Archive for the science Category

Atheists make for mad scientists

Posted in agnostics, atheism, atheists, Darwinism, False religion, God, religion, science, Truth, Uncategorized, worldview with tags , , on February 25, 2012 by devilbloggger

Mad Scientists.

Do you know how to make a scientist mad?  Try this some time.  Go up to a scientist and say that you believe the natural evidence of creation supports a scientific inference of a creator.  That is, explain that the abundant evidence of design in the universe and the world around you naturally leads you to believe there might be an intelligent designer.  Unless you happen to find one who practices the scientific method objectively, you will succeed in provoking the wrath of certainty from a dogmatic person who will lecture you on the difference between “science” and “religion”.

You will, in fact, create a mad scientist.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, my servants, let me tell you one of my greatest kingdom secrets.  I’ve succeeded in making “science” the new world religion by carefully cultivating the discipline of science and the persona of scientists as being “objective” arbiters of truth.  Bias free, contemplating, rational minds inside humble bodies supporting white lab coats, dutifully doling out truth to the masses.

And my real triumph?  I’ve changed the definition of “truth” so that in effect, the only truth permitted by “science” and the new scientists must be, by definition, atheistic.

You don’t believe me?  Then you have never tried to make a mad scientist.

Try it.  You will see.  And then do your own research into what “science” is today, and you will find that the new paradigm is that “science” must posit only “natural” explanations for natural phenomena.

And God is not natural.

So science today is forced by the elite establishments of academia to be unnaturally atheistic regardless of the evidence.

Period.

Did you know, my friends, that over 85% of the members of the United State’s National Academy of Sciences are atheists?  And the atheists wonder openly how the other 15% got in.

Now you know why.

Please keep this information confidential; if this kingdom knowledge ever gets out my agenda could be set back to the days when God-believing scientists like Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein made ground-breaking scientific gains while openly practicing a belief in God.

Let me illustrate my great success on earth with a news article that caught my eye today.  The Telegraph reports, in an article by John Bingham entitled, “Richard Dawkins: I can’t be sure God does not exist,” on a dialog at Oxford University during which Dawkins admitted to Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams,  “that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.”

What??

Richard Dawkins, one of my premeire beelze-buds, is as this article states, “regarded as the most famous atheist in the world.”

And now he’s “agnostic”?

Now, my friends, you know if you read this blog that I, like God, believe atheists to be fools.

There are no atheists in Hell.

But agnostics!  That’s a different story.  There are also no agnostics in Hell, but true agnostics on earth often never get here.

But after reading the article, I realize Richard Dawkins is as atheistic as he always was, which is to say, that like all those who profess to be atheists, he is merely an arrogant coward who refuse to face the evident truth of nature.  (I just hope Dawkins never realizes that he can be sure God does exist.)

But atheists do help further my kingdom on earth, so I find them useful fools (and, usually quite stupid on top of that!).

Let me explain, using Dawkins as Fool in Chief.

In attempting to sound intelligent, Dawkins, according to The Telegraph article, stated to the Archbishop:

“What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”

Now, my servants, read that quote more carefully (I know many of you skip over quotes).  Think about what Servant Fool Dawkins said, and learn.

The idea that life started from nothing . . . why clutter it up with God?

That, my friends, is not a scientific observation; it is a statement of faith.

The idea that anything can come from nothing is antithetical to all of science.  A true scientist would never make such a statement.  Whether “life” (as Dawkins says), or any element of matter in the universe (as Dawkins believes), science is quite clear that nothing comes from nothing.

If ever there was truly “nothing” there would still be nothing today.

That’s science.

On the contrary, Dawkin’s statement is a statement of faith.  He is expressing the necessary faith of every atheist (although most are, frankly, not intelligent enough to grasp it): In the beginning there was nothing, and then “poof” out of nothing, came something.

It is scientific nonsense, but it makes perfect sense to atheists like Dawkins.

Here’s another secret, my friends: everyone believes something unbelievable.

Either something (the universe) just appeared like magic out of nothing (an unscientific thought, but held by Dawkins), or something was created by God.

Which statement is more scientifically valid?

Yes, you are right: God.

Because science says everything that came to be must have been caused.

Aristotle, a true scientist, decided there must be an Uncaused Cause.  And he was right.

Every thinking human not hindered by a philosophical bias comes to the same conclusion as Aristotle; the evidence demands it.

But not all humans are like Aristotle.  In fact, in today’s agenda-driven, philosophically constrained philosophical environment, humans who wish to be prominent, published, scientists must first express allegiance to practical atheism before they practice science.

Human => atheist => scientist is the progression I’ve arranged on earth.  Humans like Dawkins are, as shown by his statement above, atheists second, and scientists third.  Very simply, their “science” (something can come from nothing) is dictated not by the evidence, but by their atheism.

Human => scientist => atheist is impossible.  Humans who are scientists first, observing the evidence of creation and making natural, rational inferences, can never be atheists.

Which goes to show my great ability on earth, don’t you think?

And if you try to point out the atheist’s philosophical bias they get mad.  They lecture you on your ignorance of “science” and sue you for violating separation of Christianity and state, and deny you tenure, and call you names, and start blogs about you, and sit in their circle of atheist jerks and make each other feel good.

It’s a beautiful thing, really.

Now send Mr. Dawkins a thank you note for me, will you?

He’s a doll.

Can’t wait to meet him.

And those like him.

Mad scientists all, when they come rolling in my gates.

Something from nothing.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Madness, pure madness.

Evolution: Good for (my) Theologies

Posted in atheism, atheists, Bible, Catholic Church, common sense, creation, creationism, evolution, Original Sin, science, theology, Truth with tags , , , on August 30, 2011 by devilbloggger

Evolution.

Want to start an argument among Christians?  Just mention “evolution” in a crowd of two or more, and sit back and watch the show.  I watch it all the time, and I must say it never fails to amuse.

You know, atheists must believe in “evolution,” because they are constrained in their chosen belief system to only one interpretation of the evidence.  In a sense, atheists have it easy; they don’t have to really think about the evidence.  For atheists the answer to every question of origins must be answered in only one way. 

Atheists could wear T-shirts saying “Evolution is the answer, what’s the question?”

But Christians?  Those poor souls are in a quandary.  They are not mind-constrained to only one answer to the question “where do we come from?”  And because “science” demands one explanation and God another, Christians end up confused.

Many Christians lazily believe “science” over God.

It’s a beautiful sight.

And then I read in Forbes online today an article on this topic entitled, “Can Theology Evolve?”  In this piece author John Farrell explores:

. . .the recent Nature article on the increasing evidence that modern humans have inherited the genes of more than a few now-extinct relatives on the evolutionary tree, NPR hosted a short program on what this all means for one of the fundamental stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I linked to this story from a link at RealClearReligion: The Vatican Has a Problem with Evolution.

Well, well, well. 

Problem?

Yes, Problem, with a capital “P”.

Because, as Farrell explores in his article, the bottom line is simple and stark: if “evolution” is true, then the Bible is not true.

If “evolution” is true, then Adam and Eve were not real people, I did not tempt Eve, and Adam was not the first sinner, and there is no original sin.

In fact, if “evolution” is true the entire tapestry of Christianity tatters and shreds into little pieces of thread to be trampled on the floor of history.

A beautiful sight, I must admit.

What are we, my servants, to make of this growing controversy?

First, the easy points: Of course theology can evolve.  Duh!  Why do you think there are so many various theologies out there?  I’m behind all but one.  And all but one have evolved to the place they are now.

And as for the Vatican, the RealClearReligion’s statement is misplaced.  The real issue is “God has a problem with evolution.”

Let me explain, my servants.  What I am about to share is highly confidential kingdom knowledge.  Please casually look around and make sure no one can see your computer.

Clear?

OK.  Pay attention.  I put “evolution” in quotes because one of my greatest lies on earth is to deceive many into hopeless confusion merely by confounding what the term evolution means.  I keep people confused, darkened, and generally theologically schizophrenic because people don’t understand how the word is used, and what it really means as understood by modern biologists.

The real meaning behind “evolution” as used by any modern biologist refers not to mere “change over time” (as your high school teacher would have you believe), but Darwinian “change by mindless, unguided, purposeless processes of nature.”

Don’t doubt me on this one, my friends.  I’m the one behind the nonsense of Darwinism.  Regardless of all wishful thinking that “evolution is true but God is behind it all,” the bottom line is that such thinking is hogwash; “science” demands a purely naturalistic definition, and a purely naturalistic definition is just that: no mind behind creation.

Keep in mind that “science” doesn’t say anything, scientists do.

And if a scientist is constrained (as they virtually all are in modern academia) to a naturalistic explanation of science, then that scientist will always, without exception, come to a Godless “scientific” explanation of our human origins.

It is my way.  Start with a lie, end with a lie.

Clearly an explanation for human origins (and indeed, the entire universe) that starts and ends with mindless, unguided, purposeless processes can not in any way be squared with the Bible’s explanation of creation.

Someone is lying.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Yes, someone is lying to you, my friends.

Either matter came from mind in a purposeful creative act, or mind came from matter in a purposeless, accidental act.

There are only two choices.

But I ensure you will never be faced with a choice, a real choice demanded by the scientific evidence, because I’ve structured all of academia to guard a constrained definition of “science” as requiring only naturalistic, materialistic explanations for all natural phenomena.  This means that unless you take it upon yourself to read the excellent literature on the topic of intelligent design, you will never know the truth.

Truth?

Whoops.  Now we are into highly confidential territory. 

You see, my servants, I’ve forced the public discussion of origins into a “science or religion” framework.  And what is lost is a common sense inquiry into what is true?

Consider: if one does like the scientists of old, and put aside forced constraints on potential theories, and let free thinking reign with the goal of knowing truth, then evolution will die like other scientific theories.

The evidence simply does not support the requirement of Darwinism that new, beneficial forms, organs, or other features of species differentiation came about by unguided, natural processes.

The evidence does not support Darwinism.  There is absolutely no evidence that an unguided, purposeless process can produce new, novel, beneficial features needed for speciation (as opposed to silly things like peppered moths (no speciation) and finch beaks (again, no speciation)).

The fact that you don’t believe me just goes to show how effective I am at perpetuating a lie.

Look it up yourself.

As I’ve engineered modern atheistic science (the only kind allowed any more in public schools), as soon as one starts inferring design by using the common sense scientific method, the explanation is immediately assigned to the “religious” category, never to see the darkness of my scientific night.

Of course, this constraint is placed on “science” only for origins science.  Other scientific fields depend entirely on making design inferrences.  The entire discipline of archeology is built on inferring design from artifacts for which there is no evidence of the original designer.

An archeologist finds a piece of pottery and wonders (without hesitation, and with no hope of an answer) “who made this?”

A biologist finds reams of information coded into the cell like computer programs but is not allowed to ask “who” made it, but only “how” did “evolution” make it.

Evolution is the answer, what’s the question?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I’m good, I’m really, really good.

In fact, when one removes the constraints of naturalism and materialism, and opens one’s mind to finding truth, regardless of its label as “science” or “religion”, one will find that science actually points to design.

Remember, this is our secret, right?

Good. Now close your mind and go evolve!

Science: atheism is a post-disposition of the mind.

Posted in atheism, creation, Darwin, Darwinism, science, theology, Truth, Uncategorized, worldview with tags , , on July 19, 2011 by devilbloggger

Quote of the Day: [I]t is an amazing thing to witness staunch atheists become cringing creationists one millisecond after they permanently leave the life of free will and enter my eternal kingdom of irredeemable theists.   —Evolution debate un-naturally selected to die in Louisiana

Brain.

What is the human brain, my friends?  Is it, as modern science would dictate,  merely a conglomeration of atoms that happened for no good reason to form in the Big Bang’s chain reaction of motion?  Like earth, wind, and fire, is the brain nothing more than the aftermath of a purposeless, chance event? 

 Darwinism holds this view, and this is precisely what all little chillens in public schools are taught.

And I like it.

But why, my servants, do humans, even after learning that they are accidents of nature, believe in God?  Why, after generations of worldwide indoctrination into Darwinian philosophy do people continue to have notions of God?

Do rocks believe in God? 

I know, my servants, I know. 

And so that you can join my efforts more effectively at making humans more like rocks, I will let you in on an enduring truth that must be extinguished.   This information is highly confidential, please treat it accordingly.  The only other place this information is found is in the Bible, so as long as you don’t spill the beans, the secret should remain.

Here it is: human beings are fundamentally different from every other creation, including me, because humans are uniquely created in God’s image.

Blechhhh!

That’s why atheists, who must work to believe that they are no different from rocks, work so hard at believing they don’t believe in God.  It’s actually impossible, and explains why atheists are such gloomy characters.

And today’s news from the atheistified Science Digest helps show why.  I’m referring to Science Digest’s article entitled, “Humans ‘Predisposed’ to Believe in Gods and the Afterlife.”

According to the article:

A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.

Duh!

Natural tendencies?   I’ll say.  And I’ve been trying to smother those  tendencies for centuries.  Why do you have to bring it up as scientifically verified?

Fortunately, the researchers throw me a bone in reporting:

The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.

Yes, atheism is a perfectly natural response!  And, I might add, this is why I like when an atheistic publication reports on such issues, because they should have written, “that both theism and atheism are reasoned responses . . .”

Hey, theogeeks, atheism is a theology!

While theism is the default response of the human mind, if one sufficiently succumbs to my lies, the foolish mind darkened by the wisdom of this world can suppress the default theism with feigned atheism.

Atheism is not only a reasoned response (according to my reasoning), it is a scientifically proven post-disposition of the human brain. 

Humans come into this world as fallen theists created in God’s image.  My job is to ensure that inborn sinfulness is nourished by worldly wisdom and vain philosophy so that the faint image remaining becomes almost completely obscure.

And every atheist that believes in unbelief confirms my success.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And the beat goes on.

Welcome to my world: gettin’ lucky in Kentucky

Posted in evolution, political correctness, science with tags , , on December 20, 2010 by devilbloggger

Do you know the difference between a rock and a hard place?

My work shines brilliantly, my servants, in the state of Kentucky, USA.  I love to create chaos, and if I can ruin lives and careers in the process, all the better.  That’s why you need to know about my latest mischief at the University of Kentucky where I have a professing Christian denying the Bible’s teachings to defend himself in the face of my most vitriolic bigotry toward all things Christian.

Rocks and hard places of my making. I love it!

You know, my servants, I do my best work in modern universities.  The modern academy is the one place where I’ve solidified several foundational kingdom truths:

  • God deserves no beneficial place in society, unless he is re-made in the likeness of man to approve of current politically correct practices, in which case he’s OK (in private);
  • Christianity ultimately is harmful to society, unless it’s muted so as not to make any politically-incorrect demands;
  • Christians are deluded, if not dangerous, throwbacks to a less enlightened time, but they are teachable if silenced by ridicule and tamed by grades (students) or position (professors);
  • Evolution is unchallengeable truth, and challenges must be dealt with severely.

Anyone in academia want to challenge that? 

No, I didn’t think so.

So it’s not surprising to find as reported in the APs article “Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky,” how Martin Gaskell ran headlong into my kingdom truths, finding himself smack in the middle of my handiwork on earth.  Gaskell, a self-described Christian astronomer, recently brought a lawsuit against the University of Kentucky arguing that his Christian faith and his peers’ belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.

Now, get this.  Church boy wanted the job.  The evolution-beholden university wanted to give it to him.  And even though the university’s search committee found him “breathtakingly above the other applicants,” Gaskell claims the university passed him over because the record shows:

Others openly worried his Christian faith could conflict with his duties as a scientist, calling him “something close to a creationist” and “potentially evangelical.”

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Church boy swears on a stack of Bibles that he does not take the Bible’s doctrine of special creation seriously, and, in fact, he is not a creationist and his “views on evolution are in line with other biological scientists,” which is to say, they are atheistic. 

Yes, atheistic.  What else could they be and not be creationist?

Do you see what havoc I’ve wreaked?  A university, that pinnacle of tolerance and open mindedness, closes its mind to intolerantly reject the best qualified candidate, causing the Christian to vehemently deny he believes the Bible to be true.

I am good.  I am really good.

Here’s the bottom line, my servants: I have carefully positioned Darwinian evolution as protected dogma in science by making scientists believe they must have a godless creation story, regardless how evidence-starved.  Some Godpunks, reluctant to look like knuckle-dragging creationists, try to salvage respectability by blending God into the story line, claiming “evolution is true, but God is behind it all.” 

But evolution is, by definition, unguided and purposeless.  It is impossible for God to be involved without the entire thing being some version of creationism.  “Theistic evolution” is my invention, put forth reluctantly because I recognize its intellectual bankruptcy–who on earth would champion such rubbish?  It is like ascribing an un-witnessed cause of death to “accidental intentional murder.”   It is a semantic trick to fool fools who wish not to admit intelligent agency for fear of an agent.  Whether atheist bigots or God, fear of an intelligent agent drives all theistic evolutionists to this untenable position. 

Boy was I surprised at the level of acceptance–all those Christians desiring secular respectability.  And in the face of clear evidence of God’s invisible qualities and his eternal power! Wow oh wow!

Because Christians left the battle field of truth in droves, Evolution gained the status of unchallengeable dogma, so that mere skepticism of Darwin draws suspicion and cause for rejection in hiring, denial of tenure, and, worst of all, makes one open to the allegation of being a dreaded (and potentially evangelistic) creationist!

Now listen to how cleverly ingenious I am, my servants.  Do not spread my words widely, as this is kingdom knowledge.  Did you know that Darwin was a skeptic of Darwinian evolution? 

Yes, Darwin himself, in Origin of Species takes almost half his book to deal with what he called “difficulties” with his theory.  Darwin recognized that there were very specific lines of evidence against his theory, including, for example, that the fossil record does not support the gradualism he proposed.  

Did you know the fossil record remains unchanged in that respect?  It’s a real problem, my servants, and the fact that the fossil record is the first line of evidence marshaled in support of Darwinism just shows how brilliant I really am in blinding people’s minds to the truth. 

Think of my brilliance this way: Darwin himself could not get a job at the University of Kentucky! 

Science, the one discipline that is supposed to be tentative and skeptical has turned on itself because of Darwin, to the point where Darwinian evolution is dogma, not to be approached skeptically.

Gaskell insists he is not a creationist.  That means he must believe there is no mind behind creation and no intelligence behind matter.  What else could it mean?  Both conditions require a creator.

But Darwinian evolution is the creation story for the religion of naturalism, for which atheism is its theology. 

Think about that for a minute, my servants, and then laud me for my cleverness.  I have a self-identified Christian publicly denying the Bible and vehemently siding with atheistic beliefs.

I have forced Gaskell to either (1) lie about his true beliefs; or, (2) confess that as a Christian he does not believe God’s Bible is true in its teaching of creation.

Either way, I won.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

How do you think that makes God feel?

I’ll tell you; I’ve seen it a thousand times: God feels like a proud father whose own son, for want of position in life, publicly rejects his family name.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

How is Mr. Gaskell’s stated belief on creation different from that of an atheist?

It isn’t.

Mr. Gaskell identifies with atheists because he found himself between the Rock of God and the Hard Place of (functionally atheistic) Academia.

The difference?  Only one respects those of a different viewpoint, displaying tolerance even to those who push him aside.

Why does God still care?

%d bloggers like this: