Evil Commentary Bureau Versus "Skysaber, GENIUS OF

[Dracos]

Well, never thought I'd see the day that Skysaber would come under the ECB lens but, given the multiple submissions and his own infernal arrogance, it has finally occured.  Here we will read the tale as Evil Commentary Bureau members critique both his fic and his arguments against Evolution.  This...should be quite a show.  Rezantis will lead off posting first the opening shot done by Olguin, which was deleted mere hours after posting.  Then Rezantis will follow up with his own excellent shot at the 'Debate' scene.  Later, much later, I will finish off with a full ECB breakdown of his entire fic.

Stay tuned ^_^

Fearless Leader

[Rezantis]

The fic, btw, is the latest chapter of Otaku reflected.

Take a look.  It's kinda scary - the theory of evolution causes crime, and the like.

http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=567028&chapter=18

--
--
--

Wow.

That's all I can really say.  Wow.

And I thought the divide by zero essay was bad.  You've just managed to eclipse it, an achievement which is fairly stunning in and of itself.

This unmitigated CRAP which you posted in chapter 18 of Otaku Three demands a response.  It's one of the stupidest things I've seen posted in a while, which is saying something, and far and away the stupidest thing that I've seen from you.  The only semi-positive I can say is that it's not the stupidest by much, which is more a reflection on the stupid crap that was your 'divide by zero' piece rather than any merit to this garbage.

The scene I'm talking about, of course, is the 'debate' scene.  I'll ignore the rest of the work, and spare you my opinion on that.

I'll run through it from the top.  Maybe I can beat a clue through that impressively thick skull of yours.  I doubt, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

--
   Jared smiled, relived. "Only my genius." He quoted Oscar Wilde.
   The man reappraised him. "Hmm, then summarize the philosophy of Nihilism."
   Jared chuckled. "The secular doctrine that there are no absolute truths. Which begs the question: How can that be true? It is either an absolute truth itself, in which case it is false, or there are exceptions, in which case it is also false."
--

Very pretty.  Nihilism states that nothing can be known.  I'm going to point this out despite how obvious I feel it to be:  this is NOT the same as what you said.  I suggest you do a little reading up on the topic.

Your argument there is rather... pointless.  You're basing it on semantics, something I'll come back to later.  Trying to adapt that argument to the definition I mentioned in the paragraph above, though, doesn't work; although feel free to try.

--
   "Hmm. Define the process of deconstruction."
   "To disassemble. But if you mean the academic process it's an exercise based in the philosophy of Nihilism, with all the attendant problems of trying very hard to believe that you don't believe in anything. Even if you succeed, what have you gained?" He smirked. "It is the first in importance building block of Nazi socialism. You cannot do those sorts of things if you've got any fear of eventual justice catching up with you, which means you *have* to disbelieve in all moral truth, and of course in God. Nihilism exists to disband the protective restraints of belief in Good and Evil, allowing one to be fully evil because you believe there is no good; That man is alone, no final judgment exists, and therefore you can get away with anything. It's a false statement but *required* if you want to be doing things like Hitler, Lenin or Stalin and other adherents to socialism did. It's a belief that excuses all evil because it claims there is no evil. But, of course, if you deny all truth you also deny a God and creator so that means that you're stuck trying to explain away where everything came from. That is why evolution has become the major world religion, and whose sole purpose is to deny all religions, including itself."
--

This is bullshit in so many ways I'm not sure where to start, although I do love how you dodged the entire definition question, and went on to whining about how evil it and Nihilism are.  I'm going to simply make a few points in response to various things within this paragraph;

- People don't have to be Nihilists to not believe in God, you know.  To even suggest that is moronic.  I don't believe in God, I am in no way a Nihilist.
- It's entirely possible to be 'evil' while still believing that there is such a thing as 'good'.
- It's in fact possible to be 'evil' while thinking that you ARE 'good'.
- "It's a false statement" -- And you're showing us just how much you know.
- You seem to assume that your moral code is absolute.  From you, this doesn't surprise me.
- I'd dearly love to know where you pulled your assumptions that all socialists are nihilists from.  That's possibly the biggest line of shit in the entire thing (thus far).

Also, one more piece of rubbish:  "if you deny all truth you also deny a God and creator"

Apart from this stemming directly from your halfassed (IMO, of course) definition of nihilism, denying all truth also denies a God and creator?  These are universally accepted truths now?  I could be generous and assume that you mean that if someone didn't think this was truth in the first place they were denying it out of hand.  Again, utter crap.  I'm 'agnostic', I believe the term is... go and look it up; you might find it enlightening.

The line about evolution, I couldn't even figure out where the hell that came from until I read a bit further, and I'll deal with that further along.

--
 "Oh?" Two white eyebrows rose.
   The redhaired boy recovered from his dryness enough to reach for a memory. "Do a little thinking. Socialist dictators have killed more of their own people than they've lost in any wars. Killing millions of innocents because they are the wrong race or disagree with you is NOT a small act. If you believe in right or wrong at all then you've got to at least try to avoid doing wrong, and that one's an easy catch for the wrong side. Which means, if you want to embrace socialism you must first deny the existence of those two principles, or else you'll never do it. You cannot deny good and evil without first denying God, and you cannot deny God without explaining where everything came from another way."
--

"If you believe in right or wrong at all then you've got to at least try to avoid doing wrong, and that one's an easy catch for the wrong side."

I dare you to look at the number of people who happen to be in jail in your fair country, then say that again with a straight face.  That is a blatantly stupid line.

There is NOTHING that compels people to do right when they know the difference.  I'll freely admit that I have at times done stuff I know outright to have been wrong; we all know that there are plenty of people around who swindle, steal, and do innumerable things that would be termed 'wrong'.  If you claim that they don't know what they do is wrong, well... get your head examined.

Let's not even start on something like the Crusades, where I believe a large number of Christians went off to slaughter infidels... all in the name of God, of course, so it must have been right.  Right?

Right?

Well, we'll leave that for a moment, and then I'll ask you... why can you not deny God without explaining where everything came from?  What the hell happened to the good old "I don't know"?

Are you THAT narrow-minded that you can't comprehend anything but those two extremes?

--
   He sighed. "Look at it another way. Fact. Evolution permits disbelief in the existence of God by providing an alternate explation for creation. Fact. Nihilism denies all moral rules, insisting that everything is relative, and therefore, that the ARE no rules. Or at least no firm and unbendable ones, which is a sneaky approach to effectively say the same thing. But to achieve this belief it is first necessary to deny the existence of a supreme creator because if there *is* such a being, then he makes the rules.  So Nihilistic belief, therefore, cannot exist without evolutionist thought. Fact. Socialist pogroms of exterminating your own people are impossible to justify if you believe there are moral rules. Conclusion: Socialism requires Nihilism, which in turn requires Evolution. And further, that Nihilism and Socialism are natural outgrowths of Evolution, because if there is no creator then there really *aren't* any rules and any man is free to do anything he can get away with, including theft, murder, rape, and butchering millions of helpless citizens because they failed to have the right parents."
--

'Straw man' tactics if ever I saw them.  Let's tackle this in sequence.

--
"Fact. Evolution permits disbelief in the existence of God by providing an alternate explation for creation."
--

Wrong.  You don't need an alternate explanation to disbelieve in God at all.  Natural selection is an alternate answer to how it all happened, but it is by no means necessary to agree with Darwin's theory of evolution to disbelieve in the existence of a God.

Perhaps this is slightly beyond you, but some people actually DON'T NEED THE ANSWERS TO ALL OF LIFE'S QUESTIONS... in fact, some of us think that MAYBE WE WON'T EVER KNOW.  Terrifying thought, isn't it?

Even more frightening, it's interesting that some people can actually bring themselves to believe in evolution, AND God - at the same time.  The Catholic Church has no problem with the theory of evolution... are they a collection of thieves, murderers, rapists and butchers themselves?  

Has the chisel of the clue started to punch it's way through your puny little worldview yet?

Probably not, so let's get a bigger hammer and continue...

--
"Fact. Nihilism denies all moral rules, insisting that everything is relative, and therefore, that the ARE no rules. Or at least no firm and unbendable ones, which is a sneaky approach to effectively say the same thing."
--

Feh.  Nihilism, I believe, teaches skepticism rather than outright denial.  It doesn't say that nothing exists, it states that we can't KNOW that anything exists.

Nihilism itself isn't about morality at all unless people choose to extrapolate.  This appears to be what you are doing, but you're passing your extrapolations off as the core of it.  Straw man tactics, as I said.

--
"But to achieve this belief it is first necessary to deny the existence of a supreme creator because if there *is* such a being, then he makes the rules."
--

HAIL ERIS!  HAIL BOB!  ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!

--
"So Nihilistic belief, therefore, cannot exist without evolutionist thought."
--

This is a really, really twisted line of thought.  Nihilism requires that you deny the existence of a God... and Evolution is necessary to deny the existence of a God, thus Evolution is necessary for Nihilism.  The conclusion would be sound if both of the predicates were true, but neither of them are - rendering your conclusion utter rubbish.

--
"Fact. Socialist pogroms of exterminating your own people are impossible to justify if you believe there are moral rules."
--

I'm at a loss at to what to say to this piece of... feh.  Apart from your assumption that your morality is universal, anyway.

--
"Conclusion: Socialism requires Nihilism, which in turn requires Evolution."
--

Ohh Kaay.  I think that I've shot down your 'facts' leading to that conclusion earlier, so I'll ignore this for now, much as it pains me.  Feel free to dispute those points above if you disagree.

--
"And further, that Nihilism and Socialism are natural outgrowths of Evolution, because if there is no creator then there really *aren't* any rules and any man is free to do anything he can get away with, including theft, murder, rape, and butchering millions of helpless citizens because they failed to have the right parents."
--

This, I won't.

It may interest you to know that Darwin was actually a fairly religious man, but then again he might just have been a HERETIC and all.  Do you guys still burn Heretics where you are, or are you still disputing the existence of fire yet?

Nihilism and Socialism are natural outgrowths, are they?

By your reasoning, I'm a socialist, and have no compunctions about theft, murder, rape, and butchering millions of helpless citizens because they failed to have the right parents.

Keep reaching for that rainbow, buddy.

Interestingly enough, by the way, there have been innumerable examples of people who believed in a God, and creationism, but were still thieves, murderers, rapists AND butchers - look around the time of the crusades, as I said above (all in the name of God, of course) and at certain past and present Islamic fundamentalists (who may or may not be rapists, but I'd like to see the rest disputed).

I wonder how many citizens have been killed by the governments of their own FUNDAMENTALIST regimes?

--
   The old man blinked at the youth.
--

A semi-sane reaction, that, although I think I'd have thrown you the hell out by now if you were ranting this crap in my face...

--
   He remained motionless in his chair, dryly continuing this lecture.
"I once had a teacher I was very fond of explain to me how you define religion. A religion is any school of thought that tries to answer life's great questions. Chief among those are: Why are we here? Where do we come from? and Where do we go when we die? By those standards the theory of evolution is *very* much a religion, and it's first article of faith is that all religions are false. It's second is that it isn't religion, it's science, and therefore superior to all other religions."
--

So, where does the theory of evolution say we go where we die, anyway?

I'm also wondering how in the seven halls of HELL the Catholic Church (amongst others) can have no real problems with the theory of evolution if it's first article is that 'all religions are false'.

Straw man tactics, again.  Argue against the theory, not your bullshit extrapolations of what the theory is.

I'm going to take the dictionary definition of religion here, because we could go on all day about what "this person" and "that person" say religion is.  If we just use the dictionary, it becomes a hell of a lot simpler.  So...

From Dictionary.com (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

religion, n.
1.
 a.  Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
 b.  A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Let's tackle these one at a time.  '1.a' is clearly not the case for evolution - nothing in the theory makes any reference to a supernatural power, whether to support or refute.  By extension, '1.b' is not the case either; the theory of evolution not being a system grounded in such a belief.  Definition 2, 'the life or condition of a person in a religious order' clearly doesn't fit.  Definition 3 is untrue, the theory of evolution has no 'spiritual leader', nor is it a set of 'beliefs, values and practices'.  

Definition 4, 'A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.' is perhaps slightly more applicable to this case... although, if one were to consider evolution in that, the definition becomes so broad as to be meaningless.  For me, programming and gaming become a religion, reading stories becomes a religion... the term becomes meaningless.

I'm going to deem definition 4 You can feel free to use it, if you want, but the only reason I can see one doing so is an attempt to obfuscate the discussion.

As for science being superior to religion, that impression probably comes about because most scientists are more intelligent than religious fundamentalists like yourself.

--

 Jared snorted. "As if man's understanding could *ever* match God's. If you grant any kind of heavenly personage at all the very thought is ludicrous. If you don't grant it, then you have to explain where all things came from, and evolutionists fall flat on their face every time they try! By their _own admission_ the only place evolution is neat and clean is in the classrooms! Anyone who *looks* at their theory and the evidence disproves it, and the amount of fraud perpetrated in support of it is criminal. Without manufactured evidence and leaning on dissenters with political clout, they've got nothing. They've stretched the laws of probability to the breaking point and beyond. And every time they're questioned on how absurd their claims are they shout and loudly announce 'Oh, with infinite chance to try it would be inevitable.' Which is a completely false front, because to get infinite chances you have to have infinite material to work with. Those scientists who specialize in *their* fields have numbered the atoms in the universe - and the numbers are quite small compared to how long some of the chances the evolutionists demand are. If every atom in the universe was one chance, you'd need untold trillions of these universes to get the unnamed-numbers-to-one for some of the evolutionists' 'theories' require, for just *one* of them - and those guys have the nerve to claim they don't believe in miracles."

--

Let's break this up a little.

--
"If you grant any kind of heavenly personage at all the very thought is ludicrous."
--

To you.  Strange as it may seem, people on the rest of the planet may have different viewpoints.  I know a priest who believed in evolution; and no, he wasn't (to my knowledge) a thief, murderer, rapist or butcher.  Funny, that.

Also, some people -don't- grant anykind of heavenly personage at all.  Are they godless heathens, and instantly wrong because they disagree with you?

--
"If you don't grant it, then you have to explain where all things came from,"
--

You do?  Where the hell did that rule come from?

People are allowed to believe whatever they wish without needing to argue it, you know.  If you were forced to justify your religion in a logical argument, you can back it up with... a book.  One book.

We're seeing some double standards here.

--
"and evolutionists fall flat on their face every time they try! By their _own admission_ the only place evolution is neat and clean is in the classrooms!"
--

So?  The only place aerodynamics (for example) looks neat and clean is in the classrooms.  It manages to work anyway, despite people like you attempting to explain to the universe that it shouldn't.

Let's move onto the 'evidence'.

--
"Anyone who *looks* at their theory and the evidence disproves it, and the amount of fraud perpetrated in support of it is criminal. Without manufactured evidence and leaning on dissenters with political clout, they've got nothing. They've stretched the laws of probability to the breaking point and beyond. And every time they're questioned on how absurd their claims are they shout and loudly announce 'Oh, with infinite chance to try it would be inevitable.'"
--

I actually hadn't heard this argument.  Please, cite someone.

By the way, have you ever heard of the anthropic principle?

It basically states that we shouldn't be surprised that the conditions were JUST RIGHT for us to be here... because if they weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe them.  Perhaps a copout, but it does make a little sense.  Maybe everything just is?

Oh well.  Again, let's move on to the 'evidence', now that we're hopefully done with the mud throwing.

--
Which is a completely false front, because to get infinite chances you have to have infinite material to work with. Those scientists who specialize in *their* fields have numbered the atoms in the universe - and the numbers are quite small compared to how long some of the chances the evolutionists demand are. If every atom in the universe was one chance, you'd need untold trillions of these universes to get the unnamed-numbers-to-one for some of the evolutionists' 'theories' require, for just *one* of them - and those guys have the nerve to claim they don't believe in miracles."
   The old man grunted. "Hmph. You need a lesson in statistics."
--

Apparently we're not.  You do like your hyperbole, don't you?

I'm not sure why I waited this long to bring up the topic, by the way, but this entire argument is a very large straw man; the theory of evolution itself doesn't attempt to explain how life began in the first place at all.

Did you know that?  Have you actually taken the time to research that which you're attempting to refute?

I can see where the confusion might arise, but if you're going to try to argue the topic, I suggest you keep your facts straight.

--
 Jared nodded, bristling. "Okay. Let's *have* a lesson in statistics. Bodies are made up of cells. Cells consist mostly of proteins, and proteins are chains of amino acids. Before we get a cell, animo acids would first have to form proteins. Let us take for our example that vital step and calculate the odds. A protein must be magnified a millions times to become visible to the eye. Human cells use about 200,000 different proteins. Most proteins have hundreds of amino acids. Every amino acid has at least one activating enzyme. Formation of a protein requires that amino acids be activated by their enzymes and collected by a substance called transer-RNA. They've produced amino acids in lab tests. But have they ever, randomly produced enzymes and transerfer-RNA? No. They haven't. But they still assert that, given time, the right amino acids could have assembled together by chance and formed proteins."
--

Yes, let's have a lesson in statistics.

First and foremost, just because it's math does not make it good science.  Math != Science.  You're certainly proving something with these statistics, but it's not what you think it is.  

Do your logical reasoning before you do your math.

What you are showing here is that the chance is infinitesimally small that a random generation of proteins could produce a given human cell.  That's true, but utterly irrelevant to the question at hand.

Formation of a protein is really no big thing.  Synthesizing proteins is perfectly possible under a variety of conditions; all you really end up doing is boiling a bunch of amino acids up together and BAM, you get protein.  This explains how life could have started on Earth in the first place, without a creator, and it's not that farfetched.

What you randomly produce will almost certainly not be a human cell (which is what you showed), but if you think about evolution for a moment, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.  It just has to be LIFE, of some description; so it doesn't really matter what protein you get.

If life can be produced without a creator's intervention - and it's not farfetched at all - it's entirely possible that evolution would explain why we ended up as we are now.  Yes, the odds of producing a human cell from a random assortment is infinitesimal.  The odds of simply producing ANY living organism, no matter how simple, aren't nearly as remote as you are trying to suggest.

That's where evolution starts.

Probability mechanics are not a good way for figuring out what HAS happened... only for predicting what will.  If the dice had come out the other way, we wouldn't be here to think about it, would we?  Perhaps there'd be life somewhere else considering exactly the same questions that we are now.  Go and look up the 'anthropic principle', you may find it enlightening.

--
He screwed up his lips into a sneer, then schooled them back down more calmly. "Hemoglobin, the blood's oxygen carrying protein, has two chains, alpha and beta, with a total of 287 amino acids. Some individuals inherit a gene which causes the amino acid valine to substitute for the amino acid glutamic acid, at position 6 of the beta chain. The result is sickle cell anemia - even though the other 286 amino acids are all assembled perfectly. This shows how flawless a protein's structure must be. If you want another quote let's go for Sir Bernard Lovell, the astronomer who built the first completely steerable radio telescope. He said: The possibility of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundaries of time and space we are considering it to be effectively zero. A noted scientist, summing up the findings of another, said: Coppedge calculates that the odds are 10 to the power of 161 to one that not one usable protein would result from chance even if all the atoms on the earth's surface, including water, air, and the crust of the earth, were made into conveniently available amino acids and 4 to 5 billion years were involved."
--

Do you know WHY the structure of Hemoglobin is so perfect according to the natural selection viewpoint?  It's because the creatures born with sickle cell anemia were less successful than those born WITHOUT sickle cell anemia, and thus the genes of the more successful creation were passed on.  Evolution is a process of change and refinement, and THAT is how they suggest we end up like this.

Evolution explains it, too; as does creationism.

I'd like to dispute those two quotes, as well, or at least ask for more details;

Firstly, Sir Bernard Lovell stated 'the possibility of such a chance occurence'.  Exactly what was he referring to by 'such a chance occurence'?  Taking quotes out of context is a fairly common argumentative tactic, so I'd like to have a little more information about the quote.

Secondly, the 'noted scientist' (who I believe was the zoologist Harold Coffin) stated that 'Coppedge calculates that the odds are 10 to the power of 161 to one that not one usable protein would result from chance even if all the atoms on the earth's surface, including water, air, and the crust of the earth, were made into conveniently available amino acids and 4 to 5 billion years were involved.'

Here, I'd like to know what you term a 'usable protein'.

Apart from that... quoting the scientists (especially scientists who seem to have done their major work in the '60s) proves nothing.  Would you like me to hunt up some quotes from scientists who agree with the theory?  People have differing opinions, deal with it.  Just because they say it doesn't make it true; if you're going to refute evolution, use some facts (not simply quotes, FACTS) to do it.  Thus far there has been a distinct lack.

--
   Jared's eyes were hard. "In short, chance *could not* produce even one protien. And a 'simple' single-cell bacterium contains THOUSANDS of different proteins. What, then, are the odds of assembling *all* the proteins necessary for life? You probably don't want to know. Again, it was noted: Morowitz has determined the probability for the origin of the organic precursors for the smallest likely living entity by random processes. He based his calculations on reaction probabilities, a somewhat different and more accurate approach than most other such computations. The chances for producing the necessary molecules, amino acids, proteins, et cetera, for a cell one-tenth the size of the smallest known to man (Mycoplasm hominis H.39) is _less than_ one in ten to the power of 340,000,000, or ten with 340 million zeroes behind it; whereas a *billion* to one odds has merely *nine* zeroes behind it."
--

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

One possible scenario put foward is that ribonucleic acids (RNA) were the base of the first life on Earth.  It has been shown that it's possible to form RNA on the surface of clays, for instance; the clays can catalyze the polymerization reaction that creates RNA.  It's also being shown in laboratories that RNA is capable of evolving into different and distinctly new pieces of RNA.

If this is correct, you begin to get a plausible scenario for the origination of very simple life... which in turn has the capacity to evolve into something more complex, over countless generations.

Math is all well and good, but when it contradicts practical experimentation results, it's time to check your logic.

Skipping the next paragraph, it not being relevant...

--
   Jared chuckled dryly. "Then, assuming you've had the miracle and assembled all this and formed a body, what will make it alive? I can go with you down to the morgue right now to show you all sorts of perfectly assembled bodies whose only flaw is they are not living. We could go on for days and not even lightly skim over *half* of the disproofs of Darwin's junk science. The more you look at the actual science, the more the claims of evolutionists are patently absurd, nonsense of the highest order. That their claims of accidental creation are in fact stuff of the purest fantasy."
--

Are you kidding?  We haven't gone over ANY 'disproofs' of Darwin's 'junk science', and for the last damn time, EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE CREATION OF LIFE!

And you have the idiocy to ask 'What will make it alive'?  What, do you think scientists theorise that one day a human being just appeared by accident?

I REALLY don't think I want the answer to that one.

--
   A grim and dry laugh. "Where are their claims of proof to put some of the doubts to shame? The fossil record? Don't make me laugh. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. The last ichthyosaurus, by which they disappear in chalk, is hardly distinguishable from the first ichthyosaurus, which abruptly introduces that strange form of sea lizard in the Lias. The oldest pterodactyle is as thorough and complete a one as the latest. It is only by the SPECULATION of these so-called scientists that they see any progression at all. The *fact* is that *all* organisms appear in the fossil record fully formed, without transitional stages. The first fish is as fully armored as the last. The oldest fossil bee preserved in amber is unchanged from the insects flying around today. It's easy to take dogs and line them up in order of size and claim that proves evolution, but that's the best they've ever done - to take complete organisms and make up stories about how 'it must have been'. If anything, the fossil record does more to prove Divine creation that otherwise. If God did, in fact, create all things, wouldn't they do just as they have? Appear fully formed without any significant deviation during their tenure on earth? Science is *supposed* to be based on observations. But the fact is that not even in their precious fossil record is any evolution visible. They rely instead on speculation. That's junk science, not fact. Their 'theory' is just another type of faith. Everything actually scientific disproves their claims."
--

I'm not even going to bother cutting this up, I'll just say this:

To say that there are no transitional fossils is patently false; I suggest you do your research better.  Here's something to start you off - the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ:

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

You might find it an interesting read.  If the stuff there doesn't count as 'science', please tell me why.  I'm always willing to learn from my mistakes.

--
   The redhead frowned. "Forgive the tangent. Whether their numbering the atoms in the universe is right on the button or not, the number is finite. No finite number can substitute for an infinite when an infinite is called for. Lacking infinite matter with which to make attempts, you could still get infinite chances if you had infinite time. But the scientists who specialize in *that* field have named the age of the universe, and by all accounts the creation and destruction process is so cataclysmic there's no chance of anything resembling life as we know it to survive it. So nothing could carry over, and so you don't have infinite time. When trapped in this quandary evolutionists will glare about at these barriers and sneer 'Well, it *had* to happen like this, because there's no other way.' Which argument is so patently absurd its a wonder that anyone fell for it in the first place. They disallow all other religions from the start saying that science is so superior, and when science proves them wrong they fall back on an act of faith - it had to be this way.
--

Ugh.  

Yes, but the odds AREN'T infinitesimally small.  The odds are infinitesimally small that it could have come out like it did, but for life to have come, and evolution to have created something out of that is NOT as much of a longshot as you are thinking.  If the dice had rolled differently, we might still have tails, or something.  We might still be in the trees.  Who knows?

We shouldn't be amazed about the fact that we are exactly as we are; even with such an incredible amount of possible outcomes that could have come out, ONE of them had to happen.  Do I look at the d20 I just rolled and say "Wow, it came up 7... there was only a 1/20 chance of it coming up on 7.  That's amazing!"

It had to come up on something, didn't it?

I wouldn't call that faith, I'd call that common sense.  No, they aren't the same thing.

--
 "Apply the test for a religion. Do they try to answer life's great questions? Certainly. They've never attempted anything else. Their answers are among the most bleak and depressing it is possible to imagine, but they put them forth. Where do we come from? An accident. Where do we go when we die? Oblivion, our mortal remains existing as nothing more than food for another organism. Why are we here? To breed. Going by evolution the only measure of success of an organism is how many viable offspring it leaves behind. No *wonder* there is more crime in any culture that allows that bogus 'theory' to propogate!
--

Evolution tries to answer life's great questions?

Well, it tries to answer how we got to where we are.  THAT'S IT.  It doesn't try to answer the why, or anything like that, simply the clinical how.  It certainly hasn't ever tried to answer "Where do we go when we die?" - if it has, I'd like to know where.

--
"No *wonder* there is more crime in any culture that allows that bogus 'theory' to propogate!"
--

Oh, and I suppose there was never any rape or crime before evolution came along?  It's all the fault of the theory of evolution!  Of course!

Two words:  "The Crusades".

And if they aren't crime, well, you have one fucked up moral compass.  In my humble opinion, of course.

--
 "Summary - They are a religion, firstly because they try to answer life's great questions, secondly because they require faith. What's more, they are the *state* religion. It is the only one that is allowed to be taught in the public schools. Their activity is supported out of involuntary taxation of the people; whether you believe it or not the government lets them have tax money they took from you. Lastly, there are positions of wealth, power and prestige you cannot aspire to unless you at least give lip service to the state religion - the so called 'theory' of evolution. Face it, it fills *all* the facts known to associate with a state church. Classrooms are their chapels, and every biology teacher their priest."
--

...well, of course the government lets them have some of the tax money they took from you.  They're called research grants, and they're meant to advance humanity's understanding.

Should we all make Christianity a state church?

Yeah, let's go back to the Dark Ages, before anyone had even thought of this 'evolution' crap.  Things were so much better then.  Everyone was happy, because they all believed in God and it was All Good!

BTW, if the involuntary taxation is that onerous on you, stop whining and try saving up enough to move to another country.  Preferably one where they don't have electricity, let alone internet access.

Given the arguments I've brought up so far, I can only see one criteria you could be using to call evolution a religion; that being, definition 4 of the dictionary entry above.  To save you the trouble of scrolling up:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

Keep in mind the zeal and conscienttious devotion that some students dedicate themselves to their study with... you could actually claim that EVERY classroom was a temple, and that every teacher is a priest, and so that goddamn IPT class where they taught me to program in Visual Basic was VIOLATING MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS.

If I haven't indicated how ludicrous this is so far, let me know and I'll give you some more examples.

--

 Jared shook his head, stone-faced. "Think about it. Their ace in the hole, their prima donna of all 'supporting evidences' is the fossil record, right? Well, how do they know the age of the fossils? By the age of the stone, correct? Well, then how do they know the age of the stone? By the fossils found there. Circular argument. So where is their info coming from? Some guy on a ship looking at finches *decided* that's how old they had to be to fit his version of reality and that's what people have been calling them ever since. The whole religion of evolution relies upon circular arguments that chase their own tails like that. That's not science. That's fraud. But it makes people powerful to support it, because without morals you are able to freely cheat and use alternate routes to power, like murder, and there's no final judgment to beware of. Your only measure of success is how many children you leave. So rape and all that are prefectly acceptable to this theory as well. Everyone is free to do whatever he can get away with."  
--

This is blatantly false.

If they know the age of the the stone, they obviously know the age of the fossil.  If they know the age of the fossil, they in turn know the age of the stone.  What clearly hasn't occured to you is that there are scientific techniques for dating these things.

There are innumerable techniques that you should perhaps look up.  Radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating... they don't require assumptions at all, they work off known scientific concepts such as half-lives.

You haven't done your research, and what you call fact is laughable.

That's not argument.  That's fraud.


--
   The old man's eyebrows had migrated back down. "Oh? Quite interesting. I always would have defined a religion as something that worships god."
   Jared's flat face went even flatter. "Oh, really? Then how do you define god? No matter your answer, the moment you try to do that you have entered the realm of religion yourself. So many people have worshipped so many things that you'd be wallowing helplessly in a muddle of confused thinking with no way to ever redeem yourself. Then you'd have to define worship and wind up in an even *worse* mess! What good is a definition too complicated to use, and that you can't ever apply?"
--

I have a definition for you: use the word 'supernatural' in there.  Is that simple enough?

If not, then I could suggest the first three definitions that I gave above (the fourth, as I explained before, I believe to be inappropriate to this situation; again, dispute that if you wish).

I don't see any reason why that wouldn't work, personally.

--
   Jared gave another dry chuckle. "In fact, you have _damned_ evolution again. They worship pure chance as their god. Their behavior falls so far within the boundaries set by all the other pagans out there that you'll *never* find a way to include all of them without also catching evolutionists as well."
--

Again, there are Christians who agree with the theory of evolution... I don't think they worship pure chance, but there you go.

--
   Once again the youth's face was stony. "They are a church. They even persecute non-believers, send out missionaries, preach their faith... We could go on like this for days."
--

'Persecute non-believers'?  'Send out missionaries'?  'Preach their faith'?

Oh, for the love of... I won't bother trying to dispute the last two - it'd be a waste of time, and I've done enough damage to your arguments elsewhere - but I have to ask for some examples of the 'persecution' or 'non-believers'.  Preferably slightly less justified than occasional laughter at people who still don't understand that the world isn't flat.

--
   The puzzled old man looked with some shock at the youngster.
   The short, old man coughed to the side and then offered a short nod to the boy. "You have debated me to a standstill. I cannot refute your points. I am Gengi. You may call me Gengi-san. I would like to sponsor you when you eventually apply to this university."
--

You debated him to a standstill?  HAH!  He said all of three lines through the entire rant.

Ego-boost++!

--
   ~Well, that was pointless.~ Jared thought as he left the university grounds. So what if some guy wants to help put me in a school I'll never attend? Even if lack of time wasn't a problem, the lack of interest was surely there.  Conventional schools were good at turning out drones, not geniuses. People didn't learn at the same rate any more than they were all the same personalities, and by catering to the slowest they left the quickest out of the loop.
--

This is pathetic to see, given the hubris with which you put forth your UNEDUCATED viewpoints above.  I suggest you actually try learning a little before whining about the education system.

You don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

--
   Two guesses about which his job requirements demanded that he be.
--

One guess as to who should be fired.

Well, I guess we're done with this little diatribe now.  I hope you had as much fun as I did.

Generally, I leave stupid pseudo-science in fics alone - it just a story, and it doesn't really detract.  Usually.

Your authors notes indicate that you believe otherwise, though, so I decided to take a shot at this piece of cretinous stupidity.  

I respected you once.  Lo, how the mighty have fallen.

I think I was more stupid than you were mighty, but you get the point.  If not, let me know, and I'll wield my clue-by-four with a little less subtlety.

Do I expect to shake your faith?  Hell no, that's not my intent.  My intent is to refute this idiocy that you've put forth to 'support' your viewpoint, and insult everybody else's.

I make no apologies for the insulting tone of this missive; the insulting tone of your sermon was the catalyst.

If you feel capable of responding intelligently to this, please attempt to get some facts beforehand this time.

--Rezantis

[kpjam]

Maybe this commentary is inappropriate for the board, but...


Bwahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahaha!

I am very rarely shocked at the stupidity of some people anymore... but this is just spectacular!

[Dracos]

Addendum: Skysaber is off sulking.  Again.  "If I never post again, it will only be too soon."

Point goes to Rez.  Whether this is the end of it, we don't know.  But Stay tuned to find out ^_~.  Excellent rebuttal my friend.

Fearless Leader
"I have debated him to a standstill."-Skysaber Rezantis

[Anonymous]

What a motherfucking IDIOT. We must slay him brutally and display his viscera as a warning to all who would follow in his footsteps.

[Carthrat]

This could be old news, but Skysaber apparently took his fics of F.net.

Oh glorious day!

[Rezantis]

*points at Drac's post*

Addendum: Skysaber is off sulking.  Again.  "If I never post again, it will only be too soon."

Yes, it's old news, Rat.  Now it seems like he's deleted his account, too.  ^^

[Rezantis]

While it occurs to me, a couple of people have asked:

The paragraph that I cut out (being irrelevant) was this:

--
   Jared leaned back and smirked, ever so softly. "And that calculation is rounded off, simplified to the ten million zeroes collumn, dropping as piddling small change not even worth mentioning odds that, by comparison, ought to make it an absolute, guaranteed
certainty that you will win every single lottery on the planet repeatedly, every second of every day for the rest of your life while continual peals of lightning strike your head, which you survive, and make on your stomach a high-definition TV display of great artworks
never composed while their thunder in the background mysteriously whistles Dixie."
--

I decided not to touch that.  And his authors notes were:

--
Final Note:

   You were not satisfied with a light and gentle overview of some of the known facts disproving Darwinism. So I had to go back and select a small sample of the details to grind your noses in. If you want the full facts, don't look for them here. They compose thousands of pages just to summarize and I've got a story to write. The fact that I didn't smash your favorite supporting point to kindling was for lack of time, not the lack of evidence. Even the arguments presented were all summaries of summaries - the relentless grind of implacable details leave not even the most frenzied fanatic in favor of evolution any wiggle room at all in escaping from the destruction of every part of that 'theory.'
   Why do they still believe? Why so faithful? Because it *is* their faith!
--

There you go.

[wmdix509]

Skysaber thy name is ignorant idiot from now on...

He practicly painted a big pair of crosshairs saying flam me please...

As much as I want to say he managed to offend me big time ...although not as much as a certain idiot in democrats.com...

WMD

[calendar]

I read this a bit ago, but never got the chance to tell Rez how good I thought this was.

Call me impressed.  ^^

[Rezantis]

Egoboost++!

I'm kinda proud of it, actually.  ^^;;  Thanks, both of you.