Tuesday, August 3, 2010

The EVOLUTION Test! As designed by Creationists

Okay so this is beginning to become more of an Atheistic blog, however I'm sure it will change when I get some new music, or something stupid happens at work.  So hang in there if you're not liking the content up to now.

This is a post from FSTDT on their top 100 list.  I don't know how this was ranked number 2, but no matter.  If you want to read the rest of the post or the rest of the list then click right here

I hope you don't mind but I'm going to answer their ridiculous questions as I go. I'm only going to answer some of the questions, to spare you from some of the more boring ones.  
Keep in mind I'm studying Philosophy, not science.
Here it goes.

Students, give this test to your teachers. When they fail it, ask them why they are teaching this nonsense!

Teachers, give this test to your students if you really want them to know the truth about evolution!

1. Which evolved first, male or female?
     In what species? This is a hard one to answer for reasons I'll let Wikipedia explain. 

3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.

    This is a hilariously loaded question. Ultimately since you're claiming them to be false, you should   tell me!  Also (by just googling the question and clicking I'm feelin' lucky) this website demonstrates that there are only eight (8) "false assumptions", so apparently no one can answer this one sufficiently!

4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
     If you had bothered to open a textbook on evolution (or even "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins) you would have your answer by now.  But let me do the work for you.  Evolution happens when inferior species die out.  The reason why they die out is because there is a superior species that  dies less often than the first species. Since they don't die as much, they get to make more babies, thus passing on their genes.  An extinct creature wouldn't re-evolve because their genes have generally been lost.  If an extinct creature DID re-evolve it would be more likely that God did it rather than Evolution.


5. Which came first:
...the eye,
...the eyelid,
...the eyebrow,
...the eye sockets,
...the eye muscles,
...the eye lashes,
...the tear ducts,
...the brain's interpretation of light?




The brain would have to have some light interpretation qualities or else the newly evolved eye would be useless, and would not have been passed on.  The eye would evolve, though first as a patch of photosensitive cells and would become more complex throughout the generations.  The sockets, lids, muscles, lashes and tear ducts would also come from that slow evolution process.  You're trying to argue from irreducible complexity, but it's really not working.

7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?




Do you know what a species is? Do you know what differentiates one species from another? I'll let you research that for a moment.  Couldn't find it? Dogs and Cat's can't breed together BECAUSE they are different species.  The same thing goes for Humans and Chimps, Humans and Gorillas and Humans and pretty much any other species you want to name.  In order to breed, the male and the female need to have (among many other things) the same number of Chromosomes.  However there are some examples  of species that can interbreed, though they may not produce fertile offspring.


9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?

"Non-Existent" Transitional Fossils
     

They're not. See! Go to a museum. And no the Creation museum does not count!
 






10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)



     Human life did not happen by chance in the sense that Creationists use the word.  Mutations often occur, and when those mutations benefit the animal they get passed on to the offspring.  A human didn't just randomly evolve fully formed by chance.  A coin however is non-organic, so it cannot breed, and its offspring cannot have beneficial (or malignant) mutations.  It needs to have a designer.

11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?

There are.  They just take millions of years to form, so YOU will never see the end result.

12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.
Why 50?  Could it be that, like in question 3, this question has been designed so the person answering the question will fail?  Here's one.  Wisdom teeth. Want another possible one? How about your vermiform appendix?

13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?


Because the standards for proof are ever changing and are set impossibly high.

14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?

It's not.  In fact it is on it's way to be overpopulated, however I suspect that you might mean in terms of population growth/timescale.  Here's why.  Because of evolution.  Things die off.  New species become dominant, and then they die off.  If there were no predators, and no diseases then YES we would be majorly overpopulated by now, however things die, so they don't get to breed.

15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?

Because species on different continents face different challenges in surviving.  Different climates, different weather patterns, different food sources and different predators all work into the equation of the survival of the species.  Each species has evolved differently to adapt to each individual threat, and so species differ.


A note to all creationists! Please open a book or two!  Visit a real museum! Don't just copy other creationist arguments verbatim! You'll never learn that way!

Monday, August 2, 2010

St Anselm and the Cheeseburger


St. Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033 – 1109)
I warned you this would happen! I did! See! So don't blame me if you didn't read the first post!
 

Ladies and Gentlemen I would like to introduce you to a fella named Anselm.  Anselm was a Catholic Archbishop who thought a lot about God.  One day Anselm decided that pure blind faith was not enough for the masses, so he went about the task of proving God's existence.  This is what he came up with.

1. God is the greatest imaginable being.
2. God exists in the imagination (because we can imagine God)
3. Existing in reality is greater than existing only in the imagination.
4. If God only exists in the imagination then we can imagine a being greater than God (ie. a being with all of God's attributes but one who exists in reality)
5. If we can imagine a being greater than God this is a contradiction (there can't be a being greater than the greatest imaginable being)

6. God exists in reality.

Convinced? I hope not!  This argument can be used to prove the existence of ANYTHING! No matter how impossible it is for that thing to exist.  So long as you preface the thing you want to reason into existence with the quality of being the "greatest imaginable"of its kind, hey presto it exists! 

I could argue that there is a cheeseburger that is so delicious it is the greatest imaginable cheeseburger.  This cheeseburger will actually make you lose weight, and make you more sexually attractive in all respects!  Hell this cheeseburger can even make you fly. Why not? It's the greatest imaginable cheeseburger for Jeebus sake!

The great thing is, according to Anselm's logic the cheeseburger HAS to exist! It obviously exists in the imagination 'cause you were all just imagining it! (I heard your stomachs growling!) And if it doesn't exist in reality then it's not the greatest imaginable cheeseburger.

Now let's move away from cheeseburgers because this is starting to make my stomach growl!


Since you can seemingly talk anything into existence with this argument it must be flawed!

Bertrand Russell felt that the flaw was in Anselm's assumption that existence in reality is better than existence in the imagination alone.  Who am I to argue with Bertrand Russell? Well for the sake of argument I'm going to give Anselm his first three premises (including the one that Russell had an issue with).

1. God is the greatest imaginable being.
2. God exists in the imagination.
3. Existing in reality is better than existing only in the imagination.

 This is where Anselm runs into some trouble.  His next premises are as follows:


4. If God only exists in the imagination then we can imagine a being greater than God (ie. a being with all of God's attributes but one who exists in reality)
5. If we can imagine a being greater than God this is a contradiction (there can't be a being greater than the greatest imaginable being)

Stop.  Is this really a contradiciton?

What is necessary for this "being greater than God" (BGG) to be... well, greater than God?  The BGG must actually exist! The only way for the BGG to be greater than God is for the BGG to exist in reality when God only exists in the imagination.  If the BGG doesn't exist in reality then it has all the same attributes as God.  So the BGG is actually a contradiction.  Lost? Well let's use Anselm's reasoning.

1.  The being greater than God, must by definition be greater than God.
2.  The being greater than God is not greater than God.
3. This is a contradiciton.

4. The being greater than God does not exist.  

To put it simpler (in one way, and probably more complex in another) if the BGG has all the same attributes as God, then in what way do they remain distinct?

If the being greater than God does not exist then what is Anselm's argument?
So now we can all be happy again! God still doesn't exist and the Christians still have their imaginary God!

Now to find that Cheeseburger!

Hello Blog-Reading People!

It's a strange feeling writing to an audience that does not exist.  Though I am sure I'm not the first to make this observation it feels strangely appropriate to point out.  


I assume in order to get followers on this site one would need to have something interesting to say.  Yet its hard to find something interesting to write to yourself... unless you have multiple personalities.

Anyway, hi I'm new!

If you've stumbled across this blog you either:
A) have WAAYYYY too much time on your hands.
B) Already know me
or
C) are unfortunate enough to think that this might actually contain something lucid.

If you fall into category A, go outside.

If you are in category B, I'm sorry. I really am!

If you are in category C there is no such lucidity here! Unfortunately A Taste of Sanity is more tongue-in-cheek than anything, because most of what I write will be rambling, and incoherent.  However hopefully, and more likely as I get better at this talking to my self thing,  I'll be able to bring some sanity to this already crazy world. (Or just be able to write about something without getting sidetracked into a million pieces)


Before I release you from my rambling let me get my biases out on the table.

Politically I'm left of liberal, and sometimes overly opinionated.  Politics is just like religion. No one has it right yet.  Though unlike religion, someone probably will get close to a "good" political system... Maybe. 

You might have guessed I'm an atheist, and decidedly an anti-theist.  I am a strange breed of anti-theist/atheist though, because I will tolerate religion so long as it harms no one.  Though you should expect quite a few rants about ignorant creationists/fundamentalists.   

I may be a little snobbish about music sometimes, but that's just because your taste in music generally sucks.

I love Philosophy, and a lot of what I talk about comes back to that.  So be prepared for some philosophically driven posts!

Generally I'll try to label everything appropriately, so you can avoid my crazy leftish political views, or my atheist rants, or my music bashing, or my boring philosophical talks, though I wouldn't be surprised if everything ends up spilling over into the others.

Lastly, at times I will try to be funny, but that usually ends up in disaster, so please feel free to laugh as hard as you like at my failed attempts at humour.

Well that is all.  You can now go back to Wikipedia, and Failblog.