! The words are those of the "Teacher" or 'Gatherer," so some assume it is the mythical character Solomon son of David (also a literary construct), yet, even though these are words to live by, they are not evidence supporting Laura's claim of a peaceful loving deity.

  Hosea 1:7 I will save...not by bow, sword, battle, horses, horsemen

A few verses before this one the author puts the words,
Hosea 1:4-5

1:4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
1:5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel, in the valley of Jezreel.

1:6b ... for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

into the mouth of this deity. Also, the saving expressed in 1:7, if somewhat ambiguous, is by mercy on a favored people. Only, in light of the previous verses expressing revenge, I'm not seeing peaceful at all, and if we ignore the Documentary Hypothesis, the polytheistic origins of Hebrew mythology, and the constant redaction by the Deuteronomists et al. this Yahweh is supposedly the creator of all people; so why is it not love but nationalism being expressed? I see literary evidence of what is believed to be a nationalistic regional deity, a local war god—not a loving anything. 


The next verse she quotes in her continued attempt to assail me with her proof is:

  Zechariah 4:6 Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit

Only the whole verse reads "Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." Where Lord of Hosts translates as God of Armies, and this is supposedly an angel conferring this information. And what is it that is by spirit transmitted? In Zech 5:3 it says: "Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth," again, not peaceful or loving is it?

  Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies; pray for persecutors

This is obviously Mt 5:44 not 5:43 that she marked it as. This is from the Sermon on the Mount which is actually taken from a much older (maybe 7 centuries older, Buddha) philosophy than this narrative which was written after the beginning of the second century from the evidence I have gathered. This verse also follows a narrative in which  it is commanded to pluck out an eye if it should offend one. That the Earth is this God's footstool; so, although it has its applications in the real world, the philosophy is not practiced by this narrative character nor his father as exemplified in Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Mark 9:50 Be at peace with each other.

In a continuation of the verses from Mark 9:43 that have this Jesus character telling the congregation to "pluck an eye," "cut off a foot," or  "the hand." What could be more violent, even barbaric, than this? This is a case of the writer's request put in the mouth of Jesus, not that of a deity. Also, it can be argued that this is in the context of nationalism, the in-group, actually the believers themselves not humanity at large.

Romans 12:17 "Return no one evil for evil...live at peace with everyone" did i make a point now too?

 This is a sermon transmitted via Epistle by Paul/Saul not any recount of a deity's actions. People are being told how to act not shown how their deity has or does act. This has real world applications but is not the evidence for a peaceful loving deity. It is an ethic that some humans practice without the sermon.

Romans 12:21 Overcome evil with good

This is still Paul communicating through the Epistles his own ethics (In fact, Chapters 12 & 13 are full of ethics that are not attributed to the Gospel Jesus character. Could this be because Paul knew of no historical Jesus?) 

Romans 14:19 "Make every effort to do what leads to peace..." how about now?

Again, a sermon, but this is concerning restrictions of food, the eating of meat, and being thought highly of by one's peers. Laura has not produced one iota of evidence showing the peaceful loving deity. So far, only the snide remarks of an arrogant, if not a little frightened, Christian showing all the symptoms of mindlessly adhering to socially supported inculcation with culturally accepted dogma.

1 Peter 3:11 "Turn from evil; do good; seek peace; pursue it." next time u speak of my religion do ur research.

 This isn't talking about her deity. This is in reference to the subjection of women to their husbands, and the husband's piety as a result of the wife's practices while both of them can attain higher levels of morality by thinking before reacting. In historical context this is a lesson in ethics that common people of this time will not find, for educational systems serving the masses are still some 1600 years hence. Note that my interlocutor displays the arrogance of ignorance quite prevalent in most theistic discourse with the fundamentalist adherent. Also note that it is all too obvious that she has yet to read the book she claims as the base for her world view. 
Relying instead on the woo woo merchants I made mention of earlier. And, yes, I do pity her.


Then after some time to reflect, I'm guessing, Laura Ramzy sends Proverbs 9:7-12 to me. Does anyone think it was not because of the words "arrogant cynic" in her choice of translation. Only, a more accurate translation would be "scoffer" in historical context. Alas, I tried very hard not to be either. And if one actually reads Proverbs 9 and considers it in historical context, that is, noting that Hebrew scripture was the basic education of most commoners of that era. Realizing, still further, that if one was a Jewish shepherd of the Diaspora, even a Nomad, this was Higher Education as there was nothing better to know 2200 years ago. Though Laura takes it out of historical context, and, for that matter, context in general. This whole proverb is a call to those searching for wisdom, and even though I disagree with the god claims in it, because we have far to much evidence to the contrary today, we can all agree that it is a good idea to seek out wisdom. Proverbs 9:7-12

General Maxims

Whoever corrects a scoffer wins abuse;
   whoever rebukes the wicked gets hurt. 
A scoffer who is rebuked will only hate you;
   the wise, when rebuked, will love you. 
Give instruction to the wise, and they will become wiser still;
   teach the righteous and they will gain in learning. 
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
   and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. 
For by me your days will be multiplied,
   and years will be added to your life. 
If you are wise, you are wise for yourself;
   if you scoff, you alone will bear it.

Here is a link to the search of all, or most, of our correspondence. I will let you, dear reader, decide who this verse could help the most. And I still recommend reading this entire proverb about Lady Wisdom, who could have been Asherah, wife of El, at one time. Tomorrow, because this post is already too long, I will discuss the heinous acts that won Yahweh his title as a blood soaked deity of mythology.

Why Rupert Murdoch Love$ God: World's Biggest Sleaze Mogul Also Getting Rich from Christian Moralizers | | AlterNet

Murdoch knows something I found out way back in the 1970s and 80s, when I was still my founder-of-the-religious-right Dad’s sidekick and a right wing evangelical leader/shill myself: There’s gold in them-thar God hills! James Dobson alone once gave away 150,000 copies of one of my evangelical screeds that sold more than a million copies. (I describe why I got out of the evangelical netherworld – fled -- in my book Sex, mom and God.)

So here’s my question to Rob Bell of the God-loves-everybody school of touchy-feely theology and/or to the right wing "family values" crowd who worry about gay marriage between responsible loving adults  while they perform financial fellatio on the mightiest and most depraved/pagan media baron to ever walk the earth: 

What serious, let alone decent religiously conscious person – left or right, conservative or liberal -- would knowingly work to enrich this dreadful man who will go down in history as the epitome of everything that all religion says its against: lies, greed, criminality, and sheer disgusting exploitation of the defenseless that would shame a sewer rat?

Secular “un-saved” and "godless" and "liberal" authors like Jeff Jarvis have pulled books from Harper Collins because it’s owned by Murdoch as he writes: “[my]  next book, Public Parts, was to be published, like my last one, by News Corp.'s HarperCollins. But I pulled the book because in it, I am very critical of the parent company for being so closed. It's now being published by Simon and Schuster.”

Where are the big time religion writers like the "I-give-all-my-royalties-to-the-poor" Rick Warren to be found refusing to publish with Zondervan, Harper One or write another word for Beliefnet? What’s mildly lefty Rob Bell’s defense for enriching Murdoch and helping to finance Fox “News” via publishing with Harper One when he could publish with anyone? 

For that matter where are the evangelical/Roman Catholic/Muslim—or just minimally decent -- people, religious or irreligious guests and commentators now refusing to be interviewed by Fox News even if it will help sell their books?

Knowing what we know about the union-busting, slime-spreading Murdoch empire and it's disgusting and criminal actions can a moral person work for or use the products of this all-encompassing web of profit, far right politics and corruption?

I don't think so.

But of course the religion writers have plenty of company.

What about journalists working for Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal?

What about Deepak Chopra? 

He publishes with Harper One. Thus Chopra is helping finance Fox News. And so is Desmond Tutu. He’s also a Harper One author. 

And what about all the “progressive” stars, producers and writers doing deals with the Fox movie empire? Such Hollywood moralists used to boycott working in the old apartheid South Africa, but will work for/with Murdoch today as he empowers the far religious racist right through Fox News! Desmond Tutu used to call for boycotts of far right religious nuts in South Africa oppressing blacks in the name of God, and now he’s a Murdoch contributor!

Go figure! 

Why should the people – religious leaders, writers, actors, agents, producers et al -- who help Murdoch wreck America and the UK -- remain respectable in our countries? 

Okay, they deserve a second chance. 

Mea Culpa! 

I published two books with Harper Collins some years ago after Murdoch had taken over. I had a deal with the Smithsonian that was tied into Harper Collins for distribution, then the Smithsonian backed out but my books stayed at Harpers. After they were published I thought about – and regretted -- helping Murdoch. I've never published with them again. 

This is merely a sample. Please see the whole write up at alternet.org and remember:

With the sleazeball Rupert Murdoch attracting, or maybe I should say sticking to (in the slimiest sense of the word), the likes of Deepak Chopra, Rick Warren, and Rob Bell, who enrich the News Corp Empire with their supernatural snake oil chicanery, falsified feel good stories, and of course it's too good to be true world view, it should be easier for decent people to see their way clear to boycott Fox News, Beliefnet, Zondervan, Wall Street Journal, Harper Collins and any other institution that profits from the gullibility or credulousness of a large section of the populace. Follow the evidence and you too can avoid the knavery of these charlatans.

Beachbum's Mountain View

All I Say Is, God Is Not.

Our Founding Fathers concluded that God was not an intercessory god.

And, of course, I respectfully agree; God is not.

Still others conclude that God is not anthropomorphic.

And they will get no argument from me, God is not.

Still more assert that God is not discernable through science,

and by way of the evidence, I conclude, God is not.

Patriarchal authorities say: God is not female.

With this oligarchy, I seldom agree, but God is not.

Others argue that God is not responsible for evil.

Again, I agree, God is not.

 

When I'm enraged by those claiming God is telling them to hate,

I quell my temper and merely state: God is not.

When the priests were calling for their congregations to support the Reich,

There were those, I'm sure, that knew: God is not.

When the Generals scream men charge that wall knowing God is on our side,

I have dusted my sights while thinking, God is not.

When they've told me their God is love,

I cite Bible verses, after verse, clearly showing their God is not.

 

When they ask if, to their prayers, God is listening,

I remark, the evidence shows: God is not.

When they ask if God is the creator of all things,

I say my parents made me, so no; God is not.

And, when they say they see the evidence for God all around,

I know evolutionary reproduction is responsible for what they see; God is not.

 

Everyone seems to have their own version of what God is,

And, like me, they all have visions of what God is not.

So, when they ask me what God is,

I must conclude, God is not.

 

So, when they claim an atheist couldn't possibly understand what God is,

All I say is, God is not.

Beachbum's Mountain View

Of Falsification and Fabrication, A Christian Tradition

A brief on the falsifications of actual history that went into the fabrication of what would become the state religion of Rome just before its demise. And much of it can be attributed to a single church historian. This is a small sample of what we now know and an even smaller sample of what is the probable case against self proclaimed historian.

 

A history of the Commission (Matthew 28:19)

 

Eusebius of Caesarea read and recorded the text of the verse we know as Matthew 28:19, so we have an extant version from 411 CE written as:

 

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

 

Eusebius regularly cites it again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany only preserved in an old Syriac version in a Nitrian codex in the British Museum written in AD 411, in his famous History of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine I.

 

My point is, if it can be changed from what Eusebius knew it to be (above) to its current form:

 

28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

 

Then;

 

1. The current version is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for 2 reasons:

 

First; It took the church over 200 years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting. Think about it, why do we also have Greek Orthodox and Ethiopian sects now?

 

Then there is Acts, and its claim that when people are baptized they are baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). This is a redemption, a purification, not an initiation as evinced in the Matthew version.

 

2. This contradicts the Jesus character's narrative statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24-27, and many others). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who originally wanted to extend the "Anointed Savior" myth (at least Paul's version of it that is evinced in the Epistles) to include the gentiles. This was later rejected by those who wrote the words for the Jesus character in the Gospel narrative. This may be due to the fact that Matthew was written from a different Anointed Savior tradition than Paul's.

 

The fact that it contradicts Matthew 10:5-6 & 15:24-27 shows simply that this gospel's core rests on a regional tale recorded by those wishing to capture an apocryphal, as well as nationalistic, story that they most likely knew wasn't historical, let alone, factual. I still contend that due to the chronological implications of both the Gospel Jesus character's proclamation that he would return to take the throne of David before the disciples were finished teaching (Matthew 10:23, Luke 1:32-33) and Paul's assertion that he would be taken up to heaven while he still lives (1 Thess 4:17), shows that the whole of this Christology is mutilated and manipulated into the concept used by Catholicism as a populist political conveyance by Eusebius for the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great well after it lost all of its original meaning. The Romans had long known the politically cohesive power of these nationalistically uplifting and superstitious stories. Which is why they rarely interfered with and sometimes even incorporated the religious views of the local inhabitants of places they conquered then occupied. So, Constantine the Great knew full well what was to be done at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. He took Paul's idea and tried to use it to incorporate many regions under one religious banner. Which brings me back to my original point that the verse in Matthew (we know as Matthew 28:19) that Eusebius knew was redacted, possibly by Eusebius himself, for Rome's political reasons.

 

The above is just one of many cases, in evidence, concerning the dishonest practices of the church fathers that facilitated the religio-political institution that is Christianity and the origins of the Jesus of Nazareth myth.

 

Eusebius is also accredited with fabricating the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus' History of the Jews 18.3.3. While someone else could be responsible for 20.9.1, I personally think Eusebius was the church authority on the project, in any case.

 

This along with what amounts to a rationalization of the act in his Praeparatio Evangelica (book xii, Chapter 31), which says how fictions (pseudos)—which the historian Edward Gibbon (c. 1776) rendered 'falsehoods'—may be a "medicine", which may be "lawful and fitting" to use in the pursuit of convincing young people [the context evinced in the platonic dialog from which this Eusebian passage was derived]:

 

"That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach:

[Here Eusebius quotes Plato’s Laws 663e, words spoken by the Athenian character:] “And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie [pseudesthai] to young men for a good reason, then can’t he lie? For falsehood [pseudos] is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.” [Then, quoting words spoken in response by the character Clinias:] “Truth is beautiful, Stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.” [Followed by Eusebius’ further comments:] You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach. [Translation by Richard Carrier, in “The Formation of the New Testament Canon” note 6]

 

In other words, Eusebius of Caesarea claims it is fine to use falsehoods to create Christianity to appease the political whims of Constantine the Great (c. 327 CE) from what was originally the claimed revelations of apostles working the Jewish anointed savior sects among the Jewish diaspora.

 

This is one of the strongest of the ever growing evidences supporting the claimed fabrication of Christianity which facilitated the political agenda at the heart of the reunification of the Roman Empire, in supporting the Mythicist's case regarding the non-Historicity of the Jesus character, and in the fabrication of the whole of the early Christian history, as Eusebius was the official Historian and conscripted creator of the first 50 Bibles of the soon to be state religion of both the Eastern and Western Empires of the newly reunited Roman Empire.

 

So, does it matter that some argue over whether Eusebius was a fictionalizer, fabricator or just a liar supporting a political agenda? Of course not! And it seems to have become a tradition.

Beachbum's Mountain View

It Always Hurts When You Laugh

It's their sore spot!

From: Beachbum's Mountain View It's their sore spot! ... http://beechbum.posterous.com/it-always-hurts-when-you-laugh

Ingersoll's Vow

Few have expressed the feeling of freedom from that dungeon, which is revealed religion, better than Robert G. Ingersoll. I only ask that while you read this vow of a courageous man, you remember that he lived and died before another great mind would evince the comparatively superior importance of imagination over knowledge; and this individual was talking about actual knowledge not the pretend knowledge of faith when he stated:


"Imagination is more important than knowledge."—Albert Einstein


INGERSOLL'S VOW

Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) was a famous attorney and orator whose brilliant lectures drew thousands. As a political figure, he came close to achieving the Republican party's nomination for governor of Illinois, but prejudice and intolerance denied him the opportunity because he was an atheist.

When I became convinced that the universe is natural—that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world—not even in infinite space.

I was free—free to think, to express my thoughts—free to live to my own ideal—free to use all my faculties, all my senses—free to spread imagination's wings—free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope—free to judge and determine for myself—free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past—free from popes and priests—free from all the "called" and "set apart"—free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies—free from the fear of eternal pain—free from the winged monsters of the night—free from devils, ghosts, and gods.

For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought—no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings—no chains for my limbs—no lashes for my back—no fires for my flesh—no master's frown or threat—no following another's steps—no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain—for the freedom of labor and thought—to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs—to those whose flesh was scarred and torn—to those by fire consumed—to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.

****

Imagine (a powerful function & freedom of the mind when supported by evidence) what humanity could have achieved by now, if only our minds were free to soar without the shackles of superstition holding us back.


From a time long before I realized just how different I was, for I have always been atheist, I have seen the tragedy that is the change that comes from inculcation into the superstitions. General Robert G. Ingersoll—so much for that lie about atheists in foxholes—here expresses, better than most, the feeling of shedding those shackles, or should I say mind vice (vise works well, too), but in actuality, it is a virus, a cultural meme that both spreads like a virus and acts like a drug.

A Creationist's Sophistic Argument

While in a conversation with a fellow philosopher, I noticed this exchange slide by on my computer screen and found it interesting, then somewhat disturbing, and finally, typical of the sophistic mind set. But not the mind set of the one I've recorded here, no. The pictured comments that follow are the result of inculcation and indoctrination, not thinking, maybe rationalization, but not thinking.

You make a claim, therefore you need to support it with evidence. It is a consequence of the properties of logical, honest discourse that the one asserting the premise be able to support it with evidence, otherwise there is no case to be made for your assertion. The veracity of a claim is directly connected to, and wholly a function of, the quality and quantity of the evidence. Even in informal discourse there is the need for the one asserting a claim to support it.

This is the first sign that the argument which is to follow will in no way be an honest discussion, but rather an attempt to deride that which shows his world view to be untenable. This is typically a creationist tactic, but of the deluded. Noting the mention of 'naturalistic' very early in the discussion, it indeed suggests a sophist of a creationist bent; this tact is typically their only means of argumentation as the fundamentalist creationist world view has no supporting evidence.

I think it is diagnostically informative to analyze how this person views and defines the atheistic worldview. For instance, his inference in the above claim that atheism has some bearing, one way or the other, on the logical, conceptual, or immaterial is asinine taken at face value. It is merely a feeble attempt at conflating atheism with some sort of philosophical stance (a caricature of an irrational form of materialism supposedly representing evolution, a relatively simplistic strawman, actually) by asserting it holds to some claim. I don't think it's based on his confusing the supernatural with the immaterial. It may be that he has been inculcated into believing that the atheist is in a state of irrational denial of the immaterial aspects of the world. Or, is it because he thinks he can obfuscate the atheistic worldview with something negated by his God's logic? I think it may simply be that he has no idea that the atheistic worldview is comprised of a mere lack of belief, or he is just a creationist sophist conflating atheism with that which negates his creationist view and eliminates the need for a deity, evolution by natural selection.

Now this is the crux of his obfuscation. Not the argument, per say, but I think he is either claiming that evolution (without exactly stating it, of course) while calling it atheism (actually mischaracterized as a worldview), cannot account for logic (a tool of cognition, the function of an evolved brain, a conceptualization, used to discern the logical parameters, limits of material interaction, by which the material universe is integrated), or he is attempting to use his caricature of atheism (elucidated above) to claim that atheistic views of a material universe are incompatible with the existence of thought. Of course, both are absurd.

By denying that logic is a product of cognition in the material world he hopes to both deny atheists their ability to use logical argumentation and claim that logic is only in the realm of his god. Of course, neither of these are true, for I am using logic, the conceptual principles for reasoning, as it is part of the thought process of a material brain. As I just explained without appealing to the existence of any deity, and thereby not contradicting atheism; which is merely a lack of belief in god(s).

Here, he is just making unsubstantiated claims similar to any delusional claims one might hear during a stroll through any asylum full of psychiatric patients. In accordance with the typical fear motif common to delusions based on phobias, in this case theophobia, we are all supposedly in danger from his platonic monster. Notice his immediate attempt to give it force from this delusion's source of propagation and pseudo-authority. A book, necessary for fundamentalists, which is actually a collection of books most of which were written pseudonymously for different Jewish sects. Collected then accepted or rejected based on their political value and ease of conformity through redaction and interpolation to the conscripted mandates of a 4th century Emperor through his church historian, a confessed liar and fabricator: Eusebius.

Remember it is easy to show that this individual's beliefs are basically based on ignorance. Ignorance of the history and evolution of deities and their mythos in the Judeao-Christian tradition. Ignorance mimetically inherited from antecedents professing to know that which is impossible to know.

From this authority, he goes on to mischaracterize the actual stance of atheism which is that there is no evidence for a deity, one version of which is the Abrahamic deity. Again, this is done without his proffering any evidence for the claim; it is merely a bold assertion of his opinion as based on a book of fiction. This is similar to those that claim that the end of the world is nigh based on interpretations of that same collection of fables. Absurd!

Notice that he seems to be projecting the unsubstantiated existence of his deity on the mind of atheists, something that is impossible for him to know, even if he presumes to know every non-Christian has read his delusion's authoritative source, he can't possibly know the level of their comprehension. This is an excellent example of delusion in the mind of a fundamentalist. The authority of his delusion's sacred book above all else. This mind set is truly dangerous.

In the above comment, he is trying to hide the actual authority of an atheist which is evidence. Notice when he did use the word evidence, and then only once, it was seemingly to deride the scientist's insistence upon it. This exemplifies his deceit better than any prior comment. He may be attempting to inject Cartesian dualism (we are all god's automatons) into his derision of, his obfuscation of evolution (characterized as atheism). Science and the naturalistic view are based on reasoning supported by empirical evidence. While his delusion is only extracted by the rationalization of ancient myth.

Again, this comment asserts unsubstantiated claims that seem to stem from his mischaracterization of atheism and misconceptions regarding atheists' use of scientific concepts. This is actually easy to explain when one realizes that he is using the word atheist to represent, first, evolution and evolutionary concepts that contradict his pet belief of creationism, and second, those concepts of logical empiricism in opposition to claims which appeal to the  supernatural. It could possibly be a comment evincing a miscomprehension of the unguided properties of a natural universe, an over emphasis of random and chance, a creationist's favorite effigy of evolution. This would explain his almost insulting caricatures of the atheistic stance as the result of his being excruciatingly ill informed. This is no surprise considering the religiose have an almost disdainful view of evidence and education in the sciences. While there is little doubt this interlocutor is insane, he is at the same time inculcated with enough disinformation that his rationalizations can be somewhat complex in their structure, but nothing that can't be sorted out by an over-achieving fifth grader.

####

Note:

In a discussion with someone else, this fundamentalist expressed a view that scientists' assumed uniformity could not come from chance. In his view it had to come from design. In his view he further evinced a notion that it was an atheistic view that was untenable as it held to that chance. I think he may be using an atheistic view to represent evolution which means he is a creationist sophist.

This confuses a couple of issues as I see it. First, scientific assumptions of uniformity are concerned with the continuity of physical parameters over time and space. A magical friend would interfere with this uniformity in several ways, for instance, answering prayers or intercession, a preference for one life form over another, or one people over another, etc.

Even with the universal application of physical parameters being uniformly distributed through time and space, there is still mostly chaos in the universe. It is from chaos that the universe is formed, and reformed. If this creationist were sincerely pursuing the facts he would know this, at least generally.

Since this individual is most likely a creationist, his main complaint is just as likely to be against evolution, and therefore what he is hiding behind the scientifically supported notion of "uniformity" is actually design. To show the fictitiousness in his assertion with this in mind, one need only point out the laryngeal nerve, the appendix, parasitic worms, or the fact that the world is full of suffering. Animals eating animals, insects eating animals and other insects, in a never ending cycle of feast, famine, or flood.

It is, in fact, his world view that cannot explain these occurrences in a world created by a supposedly benevolent god; the idea is absurd. And as a sophist he would know it, but as a fundamentalist he may not.

In discussions on the theory of evolution, a creationist is commonly found to be fond of over-emphasizing the role that chance plays in the evolutionary process. The truth of the matter is that chance plays a role in the random formation and distribution of mutations, but this is a very small part of the puzzle. By far, the majority of evolving is done by the recombining of well tested, and well utilized, genetic material. But try to tell this to creationists.

####

Now this interlocutor thinks he has disarmed the atheist argument with his unsupported assertions. While at the same time allowing him to presume that he needn't adhere to the mutual concessions of logical discourse. This presumption  can, of course, be defeated in one sentence: Any assertion put forward without evidence can be ignored without evidence, or even an explanation, for that matter.

This is, of course, where it starts getting ugly from my point of view. Following in the line of his obfuscation concerning atheistic supplication

to reason as an ultimate authority, when, in fact, it is the evidence that holds the authority. A point he is loath to admit given that faith is evidentiarily vacuous. Considering that his god is also evidentiarily untenable and definitely a construct of his own ego, whether he realizes it or not, his ultimate authority becomes himself. The power of the creator of the universe which this commenter imagines as agreeing with his own whims, values, and opinions. This is the ultimate in arrogance. In claiming that his ultimate authority—as he imagines it, as supported by equally arrogant writings of Iron Age theologically bent politicians—an authority that is irreproachable, he has set himself up as the dictator and his ilk as his advisors. Hitler did it; Stalin did it, too. As has every Monarch in human history, but none exemplifies the horror of this power better than the Popes: Innocent VIII of witch trial infamy, Nicholas V of industrialized slavery and genocide infamy, and Alexander VI for adding indigenous peoples of the Americas to the genocide and slave trade. Granted, there are far too many despots to mention; but none that contradict the evidence that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Now this, astonishingly, is the most powerful argument against an ultimate power of which I can imagine. Imagining—then by some illogical extension of an illusion, claiming to know—the opinion or thoughts of a supreme power, and interpreting the related sacred texts in a way that supports your delusion is mainly why Thomas Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

The question is: how is this supposedly  authoritative knowledge communicated to mortals here on Earth? Answer is, it's not. It's imagined by those that stand to gain the most from their utterances, such as, priests, preachers, imams, bishops and popes. Meaning that this interlocutor's "ultimate authority" is none other than the very same, and all too human, despots who would enslave him with their opinion. Pretending to know the mind of some deity is a short cut to positions of tyrannical power over those with theophobia, the god-fearing or devil-dodgers, as I have seen it written recently.

This is exactly why our Founding Fathers use the words "We the People" in our Constitution so as to give the ultimate power back to the consensus of the people of this country. It is why the power of religion was effectively neutralized by not only religious freedom and a wall of separation, but also, freedom from religion. In this way our Founders took all claims to ultimate power away from those despots who imagined, or pretended to imagine, they knew its opinions; their claims to such knowledge are, of course, absurd for far too many reasons to list. Not the least of which is that this supposed deity is not, nor has it ever been, in evidence. Jefferson knew this, and he also knew that morality came from the people as a cultural consensus that progressed as human intellect improved and understanding increased while evolving over time.

This comes very close to defeating his argument as he actually states it. Then he goes on, shamelessly...

Alas, without the first shred of evidence in support of any of the previous assertions, he argues that Christianity, biblical Christianity no less, is the only source of knowledge of the universe. Ignoring the centuries of history that attest to exactly the opposite; that era we now know, and refer to, as the Dark Ages. (Also, I'm sure it's creationism, to which, he is actually alluding.) But this isn't his approach, as he evinced earlier, he is convinced what he terms an atheistic view (evolution), as he defines it as some sort of unrealistically strict even irrational caricature of a naturalistic or materialistic view, means that atheists (actually scientists and evolutionary biologists) deny the very logic that we use in concert with evidence to support everything from the steam engine to space flight.

His problem is that science works; as evidenced by this very computer with which I am working. His religion's claims concerning the universe have been soundly refuted by the great minds of knowledge for longer than his religion has been in existence.

The point of this blog isn't to refute this person's claims. It is not his inane claims, which, of course, it is beneath me to even give credence to via respectable debate. No! I'm concerned about his delusion coupled with what appears to be a very lopsided education. I don't think I would be too far off in thinking it to be of an extreme fundamentalist bent.

In making this point, he obviously sets himself up for a logical comparison; for he could be said to be a rebel for his imagined deity, and fall under the same claim of bias concerning truth. Only, this is a smokescreen; his whole argument ignores the actual atheistic stance, which states, there is no evidence for the existence of his, or any other, deity. The atheistic stance is a neutral position, as it is the evidence that determines the current view. And, considering he has neither alluded to, nor proffered any evidence in support of his claims, I would say this appears to be an inculcated rationalization that we are to accept a priori from his ultimate authority. Which is, of course, himself. Further, it is, however, his continued denial of the idea that people could actually not see any evidence for the existence of his imagined ultimate authority that suggests his delusion is of a deleterious nature.

Considering that his premises are false, hence the charge of sophistry for this excruciatingly unsound argument, his conclusion, as an extension, is as well. And this is as far as the argument goes. But, it is the cocoon that his inculcators have constructed around his delusion that is the most interesting. By misrepresenting the atheist world view as somehow ultra materialistic and illogical, he has deluded himself, or has been deluded into seeing his imagined ultimate authority as the only possible truth.

The delusion itself need not be dangerous, but it can be due to the protective encapsulation of this particular mindset, and the bigotry that inevitably ensues, in more than a few cases. There will be no debating this individual, or those like him, to a productive conclusion. His fundamentalist brainwashing has done its job, as this poor wretch is thoroughly deluded and all but unreachable with reason.

Creationist's Fictions Rehashed, Again!

On June 1, '11 I fired up tweetdeck to see what follows in my timeline. To be honest, I expected something of the sort. I had communicated with this individual the night before. I am sorry to say creationism isn't dead, yet! What I want to do here is bring into stark relief the number one intuitive oversight that is displayed by the typical creationist. They don't seem to realize that creationism, like religion in general, is worthless because it has no supportive relationship with any epistemological endeavor. It doesn't help in medical research, zoology, biology, anatomy, even botany or anything else for that matter. It is not supported by any scientific claims, at all. Furthermore, fact is creationism doesn't even support the claims of the Bible for which it was contrived to support. This new-ish ID only wants to make religion more scientific[ee] by discrediting scientific claims. They want to replace science with religion like in the good old days of the Dark Ages. Creationism stands as another belief system, just something else to take on faith, which is nothing more than denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I know I've debunked these same claims hundreds of times. Only, it fascinates me that the religiose, in general, and creationists in particular seem not to comprehend the fact that the truth of a claim is directly related to its supporting evidence, and to the claims of which it stands in support, but the true strength of a claim is in its predictive power. Since religion's core claims have no veracity, are supported by absolutely no evidence, and since creationism shares this weakness while not being able to make any predictions that can be used in medicine, say virology for example, it seems clear to me that the only reason the two exist is to support each other in flim-flamming the credulous. Now, I know these are obvious claims, but I have lately been thinking about the implications of this resurgence of the two in concert, worldwide. Considering the last time this happened in world history was in Nazi Germany with Herbert Spencer's elitist eugenics, a spin-off from Lamarckian evolution by acquired traits, in concert with Hitler's fundamentalist Christian Supremacy, I see something horrendous building in the atmosphere. If you are familiar with the creationist's arguments, you may as well stop reading after this introductory paragraph because it is the same claptrap that creationist demagogues have been proffering for decades.

What follows is a long tweet in response to a video [below] I sent to... well see for yourself. But like I said, we have had previous conversations. I have edited it for clarity, only.


From: @TertiusIII Top Ten Creationist Arguments  Enjoy! <-- Cute, but not really very enlightening. It was also a little confusing as whose arguments were being presented against what. It was called the Top Ten Creationists arguments, but it wasn't clear if the point was really theist arguments against atheism or creationism arguments against evolution or what the real point was. It just seemed to take claims that some (may have) made in the past against either atheism or evolution. But for the purposes of engaging in honest discussion, I will note that there were a couple of 'creationist' claims that I personally would never make, such as if evolution were true, why are there still monkeys. I have never heard a creationist make that argument, though honestly, I do remember having that question asked in a high school biology class where we were taught evolution and had to explain why we really do have monkeys, and why we don’t have monkeys turning into humans continuously. In my mind, this is not an argument against evolution. Nor is the argument that Hitler was an atheist an argument against atheism. The video did (correctly) note that Hitler's true religion is still in dispute, but clearly to imply atheism is somehow false or necessarily evil because Hitler may have been one is not a valid argument against the veridicality of either atheism or evolution. Now, having said all that, several of the arguments (I believe) are legitimate arguments against evolution, (up to now, we haven't been debating the merits of theism vs atheism, we can do that if you want, though I would prefer to defer that one until after we have vetted this one further). Let's look at some: 1. Radiometric dating methods are not valid. The video basically said 'yes they are and scientists use them all the time.' Actually, while it is the case that scientists use them, this does not negate the fact that ALL radiometric methods are based on several assumptions which, to the extent that they are reliable, will produce accurate dates, but to the extent that they are unreliable, will produce faulty dates. These assumptions are:
a) We know the rate of decay and it has always been constant. For uranium-lead with a multi-billion year half life, which we've only been measuring for 75 years or so, we cannot possibly know it's been constant for 4.5 billion years. But of all the assumptions, this one's probably the safest.
b) We know the ratio of parent to daughter elements when the rock formed. This is critical, because to the extent that daughter elements are present at the rock's 'birth' the results will be biased towards greater age. Since the decay process occurs when the elements are both embedded inside a rock or when free outside the rock, this is a highly suspect assumption since a rock, when solidifying may trap numerous previously existing daughter elements as it hardens.
c) Over the life of the specimen, there has been no migration of parent elements or daughter elements into or out of the rock. Ours is an extremely dynamic planet and this assumption is absurd on its face. To assume that the specimen has been sufficiently isolated from its environment to prevent highly mobile elements from this migration becomes even less likely the older we assume the planet to be. The fact that we find sea shells on mountain tops is a pretty clear indication that there are few places on our planet that were not once very different in the past. (But then, I believe in a global flood, a fact which these sea shells tend to support.)
d) When a rock is born, it can be dated and will be shown to be 0 years old. Of all the assumptions, this is the only one that can actually be tested as there are numerous active volcanoes today producing rocks we can examine. Your own local University of Hawaii tested this a number years ago with rocks known to be produced recently by local volcanoes and all tested out to be many millions of years old. This is pretty clearly a false assumption.

The truth is, when a rock is dated, the geologist (technician) doesn't simply take a sample with instructions to "please date this for me." The specimen is described by the scientist who also identifies the layer in the geologic column from which the specimen was taken. Since the column was constructed assuming evolution is true, the rough age of the specimen is already known by the technician before the 1st radiometric test is performed. The technician will then use numerous radiometric methods which will typically give a very wide range of ages, all of which are discarded except the ones consistent with the layer in which the rock was found. Hence evolution is used to prove an old earth which is necessary to prove evolution. This is absolutely how it is done. Verify this. It is very circular and very bad science.

Now, as it turns out there are other fundamental weakness of radiometric methods and that is that they are necessarily local in nature. I.e. at best they may tell us something about the local environment from which the specimen was taken. There are however other, global phenomena called 'geo-chronometers', almost all of which yield significantly younger ages for the earth. A couple of examples include the amount of helium in the atmosphere, the amount of salt in the oceans, the rate at which the moon's orbit recedes from the earth, the decay of the earth's magnetic field intensity and magnetic field reversals, and on and on.

2. Next, chance. To claim that evolution is not supposedly driven by chance is lunacy. Yes, since the fall of man, the competition for scarce resources is fierce, so what you call natural selection is observed (it is after all a tautology - what are the 'fittest' if they are not the ones that 'survive'?), however what are random mutations if not chance events? 3. Thermodynamics - As I have already tweeted numerous times, even Stephen Hawking argued in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the 2nd law doesn't always hold. The fact that neither most creationists, nor most atheists, nor most evolutionists in general can recite the other laws of thermodynamics is completely irrelevant. And while it is the case that the earth is not a closed system, the universe is, and yet we see an incredible order present in the structures of the universe. In fact, part of what the big bang cosmological model seeks to explain is how these structures developed (i.e. how we got this order we see.) There are other flaws in the video I could address, but as this tweet is already too long, I'll just leave it at that.

A subsequent comment:

From: @TertiusIII It is easy to understand why a people of one book; the Bible, Qur'an, etc., would not comprehen… (cont)  <-- Very foolish tweet @beechbum. The Bible explains my theology, but to claim that Christians reject science is tantamount to the "atheism is false/bad because Hitler was an atheist argument." As your (otherwise) silly video showed, many prominent scientists of the past were Christians. Then, to further indict yourself, you claim: "evolution is a fact, while it is a theory that is supported by many facts which actually makes it stronger than a fact." Dude, I'm sorry, but 'a theory supported by many facts makes it stronger than a fact' - that's just plain stupid. You need to start trying to be honest in our debate. I invite the others who have been following our tweets on this topic to weigh in on this one. Is a theory supported by many facts made stronger than a fact?



To which I replied:

To: @TertiusIII Your whole argument against radiometric dating displays the number one weakness of AiG and ICR based assumptions as suffered by all would-be creationists and religionists, the mindset of one book, you do not want to accept the strength, through support via corroborating results, of multiple testing procedures (see listing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating ) many different types (eg. ice cores, tree rings, varves, annual-layering methods, thermoluminescence, Electron Spin Resonance, Cosmic Ray Exposure Dating) of dating methodologies, each of which confirms the accuracy of radiometric dating and our understanding of the geologic column due to the cross corroboration. What I am saying is: you are in denial, as is, every creationist I have encountered to date. Alas, since you don't want to accept the evidence as proffered by an atheist, then, try this: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html a Christian perspective. Also, you underestimate me in that you do not seem to realize that all of your claims have been refuted by me and many others over the years. Oh, and one more thing, sea shells don't float which means that mountains were once at the bottom of the oceans. It also means that the trilobites are a direct refutation of your world view http://goo.gl/69KhT  and your disdain for fossil evidence for evolving phyla. What you and your ilk do not want to apprehend is that we use evolutionary theory to understand fossils, so much more than, we use fossils to substantiate evolutionary theory; the Genome Project does a far better job at that endeavor.

Your claim about some University of Hawaii tests is a fabrication of the Discovery Institute, ICR, if it is the tale I have encountered before. Details of those tests were, in fact, manipulated by means of contamination, but were actually discovered and corrected by subsequent tests of various methods to bring the dates to a more accurate conclusion. Also, of course, there are test results that give erroneous results, those are thrown out when they are not corroborated by many other testing means; it is these discarded test results that ICR et al. jump on in an attempt to discredit radiometric dating, to no avail.

This "when a rock is dated" testing scenario you anecdotally proffered in the next paragraph is so familiar, and inaccurate, that I'm sure it is born of the Discovery Institute, via AiG or Conservapedia (and uh, no! that's not how it is done). The funny thing is, creationists never attempt to contradict the findings with data, nor do they submit, for peer review, findings of their own (you know, we found this fossil in the ground and... uh, god did it). It is a simple process, anyone is able to test the results of scientific findings for themselves (see Dr. Richard Lenski's work with E. coli verifying evolution by natural selection via observed data and the conflict with that fraud at Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly). It also neglects the fact that many paleontologists, for example, are in competition with each other and at the same time in cooperation all across the world making discoveries and corroborative links to past and contemporary findings that overlap, even intertwine. Also, a young scientist (as most post-docs see themselves) would like nothing more than to correct a Senior member of the faculty, talk about keeping the findings honest. A factual anecdote: tree rings from petrified trees correspond to rings in ice cores which line up with climatic events as recorded in strata via particulate fossils (eg. pollen, etc.) showing archaeologists clues as to, say, why a people migrated to the coast some 9-12,000 years ago across the Andes Mountains. This is also how Israel Finkelstein developed very strong evidence against the historicity of the tales about David and Solomon and most of the rest of the Old Testament. Hell, we have trees that are older than YEC creationists, like you, think the entire Earth is: http://bit.ly/j4J58E This is why people laugh at creationists.

Only, this corroborative power is nothing compared to the predictive power of the dating methodology as it is being perfected today. Few instances exemplify this better than the discovery of the specimen Tiktaalik roseae which was discovered in the Devonian strata as stratigraphy, zoogeography and paleontology predicted (see Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ ). And this transitional (as if any fossil could be anything else) fossil is at the cusp of sea-to-land animal transition and it already shares many anatomical features of most extant animals in its lineage. Very strong evidence for the accuracy of our dating methodology—if you're asking me.


Geochronometers, which is what we've been talking about all along, have nothing to do with your connivance with ICR knavery. Let's take the helium falsehood first, shall we. It is a lie. To you and most other creationists they have lied. Like every other word that has spewed forth from those mountebanks of mythology. The claim is that helium doesn't escape from the exosphere as put forward by one L. Vardiman and Morris in 1974, but the truth of the matter is that helium does escape from the atmosphere at the rate of 2 to 4 x 10 ^6 ions/cm^2.sec of 4He. This is almost exactly the same as the decay rate production flux of (2.5 ± 1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2.sec Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. And since there is also another possible escape mechanism of direct interaction of the solar winds with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing, Sheldon and Kern estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." —Dalrymple, 1984, pg. 112.

I'm afraid the rest of the creationist flimflam falls under the weight of similar scrutiny. An example in my opinion, would be the mere mention of saltwater should be avoided by creationists due to the fact that it puts the fatality of saltwater fish getting emersed in rainwater and vice versa, in stark relief. Which, of course, eliminates Noah's flood as an excuse for sea shells floating up the side of a mountain, which they don't, of course. Such as your claim that fittest and survive are somehow a tautology, which it is not, especially in the context of reproductive fitness and survival of the genome; that is, in the context of evolutionary theory.

Or, as I wrote earlier concerning your bit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Stephen Hawking was expressing, on page 103 of his A Brief History of Time, the relationship of entropy as a closed system passed over the event horizon of a black hole. At that point the entropy may decrease. These are not Laws that someone or something makes the universe follow, but descriptions of parameters that nature appears to follow as matter interacts. As it seems your idea of entropy is somehow related to visible order in the universe, which only displays your lack of understanding of entropy, generally, and the 2nd Law specifically, I would urge you to read Peter Atkins on the subject. Simply stated, the entropy described in the 2nd Law is the decay of the quality of energy through its dispersal. This means that the 2nd Law in no way supports creationism nor weakens evolutionary theory.

Regarding your next assertion in which you claim that I "claim[ed] that Christians reject science" is unfounded and misses the point, because my statement was: "It is easy to understand why a people of one book ...  would not comprehend the incredible strength of many books ... being in full and complete agreement, ... ." This is not me stating that Christians reject science; this is me stating that fundamentalist Christians in general, and creationists in particular, are so enamored with the idea that the claims expressed in the Bible as being the absolute truth, and the idea of absolute authority generally (which is 'tantamount' to evidencing a very real (and low) upper limit to the ratio of honest analytical capabilities to the overriding cognitive compartmentalization due to the cognitive dissonance present in a mind torn between wishful thinking and the observable facts), that they can't comprehend a concept which holds that the more supporting evidence there is concerning a claim, the more likely, the more powerful the veracity, of that claim, of a theory, of an observation becomes.

This agreement, this corroboration across all sciences, across all epistemological disciplines is exactly what makes the Theory of Evolution so powerful, and such an untenable state of affairs for science deniers (typically they only deny the facts that are inconvenient, which is where the charge of hypocrisy comes into play), like creationists. Notice that I didn't write Christians. Further, claiming this is tantamount to "atheism is false/bad because Hitler was an atheist argument" is totally unrelated and untenable for many reasons; the first of which is, obviously, that I am concerned with the creationist's lack of understanding regarding the accumulation of facts as evidence in ever increasing support of claims made. This is exactly the methodology in our legal system. Second, I am not claiming to know the opinions in a dead man's mind (see note 1 below), nor am I generalizing one person's presumed beliefs across a whole group of people. It seems you have also incorrectly labeled atheists with a philosophical identity, by the way. Atheism is not a belief, so it cannot be false or bad.

This "scientists of old were religious" assertion is usually a very telling claim. Of course, many scientists of the past were Christians, Muslims or Jews, or at least claimed to be. In those years before the Enlightenment, even for many years afterwards, one would be the evening's entertainment for claiming otherwise. If one had the smell of burning heretics in their nostrils, yet none of the evidence that we have garnered since the days when philosophers regarded intuition and introspection more reliable than observation and experimentation (per the Church's insistence, of course), ie. Newtonian physics, Darwin's natural selection, the scientific method's track record of success,  Einstein's Relativity, or space travel, etc., it would be a fatalistic act of defiance to claim what would have been an illogical, and not an evidentiarily supported view. Your claim displays a projecting of today's knowledge back on historical figures, first. This, in turn, shows you know the strength of knowledge as garnered by science today. As if claiming, "scientists know all this stuff, and they still believe"; or as you've projected, "they're scientists, and they were religious"; thereby, empowering the very discipline you are illogically attempting to refute using religious means. Yes, very telling.

What you did concerning my statement, "at your level of understanding, evolution is a fact, while it is a theory that is supported by many facts which actually makes it stronger than a fact" is known as quote mining. It is a typical creationist ploy when attempting to cloud an issue or an idea. It is an evasion of honest discourse, a lie, and should be derided as such.

Concerning the matter at hand, a claim of innocence by the accused, in a court of law, is ever more substantiated as evidence accumulates in support of that claim, a theory as substantiated by more and more facts; making your assertion pathetically absurd through example. Evolutionary theory like electrical theory, gravitational theory, and cosmological theory, etc. etc., is solidly substantiated by facts at all but the very cutting edge of new knowledge on the subject. Moreover, this, much like your previous claims, is an example of a mindset; you seem to have a cognitive block regarding evidence that is not in support of your views, again, very telling.

You know @TertiusIII on a personal note, as I read your writing, I am reminded of an observation shared by the wickedly astute Dr. Peter Medawar about the spread of secondary, and latterly, of tertiary education which has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.

Notes:
1. Hitler was not an atheist by any evidentiary model of which I am aware. (Hitler was a fundamentalist Christian acting as a soldier of god in eliminating the Jews according to his own words and writings in Mein Kampf. http://bit.ly/kcyKWK & http://bit.ly/laRWck & http://bit.ly/k2ksoO This is what most would call evidence that Hitler was by no means an atheist. You see, the only reason there is any controversy concerning Hitler's piety is, again, Christians are in denial. That is, Hitler's religiosity is just another denial that Christians cling to in a feeble attempt to defend their delusions. Only, what they seldom want to talk about is the fact that, regardless of Hitler's views, the people of early 20th century Germany (and surrounding countries) were enthusiastic about putting him in power, complicit in horrendous atrocities because they were motivated by dreams of National, racial, and Christian Supremacy into supporting his agendas. Furthermore, the Catholic, that is Universal, Church was complicit in many of those atrocities as the exemplar (Spanish Inquisition), as an accomplice and supporting authority (Concordat of 1933 with Hitler's regime) and the active involvement of the church through the atrocities committed by the likes of Fr. Jozef Tiso and Ante Pavelić, and after the fact, via the Rat-Lines through which the Vatican shuttled Nazis out of Europe to places like America by way of South America. Point being that regardless of Hitler's personal views (about which I have no doubt based on the overwhelming evidence), Christianity, by way of its claims of divine authority, played a major role in the atrocities of the mid-twentieth century, not to mention the entirety of its history of inhumanity.

I know this is uninteresting to most people, but if it gave you some ideas or information you didn't know before maybe it was worth the trouble. Thanks.