Choco has something to say.

The true root of all evil, part 1 (maybe)

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:00:18 -0700

The religious would like you to believe that we need to be “saved” from things: From ideas, from other people, from dark or sinful thoughts, from this existence itself. In truth, salvation is a concept that only works for people who feel there is nothing else to bring them up from their dismal lives. After all, what in a normal American’s life is there that’s actually stable and enjoyable?

We go to work for 8 hours per day, which is a full 1/3rd of waking hours. If you are to make enough money to live a decent life, you are most likely working arond 40 hours per week. This is the American standard that not many people are able to escape from. Add on 1-2 hours per day getting ready and traveling to that job, and anywhere from 5-9 hours of sleep per day depending on preference and need, and you’re left with… not much. We work more than we enjoy ourselves.

When coming home from this working cycle, I know from personal experience that all I want to do is something that isn’t work. I want to play video games, I want to play with my cat, I want to get drunk, I want to watch a movie… I want to do SOMETHING that removes me from the world I almost regretfully exist in. Why is this? Isn’t this the way humans are supposed to be? The entire world is doing it, so we all have to follow their example, right? It’s easy to distill why we go through the working cycle.

Why are you working? To make money.

Why are you making money? So I can pay for things.

What are you paying for? My home, my electricity, my water, my food, my entertainment, etc. These things are important.

Why do you have to pay money for these things? It’s the only way to get these things in a reliable fashion anymore.

Why is there no reliable way to get these things anymore? Because someone else owns or owned my home, electricity powers almost everything in our homes, safe drinking and bathing water is hard to come by elsewhere, most forms of entertainment rely on all the other things, etc.

This all means that one resource is valued over every other one: Money. Money makes things happen. It motivates, it sustains, it sets us apart from each other in a constant competition of financial upkeep. It is said that competition drives growth, but what’s growing? The amount of money that goes into someone’s pocket. Nothing else is growing except other’s debts. The whole system of national currency causes us to lose out focus on what is truly important in our lives.

I can’t speak for other people, but I can tell you what I truly love in life. I love my girlfriend and my penniless interactions with her. I love playing games (video games or whatever, just games in general). I love my cat and spending time with her. I love getting together with people I know and like to participate in events. I enjoy fresh, flavorful food and I love sleeping. I love exerting myself physically in sports (games), workout, or even mindless exertion. If you look inside at what you really like doing, does it cost money? Is that money due to travel costs? Enjoying some event with people? People putting on a show? Being competitive? Being casual? I bet if you thought about it, you could imagine a life without money being required for things.

Let’s start with the home. I’m not necessarily speaking of a house, but a house is a home to many people. Apartments, caves, tents, benches, the wilderness… anything can be a home to someone or something. Why are you paying for a home? The world automatically creates resources to create something (wood to build a house, sticks and twigs to make a nest, earth to burrow into, ground to lie on, etc). Why then are we paying for things that are readily available? The land you call your home existed before “ownership” was even considered. Instead of one human claiming a legal right to monopolize an area, these areas were wide open to anyone and anything to use. At some time, people in America traveled across this land and staked claims… legal claims that they owned what was previously unowned. Human society has grown to accept that ownership is normal and staple concept for establishing a society in the first place. I mean, if people didn’t own anything, people would live in anarchy!

Anarchy is bad because there are no rules in place to keep everyone’s ownership separate. People would riot, people would steal, people would kill, people would be uncivilized towards each other because we are naturally immoral beings that can’t police ourselves individually. I don’t disagree that this would happen, in fact. There would be deaths over disputes on who wants something more, not who owns it. Stealing wouldn’t actually be a problem because you wouldn’t own something in the first place. Similarly, a lion who makes a kill and doesn’t defend its food from others will go hungry. Humans without the power to protect the food or tools in their care would lose these things if stronger individuals.

The above actions are normal for living things and it’s how things should work in the world: Naturally. The world produces good food naturally. The world produces other animals for meat, tools, and other uses naturally. We have a desire to eat, sleep, and play… naturally. So why then do we all choose to be a slave of money, even after realizing what kind of a sad, pathetic existence we live because of it? It’s circular logic or “begging the question”. Why do you make money? So I can be more comfortable when I’m not working. Why do you work? So you can make money. This logical fallacy needs to stop. Once it stops, we will be able to go back to being a community, having fun with the resources at hand instead of using money to get anything we want (at an extremely high expense to the world). When will YOU AND I decide we’ve been through enough and really start living a life of comfort without the need for money?

Religion, the largest proxy in existence.

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:02:58 -0700

I just started reading the book of Deuteronomy (what the heck kind of name is that?). I’m on chapter 4, and it really is amazing what kind of God is leading the Jews. DO WHAT I SAY OR BE PUNISHED. Often, the people do not do what God says. This is understandable. Remember, God isn’t talking to the people. He’s talking to Moses, the prophet of the Jews. Moses relays the information he receives to the people. I don’t know about you lot, but if there is a divine being, I want to hear him myself, not hear some prophetic relay. Looks like a lot of the Jews had the same idea.

This is another reason for why Christianity has the upper hand over other religions. Christianity promotes being able to have a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with Jesus Christ, the son of God. Not with God the Father or the Holy Spirit strangely enough, just the son. By calling Jesus “God”, Christianity attempts to make people feel like they are really communicating with their source. However, in all honesty, this is just yet another proxy to the true God they supposedly worship. The saints are a proxy. the supposed “Virgin” Mary, mother of Jesus, is a proxy. Priests are a proxy. Preachers are a proxy. So here’s a true question for Christians: Why is it necessary to go through a proxy?

The proxy system here serves as a barrier between you and God. Unlike proper digital proxies which route digital information, these analog proxies slow down the connection process, causing a lot to be lost in literal and figurative translation. Is God really involved with his people that he loves and created to love him, or is he more of a paper pusher behind a desk in a high rise office building? You would think that an omnipotent God wouldn’t require all these proxies to do his job. We’re talking about the most powerful entity out there, the one who exists on a higher plane, is the creator of all things in the universe, the master of all energy. With that in mind, why does he not make himself known, instead relying on proxies to spread his existence? Considering he made all of life in its current form, how can it be a sin to act like ourselves and be skeptical of things that seem too good or just too amazing to be true?

Leviticus: A good reason why the Old Testament shouldn't be related to Christianity.

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:08:18 -0700

I plan to cite sources and add this to my “book” post later on, but I thought this was important enough to post on its own.The Book of Leviticus is a perfect example of why we should be wary of religion gleaned from the Bible.

Leviticus teaches us that we men should not “lay with men as with women”. I think a very simple comeback to this passage is that it comes from such a disgusting book like Leviticus. Do you really think that this one passage holds true along with passages describing the slaughtering, disemboweling, and burning of animal sacrifices? Passages that instruct that for birds used for sacrifice, the head of the bird needs to be twisted off and its blood spilled on the altar? Passages that say these sacrifices will allow God to forgive us for our sins?

Once we acknowledge that modern Christianity still believes that these laws were given by their God, we can then look objectively at the New Covenant in comparison to the Old Testament’s Old Covenant. God is love, God is compassion, and God will forgive your sins if you repent. The Catholic church allows its flock to confess to a Priest to forgive these sins. Other denominations claim that you must do good deeds and “proclaim the good word” to be forgiven. Yet others belive that you just need to believe and all will be forgiven (but a few good deeds don’t necessarily hurt). How then can it be justified that those laws of animal sacrifice to allieviate sin only applied to the Jews? There’s no explanation from God as to why only the Jews were supposed to follow these sacrificial rituals. Even the Jews themselves stopped this barbaric practice after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban#The_end_of_sacrifices)

When we critically analyse the difference between these two covenants, it doesn’t appear that we’re talking about the same God. The God who passed down laws to the Israelites and the God that people claim Jesus is one with are structurally and morally different. Some may argue that God is beyond our understanding and thus put faith in his flip-flopping nature, thus proving that people have less faith in John Kerry, a living human being, than they do in a hidden almighty entity that might as well be part of a fairy tale. We often look down on Scientology and other religions, beliefs, odd sexual preferences (Furries? Oh my.), etc. But how are these things any less strange than an omnipresent being who created everything, puts humans at the center of all affairs on this planet, allows wars and massively destructive technology to be produced to destroy everything on this planet, yet loves us and put us here as a test? This belief is absurd and actually less acceptable than deviant sexual desires and lifestyles that are so often demonized simple because they’re different from the norm.

We should continue by examining the nature of God philisophically. We may not reach a hard truth, but it may put things into better perspective. Can a God be a dynamic, emotion-driven entity who changes over the course of at least 3000 years from a bloodthirst and violent God to an all-loving and compassionate being? A well-rooted reason that so many subscribe to a form of Christianity over tradition-based Judaism is due to having a much more attractive belief structure. It’s very difficult for Judaism to attract new new believers, instead generating most of its followers through the traditional passing on of information to their children, infecting these children with a religious meme from the earliest impressionable age possible. It can easily be understood that the passing on of cultural information to children had significant benefits before globalization came about. The information wasn’t necessarily just religious, but also information on how to survive in their environment and in their community. However, this practice is losing its initial purpose, and much of the information passed on these days do not translate effectively to our current social system.

In an era of increasing unfulfillment and unrest at our place in the world, religion helps people focus on something one might refer to as “otherworldly” or “God”. This distracts them from the real world problems and their consequeces, instead being content with blaming current social problems on immorality and demonic influence. There are so many problems with this. With “God” being the focus, their eyes are averted from physical truths. Their eyes are instead focused primarily on spiritual truths, somehow gained through reading a physical (and poorly translated) book, full of physical facts and details. They are thus unable study and accept the true reasoning for our social problems. Science should be pursued by most of the population as a primary source of truth, but encounters difficulties every day by right win, superstitious, Bible-thumping Christians who don’t even read the Bible that they thump. Even my mother, a very strong believer in Jesus, doesn’t recall any of Leviticus. I told her I was going to read all of it, and that she should read it again, too. She agreed. I want to talk to her about it later and hear her thoughts on what her Bible teaches. Hopefully this is the start of something good.

An apology.

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:25:48 -0700

I’ve been skimping, I know. There are maybe half a dozen people who know this exists, I know. I haven’t been writing, but I have been coming up with more subject matter. I have showed the homosexuality work-in-progress post to a new gay friend of mine, and he liked my questions and conclusions. I’ve landed a job, so that’s taking up most of my time. And Borderlands is a fun timesink.

Upcoming...

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:19:38 -0700

I’m working on… a book? Maybe not that important yet, but I’m doing quite a bit of research and critical thinking to try and first and foremost… invalidate the old testament to the point where Christians will only be able to argue from the New Testament from now on. What would Christianity be like without the Old Testament?

Parental Roles: Yo, back off already!

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:32:00 -0700

Excuse me for not updating recently. I haven’t decided to put aside the time to update this blog due to various factors, especially the multiple sources of depression I’m living with. One of the largest sources of stress that I am STILL dealing with is my girlfriend’s parents, especially her mother. Just as a reminder, I am currently together with a 16 year old girl. I am 24 years old. Yes, I know what I’m doing, am completely serious, and am very sane. After all, if I wasn’t serious, why would I have stayed with her for this long? Happy 15 months starting today, Mari~

That said, there has been a new fiasco in my relationship that I don’t get. Mari’s been around the internet for a long time, and is more than familiar with the adult content it harbors. She even enjoys to draw some of that adult content herself. The problem is one or two of these images were found out by her mother. Her sister invaded her privacy, started clicking around, and found a couple of images she drew. While they are sexual in nature, they are not overly explicit. They’re pretty mild in all honestly.

Upon discovering these images, her mother and father have blown up. I had no hand in the images which were drawn in the first place, and yet I was completely and totally blamed for them. Why? Because my domain here, instantairdash.com, was hosting the images. To these internet commoners, this must mean that I commissioned the drawings in question, then uploaded them to my website. Sounds plausible? Hardly. Mari has her own FTP account with this host which I setup for her. I don’t monitor everything she does with it. However, now I am to blame for the very creation of these images. Did these people go to college? Did they take a class which taught them what logical fallacies are? Do they care? I doubt it, and if they did learn these things, then they intentionally forgot them.

So, once again, I’m not allowed to spend any personal, quality time with my girlfriend. This is very frustrating to me. I don’t need any sort of sexual release at this point, but I do have a need for intimate contact. I want to cuddle and feel safe and happy. I imagine most people want that kind of safe feeling. The problem is, when we first met, we were pretty much free to do as we pleased 2-3 times per week during the summer of 2008. Now that her mother doesn’t want this to happen anymore, life feels very empty. You get used to a feeling, and when it’s taken away, it hurts twice as much.

So here’s the fucking deal, Gabriela. You let me start coming over to see your daughter again in April. I decided to be on my best behavior to make sure that nothing could separate us again. However, in your delusional mind, I have wronged you somehow. Fuck. You. There is no reason for me to do something so stupid as to encourage Mari to openly draw porn before she’s 18. There is no way I would do ANYTHING to endanger our relationship. The fact that you are unwilling to talk to the parties involved about any of this and instead jump to conclusions and point fingers shows just how much of a weak person you are. I almost hope you see what I have to say here so you understand I mean business.

I have your naughty emails. I have the email transcripts between you, (removed for safety), and people like (removed for safety) and (removed for safety). IF YOU WANT RESPECT, YOU’LL HAVE TO EARN IT. IF YOU, AS A PARENT, WISH TO CLAIM ANY AUTHORITY OVER YOUR CHILDREN, YOU WILL NEED TO BE TRUSTWORTHY. You are a married woman, married to one Arturo Garcia. You were married to another man in Mexico before you divorced him and left the country. You had CYBER SEX with people on the internet for reasons unknown to me. You cheated on your husband. I know your relationship with Arturo is terrible. I laugh with irony that you in your perfect and unmovable parental wisdom could somehow marry two different people and fuck up on both of them. You need to back off. Mari doesn’t want your “help” as a parent. You’re a bad example. You not a respectable person. Your priorities are all wrong. And you know what? Even if you hound your daughter for the next 20 months, it won’t change the fact that she will leave your home for good once she is of the proper age to do so.

REPENT NOW. UNDERSTAND YOUR FAULTS. THIS ISN’T MEXICO ANYMORE. YOUR DAUGHTER’S LIVES AREN’T YOUR STOMPING GROUNDS. MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO GET A LIFE AND START ENJOYING YOURSELF AGAIN INSTEAD OF RAGGING ON YOUR CHILDREN. COME ON, YOU EVEN HAVE A 20 YEAR OLD GIRL STILL LIVING AT HOME WITH YOU. HOW CAN YOU BE A GOOD MOTHER IF YOU CLAIM YOU CAN’T SLEEP UNLESS YOUR 20 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER IS HOME AND IN BED ALREADY? FUCK YOU, YOU CLINGY FAILURE. LET GO OF YOUR CHILDREN ALREADY AND LET THEM GROW.

============================

God I’m angry at this situation. Pent up frustration from not even being able to get close to what I want. I’ll probably discard this topic for a while unless something juicy pops up. I want to write two movie reviews next. The first is for a movie called “God on Trial”, the second for “The Man Who Sued God”. Both are excellent films and really illustrate the problems with the current claim on a divine creator as he was originally understood (that is, misunderstood).

The Fear of Death

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:46:34 -0700

From what I gather, atheists for the most part do not fear death. It isn’t a core belief or standard of atheism (as all atheism entails is to not believe in theism), but it is an opinion held by many. We are biological beings, not spiritual entities with an eternal soul. We exist to be in this world, not in any other. Many atheists are content with this opinion. Instead, atheists hold a fear of dying. How it will happen. Death is a part of life, but often death is viewed as an unpleasant circumstance.

Theism, on the other hand, generally has their followers working towards the single goal of salvation. This salvation often occurs after death, at which point nothing can be proven or disproven on the subject. That seems very convenient. But this post isn’t about proving the afterlife wrong or right. I intend to look at what makes people believe such things. I don’t have any sources or research prepared to back this up. I’m sure a more well-known atheist has conveyed this in a book that I have yet to read.

Theism thrives on the concept of salvation. There is something wrong with people’s lives fundamentally, so religion is present to save people. People need to be saved by death. For most people, it seems that because they learn this concept at a young age by being indoctrinated into the same religion as their parents. As we know, young minds are very impressionable and are eager to learn. If we teach children this idea of salvation, it’s possible that it will stick with them for the rest of their lives. They will grow up scared of the world, scared of dying, scared of living freely, just because they are not sure of where they are going. Heaven, hell, or purgatory? Good afterlife, or bad afterlife? Awesome afterlife, or mediocre afterlife?

Humans do not need to be saved. They do not require any sort of salvation except what is wrought through their own efforts. So what is there to live for? Atheists are obviously hedonists who do not understand spiritual importance. Theists are obviously less vain, less proud, less influenced by the world than those hedonistic fools, so theists must be the better group. There is a very important difference between these two that should be apparent by now. Atheists live because they are alive, theists live for the afterlife. Everything dies, afterall. It’s what you believe in when you die that matters.

So why are theists so content with living for the afterlife? Using Christianity and a number of other religions as an example, surely it isn’t because they really look forward to singing God’s name in praise for the rest of eternity while in heaven with him. If this were the only pull for living a good life and being nice to people, not many people would buy into it. “There’s this guy in the sky, and he loves us, and if you love him and follow his teachings, he’ll ALLOW YOU to sing praises to him in heaven for the rest of eternity”. This isn’t a very convincing argument on its own. Not many would believe that. There has to be consequences. Thus the concept of hell is introduced.

Hell is a place where souls who commited evil deeds during their human lifetime are sent. Instead of a purification process (which is why purgatory is supposed to exist), hell is meant to eternally punish all those who did not follow God and his teachings. While Catholics believe in purgatory, a place of purification to prepare good but unworthy souls to enter the “kingdom of heaven”, most religions do not support this intermediate state. There is no grey area. Either you are worthy enough for paradise, or terrible enough for eternal punishment. Purgatory is to be feared, too, as pain is a terrible feeling for most. Fear of pain, punishment and possible rejection changes people. It changed them to think that they must follow the teachings of their religions fully in order to escape a terrible fate the moment death arrived.

What I’m getting at here is that people are motivated by fear. People are religious because of fear. People are calm and courteous in public because of fear. People don’t resist police all the time because of fear. People are have a pretty standard set of morals because of fear. Imagine. You’re surrounded by fear. Four walls. A box of fear that you can’t escape. The walls extend high into the sky. There’s no way you could climb that wall of fear. You just need to live your life according to a set of rules. That way, your body will be left, but your soul will be able to rise up and escape when you die. This is the obvious solution to most who accept what they are told and what is immediately around them. People who accept boundaries limit themselves. Dig under the box’s walls and break out into freedom. That wasn’t so hard, was it? But freedom is scary. It means you have to work harder. Think harder. Learn more. And what if you dig down a little and you fall straight into hell, just as you feared? That’s enough to stop most people from exploring options, digging deeper, making their escape from the fear that binds them. But just think of all the things you’ll find on the other side. Other people have done it. It can’t be that bad, can it?

The story of the turtle and the hare fits into this very well. The hare decides that he will go half the distance to the finish line. When he is halfway, he goes half of the rest of the distance to three-fourths of the way to the finish line. He continues to divide his the remaining distance by half. The turtle, however, goes at a slow and steady speed. A deliberate pace to pass the finish line. No matter how fast or how many times the hare divides the remaining distance in half, he will never pass the finish line. The turtle, on the other hand, has his sights past the finish line. Even at his slow speed, he will pass the hare and win the race… and then keep on going. Religion will never be able to cross the finish line. It will always be content running along between the starting line and the finishing line. Atheism and evolutionary theory has been developing slowly for a very long time, and has passed the finish line, yet keeps going on to discover new things.

Are you stuck in a box of fear, or are you truly living your life?

The irony of our global situation.

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:16:00 -0700

By remembering what the rest of the world has forgotten, you can find out how humans were living before society got started in its modern form. Before the agricultural revolution 10,000 year ago or so, all of man used low-scale agriculture, hunting, gathering, and herding to get their daily sustinence. There was no one “right” way to do things. Different tribes did things differently, and they were happy that way.

Survival of the fittest applied to these people just as much as anyone else. The impressive thing about survival of the fittest is that it has been shown in humanity and nature in general that similar species can band together for protection to better ensure survival. This is why you often see humans together, apes together, wolves together, etc. All three know that staying together ensures more protection than if one wolf, one human, one ape was working alone all the time. I like bringing this up because of Ken Hensley’s little stunt of throwing a female student to the ground during a college lecture and taking her seat, then telling the professor that he was merely practicing Darwinian theory. Sorry, Ken. You’d have to read and understand the theory to do that conciously. Because you do it in your daily life. You claim that morality is from God, and that humans have no innate sense of morality or justice. This is true, but through learning from their peers, they gain this knowledge. Stealing (when you have a sense of property) isn’t “bad”, but if you get caught stealing from your own, it is bad because you are hurting your tribe for personal gain. Personal gain, while great, alienates you from the community around you.

This holds true in the present more than ever. We live in great comforts. Air conditioning, electronic devices that do amazing things, connectivity throughout the entire world. The price, however, is great. Not the pricetag, but the global price. The problem is everyone is forced to do the same thing. No one is allowed to decide how to live and creature their own society or culture. They are born into society, and if you are not going to be a contributing member of society, you can fuck off and die. YOU DON’T LIVE LIKE US, SO GET OUT. Well, that would be fine for diversity and all, but the problem is there is no where to run. The main parts of the world are now under totalitarian agriculture. The world is ours to conquer. We’re looking to conquer space and the stars if we can look beyond our own planet. This is folly.

The irony comes in here. In the world, living things proper on other living things. Plants grow from the bones and flesh of dead animals and from other plant matter. Animals like on other animals or plant matter, sometimes both. So now we have a situation on our hands. Human expansion is leaving less and less space for the citizens of nature to survive. Humans, at their current rate of expansion, will take over most parts of the world very quickly in the centuries to come. So in a world where we live on plants and animals and they live on us, I find it incredibly ironic that our global society is attempting to SAVE THE WHALES or SAVE THE RAINFOREST or SAVE ENDANGERED SPECIES, or GIVE ANIMALS THEIR RIGHTS. When our main focus as a species is to protect our species (which we do too much in our current global setup), why are we working so hard as ensuring other species’ survival? This is shortsightedness at its worst. Stop working at fixing the problem, and go to the source of it: Rapid human expansion, a global culture that states we own the world, and food produced on a massive scale to feed humans and “livestock”, a fancy name for enslaved meat.

When are we going to learn, and what can we do?

Trichotillomania (I'm disorderly)

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:30:30 -0700

Through a bunch of personal conversation, Mari and I have found out we have the same disorder. It has manifested itself in different ways, but the underlying disorder is the same. While I’ll let her explain her condition in her blog, my condition mainly consists of picking at my skin and pulling out nose hairs. I hunt for blackheads and blemishes on my arms, head, shoulders, and chest all the time. Removing a bunch of small things or a big nasty thing from my skin gives me a sense of great accomplishment. Sometimes, this accomplishment makes me feel awesome for hours on end, where I remember back to the awesome thing I picked out, what it looked like, how I discarded it, and how powerfulllll I feel. Awful, isn’t it? It’s not something that I want to give up completely since it makes me feel good AND it cleans out my skin, I just need find a better place to do it.

Wikipedia entry on Trichotillomania

Trichotillomania Learning Center

Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders: Trichotillomania

Do you have this?

Oh, and I’ll post my absurdity of atheism rebuttals again at the top of the blog once I get them done completely.

mari and i are debaters! (okay she stole this from me)

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:55:30 -0700

milkylazy:

Received:

Hmmm… Evidence… Let me tell you something. Smart people are actually really dumb! (I found that out a long time ago). You see, scientists use their authoritative power in order to tell lies that disprove God. The theory of evolution has been a great debate for years, even though it was proven false many times over. To make this bloody battle short, scientists use the theory as an alternative to Creation because that would imply that God exists, so they kept it out of textbooks and such. Why? So that they wouldn’t have to obey “rules of God” and thereby living “freely”. Basically, scientists don’t always tell the truth.
Also, do you need evidence to believe in something? Isn’t faith the reason why you believe, not evidence? Hopefully, you will think about this matter. Of course you can completely disregard this conversation as well.

Replied:

So, okay. You’re saying that people who try to find answers beyond faith-based ones are dumb. You then dive into a conspiracy theory that because scientists have harnessed the power of the world, they lie to the world to “disprove God”. Again, nothing factual, just an accusation with no backup.

“To make this bloody battle short” - as in you don’t want to dive into details. Why not?

Scientists use evolution because it has the most amount of documented evidence supporting it. Evolution does not rule out creationism in its basic form, but it does mean that the 6000 or even 10000 year old creation myth cannot be the true start of the world unless you want to admit that God planted the fossil records in the earth just to confuse us.
Creationism is kept out of textbooks because it is not science. If it were to be proposed as an alternative theory to scientifically researched theories, then if you’re GOOD you could fill up 5 minutes of class time. “The Theory of Intelligent Design. It’s where an intelligent being, apparently very powerful, created all matter out there. ANY QUESTIONS?” To dive into intelligent design ANY more than that would be religious, and that is not what we need in our classrooms. You can go to Church if you want to hear about religion.
Okay, so, creationism is kept out of the science classroom and textbooks so scientists don’t have to follow the word of God. They never had to follow. According to the bible, God gave us free will. We can live as freely as we would like. How are the scientists not telling the truth about -science-? Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. Science has tested God to no avail. It’s sure is convenient that creationists claim he cannot be tested because he is all powerful and knows what we are up to. The fact that you never see TRUE miracles (such as the regrowing of a limb or something equally astounding) is very suspicious, for example.
And yes, we need evidence to come to conclusions. Faith is not the reason to believe, faith IS belief. You can believe that gun control is wrong or right, but you can say with 100% certainty that if someone’s heart stops pumping blood through their body, they will die. We have plenty of evidence that shows that people die, so it is presented as fact. God has no evidence. Things you can attribute to God can be reimagined and reattributed to other things. It will seem silly, but here is an example of an alternative creation theory that holds just as much weight as your own: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

And that’s all I’ve got.

~The Absurdity of Atheism~ by Ken Hensley, disc 1 (An Atheist's Review)

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:13:00 -0700

In the beginning and in the end, Atheism is a very simple concept: The lack in the belief of theism. This is not to say that it is impossible to have a creator. This is not saying that atheists “believe” in Evolution instead of Creationism. It means that we do NOT believe. It’s the absence of belief. It’s not antitheism, which would indicate that we believe that there is no god or gods in the world, no creator of anything. By the different definitions of these words, Atheism is truly very much akin to what I used to call myself. I used to call myself a follower of “agnostic atheism”. By the nature of these two words put together, it indicates some sort of belief system. “I do not know for sure if gods exist or not, but if they do, there is no proper evidence in them, so I will not believe.” This isn’t exactly a belief in itself, but the connotations of calling oneself an “agnostic atheist” doesn’t exactly go over very well in debate with Christians. Instead, I will simply refer to myself as an Atheist, and from there, I can properly explain what atheism means without creating an unnecessary atheistic subculture in someone’s head.

Ken Hensley says this is how Christians generally try to convince people of their point of view: With evidence, with rationality, or presuppositionally (assuming something IS true to support your argument). He will be focusing on the third point because obviously, the evidence-based and rationality-based approaches always fail. Hands down. However, I will debunk all of this man’s claims based on this approach. Ken’s suppositional arguments for the existence of God contain circular logic (which leads nowhere), accusations that make no sense, and arguments that have very simple answers. If he did his research and was not a totally hopeless religious bigot, maybe he would realize this.

Right from the beginning, he is admitting that he will be saying that the CATHOLIC version of God’s existence will be argued for on this lecture set. The Catholic church chose the books in the Bible, the Bible is what he believes in, so thus his arguments will PROVE that the Catholic side of Christianity is correct. Oh, this will be a fun ride.

Here’s his argument’s key standing point: “God exists, and if you deny God’s existence, all kinds of impossibilities are going to follow and you are not going to want to accept them.”

He goes on to state that any atheistic worldview destroys morality, meaning (I assume he’s talking about our purpose in life), and knowledge. I’m on track two, 2:41 minutes in at this point. To back up why he should argue presuppositionally, Ken is referring to the Bible itself for his foundation. Note that by basing the entire argument on his holy book, he is setting himself up for petitio principii, “begging the question”, or a “circular argument”. Right from the START Ken is screwing things up. Your basis or foundation for an argument needs to be strong so it can support your other ideas. You build on top of your foundation. Ken is going to be arguing against atheism. Atheists generally deal with science and evidence-backed studies and arguments. Because you are basing your argument on a biased source that proves very little about the true history of the times, your entire structure comes tumbling down. Any intelligent atheist who knows WHY he’s an atheist will see through this right at the beginning.

Ken is now raging against epistemological relativism. He sets this up with a quick explanation, and then states that every viewpoint should be respected except Christianity. This man is BITTER. Christianity attempts to prove itself as 100% true via scientific evidence these days. They fail. Why does Christianity continually get less respect? Because they are saying things are true which are found to be not true. When you claim something has a foundation that is supported by scientific evidence, then you open yourself up for scrutiny. If it turns out you are wrong, well, then you won’t be respected. Your viewpoint is allowed respect in the social setting, but don’t try to bust into science if you’re not willing to accept the consequences. Also notice Ken’s bias by not mentioning any other religion. Whoops, now he’s back to supporting his claim that epistemological relativism with quotes from the Bible. You foundation is quicksand, stop trying to build on it. But will he stop? Nah, this man is determined. He’s a MACHINE. And what the HELL is a “heart of hearts”? He uses this term throughout the entire lecture series. This is a phrase that the Christian may feel means “soul”, or one’s god given feelings inside their heart, or something to that nature. This is a feel-good phrase, nothing more.

A story Ken presented about “Survival of the Fittest” consisted of him walking into a classroom, picking up a weak female student from her front row seat, and throwing her away from it so he could take this seat. When angrily questioned why he did this, he responded that he was merely carrying about survival of the fittest, because that’s what evolution is all about, right? With a clouded mind, this could seem like a valid argument. There are many points here that need to be made. What does getting the best seat in the classroom do to enhance your survivability? Was that woman a threat to you? When you are part of a collective (such as a tribe, a pack, a herd, a society), then doesn’t working together with your fellows ensure better survivability of your species? Ken demonstrates misguided human interpretation very clearly, but it doesn’t debunk evolution or “survival of the fittest”.

Gone for a bit!

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:16:20 -0700

Regardless of the terrible social anxiety I suffer, I am about to go out and fill out an application for an interview. Seems kind of silly that they let you submit a resume online, but you have to voluntarily visit their corporate office to actually fill out an application. You have to fill one of these out if you want to get a potential interview. /sigh. That’s some damned stupid unnecessarily tiered process. Lord, I’ve been up all night. Hope this goes okay!

What the hell is up with my Unemployment money, too? I thought I fixed everything over the phone, but now I have six entries that I haven’t been paid because I’m not ready for full time work? How many times must I tell them I’m ready for full-time work before they believe me? $4700 waiting for me to collect over the next 20 weeks and they’re /taunting me.

Rage aside, I spent most of the day watching movies, anime, skilling up my summoning skill in FFXI, and fighting avatar battles. I can now summon, err, Carbuncle, Titan, Ifrit, and Shiva. Ramuh, Garuda, and Fenrir will follow tomorrow I hope. If I have enough gil for my potions and ethers.

Poor scheduling

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:50:35 -0700

I feel bad. I should be waking up earlier and going to bed earlier, but there is always too much going on in the house for that to happen without the assistance of booze.

MARI, I’M SORRY FOR NOT BEING UP WHEN YOU WERE. HAVE FUN AT THE DOCTOR, BUT NOT -TOO MUCH- FUN, YOU UNDERSTAND? I’m going to go try to sort out my unemployment issues. This nigga needs to get paid.

DISMISSED

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:07:46 -0700

DISMISSED

Jury Duty

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:56:00 -0700

I’m scheduled to report for jury duty today. I know that I am too radical and skeptical to properly judge someone, so this will be a hoot. I have to wake up at 11 AM to receive more instructions. I hope I get dismissed. That would be PRO AS HELL. Mari, I’m turning my computer off until after court. We should find out if there is a way to call each other for cheeeeap. Ask your dad or his wife and see what can be done!

**UPDATE** No Jury Duty! My group (all groups) were DISMISSED.

Human Resources? More Like Got A 'C' In English Class....ources

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:50:00 -0700

Dear Brian,

Thank you for your interest in our Technical Support position. We truly enjoyed the opportunity to discuss your background and qualifications. While your credentials are impressive, regrettably, I must advise you that we have selected another candidate whose skills more closely fit the requirements of the position. We will retain your application for employment should a suitable position become available.

We appreciate your interest in seeking employment with IPOWER. Please accept our best wishes for success in your career path.

Sincerely,

Nicole Gill

Recruiter

IPOWER.com

==============================

I made it clear that my background was for technical support or billing. My background even gives me inbound sales experience. Why are you using plural pronoun “WE” and singular pronoun “I”? Not only did I only speak to ONE person at the company, the first use of “WE” is very awkward as well as incorrect.

My credentials are impressive? Excellent! However, regrettably? Perhaps I REGRET TO INFORM YOU as this would indicate personal regret by relaying bad news as opposed to REGRETTABLY which indicates that I should have been picked for the position. I must advise you? Awkward. Do away with this advice part altogether and adopt the I REGRET TO INFORM YOU bit from above. It covers both bases just fine.

Oh, good! A proper use of WE. I think you’re talking about IPOWER… or maybe your human resources department? Wait, maybe not so proper. Using pronouns should be restricted to when it is known who you are talking about. Some homless guy on the street has just a good of a guess as to what WE refers to as I do. Also, you’re a call center. You are almost always hiring and you do it in batches.

I don’t believe your lie for one second that a SINGLE candidate was chosen over me without giving me an interview. I do not accept your best wishes on my career path, because damnit, I want a job. I need a job. My credentials are impressive. I’ve got what it takes to succeed, so why am I being stalled by someone who probably has completed more school than I have, yet has a junior high school student’s grasp of the English language? Excuse me, Nicole. I would like to have a look at YOUR credentials and see if they’re very impressive.

So while my application will be on file and you’ll consider me for future positions (how about the ones that are available on your website? You know, the ones you haven’t taken down yet because you still need people? Yeah, those.), good luck on my career path? And I guess I shouldn’t let the door hit me on the way out, right? Looks like you’re locking the door. Good to know that my resume is in there in case you want to let me back in!

Really, this is a great example of the problem with business these days. It’s nothing personal, you’re impressive, you’re great, BUT. Now look. I was laid off from my last job. I was told there were no performance issues that were the cause of being laid off. I made them repeat this information to me several times. Having them layme off, however, was a way to fire me. So essentially, I get kicked out the door with a very bad taste in my mouth and no idea why I have to leave. There’s no constructive criticism or anything to work on to become a better, more valued worker. How are you helping the world, the workforce, the individual, or your own company by not allowing this information to be heard? Well, here’s my reply to the above email. I don’t expect them to reconsider. I believe it’s a matter of principle and I want them to understand that their approach is hurting people, not playing it safe. It’s not right if the content is 100% legally safe with rounded edges, safety scissors, and a padded floor, but insults someone’s intelligence. That’s not productive.

==============================

Hi, Nicole. I received your denial email, but it doesn’t make sense. Perhaps you’re trying to let me down lightly, but your email is inconsistent. I have impressive credentials, but you have selected another candidate? IPOWER claims to be the 5th largest hosting company in the world right now. As I have experience with other hosting companies of large and small size (your 15,000 square-foot facility means that you are very well staffed), it doesn’t make sense that you would be hiring one candidate at a time. Your website shows that there are billing and technical support positions still available. Large call centers such as yourself are always hiring. If you had simply selected another candidate and that trumped my employment opportunity, then that would be fine. But as I am familiar with your company’s business model and understand the hiring practices within call centers, I have to admit that I feel like I’m being lied to. Why would you say at the end, “Please accept our best wishes for success in your career path.” after saying you’re retaining my application should a suitable position come available? That simply makes it sound like there’s no hope, like you’re giving up on me. I believe position is there, but you simply need to interview me for it. Without an interview to compare candidates with admittedly impressive credentials (as you say I have), it’s not logical that you would select another candidate and close the opening without removing it from your website.

While I understand the need to let unqualified employment seekers down easy so they don’t raise a fuss, I ask that you either consider me for a billing, technical support, or inbound sales position (as I have experience and qualifications for all three of these positions), or tell me the truth as to why I’m not eligible. I believe that the positions are available, else you would have taken the openings off your website. Even if your webmaster has been slow in taking them off your website, your business involves recruiting many new employees in a short period of time due to the high turnover of call centers. I ask that you please test my intelligence and give me either proper consideration or proper denial. It is disingenuous to leave someone hanging with a thread of hope that will never be answered, especially in a business that has such a large turn-over percentage. I appreciate your reconsideration and wish for a positive answer in return.

-Choco

Religious Bigot Analogy - The Steel Lockbox

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:22:26 -0700

So I was on my bed reading a book called “The Story of B”. Excellent book so far, very interesting. But I had a conversation with my father earlier today about a series of CDs he sent to me. The name of these CDs are “The Absurdity of Atheism”. They are recorded seminars of Ken Hensley talking to a group of people once per week for three weeks, one hour at a time. I plan to write out a complete debunking of this crap series once I have the stomach to finish them, as they simply PISS ME OFF every time I listen to him.

My father is a very good man. He has done many things for me and continues to help me to this day. However, this doesn’t change the fact that he’s a religious bigot. Using the word bigot sounds like an insult, but it’s the simple truth of the matter. When presented with the facts and possibilities of real life truth, he falls back on faith. He claims that we’ll just have to agree to disagree. This STOPS the discussion, regardless of the ground either side has gained. This is something that will annoy people who enjoy debate to no end. It annoys the hell out of me, you can bet on that.

So I got to thinking about how this religious bigotry worked in people’s minds. How could they continually accept supporting ideas, evidence, and most things faith-based, but will not accept anything that doesn’t already fit into their worldview. So let is imagine a large steel lockbox. You can hold almost anything inside of it. It’s locked very tight, as the religious person (referred to as a man from here on) cannot let just anything in. How would you let things in without letting things escape at the same time? Well, that’s what the long, thin slit in the top is for. This slit allows the man to drop whatever will fit into his worldview inside. Anything that doesn’t fit in his worldview will not come into his lockbox of belief. Things that don’t fit literally don’t fit. They’re too wide! They’re too long! They just won’t work with this man’s views. So, try as you might, they won’t go inside. You can try really hard to put something in, or throw it hard enough at the box to maybe damage the box a bit, but you will never put it inside something that doesn’t fit. Maybe you could drop a bunch of heavy ideas on the box and crush it, but that mess is sure hard to clean up if you do.

So what is this lockbox for? It’s a safe haven for ideas until death. If you store enough good ideas in the box, you get a better reward when you go to heaven. But what about the things put into the box that look like they fit, but later expand into something nonsensical? How’d something like that get in the man’s box?! Well, opening the box and allowing anything inside to escape would be a bad idea. Best to just ignore the bad idea in the box. Taking it out of the box would mean losing some faith, so the man must keep the bad idea in the box. Bad ideas can be teachings, information, scientific evidence in favor of your worldview that later turn out to be false. You don’t believe these things, but the faith in them was still there.

This is why it is so hard for me, an agnostic atheist, to really get through to religious people. It’s like playing a fighting game against someone turtling, then you start to throw him repeatedly (since you can’t block throws) and the turtler turns off the game machine. Rather than LOSE to a totally valid way of playing / thinking, the bigot would rather walk away and forfeit. Better to cause yourself to lose early and ignore the issue than have someone win and challenge your worldview (which in this case would be THROWING IS CHEAP I DON’T WANT TO PLAY WITH YOU ANYMORE).

Try to identify these bigots in your life. See if you can see why they’re opinions are so locked up and secure. You might be able to open their box if you learn enough about them. It’ll be tough, though. The older the bigot gets, the rustier the lock becomes, and the harder it is to open it. The key may never work again…

YO YO YO

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:52:00 -0700

SO DIS IS HOW MY COURT CASE TURNED OUT. IT STARTED AT 1:45 PM TODAY.

(1:34 PM) I’m in the courtroom. I’m waiting on the front pew. This is like church. Except god comes out through a door on the far wall. No sign of Mariana’s guardians yet. I’m really nervous as I hate being in court. No matter how strong or how hopeless your case is, you never know what is going to happen. I’ve never pissed my pants before from my knowledge (beyond toddler age), but being in court is a kind of situation that makes my bladder feel as weak and insecure as my head and heart.

(1:40 PM) Two black women with breasts the size of the Titanic iceberg (each) are having a calm fit over each other. The judge’s judgement is swift and fair. She calls the women immature, asks if they can shake hands and go separate ways so the court doesn’t have to get involved in their obviously petty dispute. The two women stop pointing fingers, agree, shake hands, and go. I like this judge. She’s practical, doesn’t want to take sides unless it’s necessary. I bet most of the situations she handles turn out like this.

(1:45 PM) Mariana’s guardians are still missing. I start to gain hope. I’m not out of this yet, but if they’re late, then that gives me a slight edge on how serious each party is taking the matter. The two women are still up there talking to the judge at this point.

(1:51 PM) Two black women are dismissed and the courtroom goes quiet. I am the only one in the courtroom aside from the judge. The judge asks my name. I give it courteously (pun intended).

(1:55 PM) The door opens behind me. My guts seize up in a bit of fear. After a few seconds, I sneak a glance. Two fat girls come in to the courtroom. A fanfare plays in my head and hope is still rising.

(2:00 PM) The judge notices the time, and tells me that she usually gives the other party 15 minutes to arrive. Happiness. The judge then says we’ll start at 2:15 PM. Rage. I politely point out that the time on the injunction is set for 1:45 PM, not 2:00 PM, so their time is up. She thanks me for pointing this out and we talk for a couple of minute, not even really about the facts at all. She just wanted to know if I knew where the plaintiff was. Hey, lady, I’m not supposed to have contact with them!

(2:05 PM) The judge walks out of the main room for less than a minute, and returns with a document for me. The injunction against harassment has been dismissed entirely. I am now free to talk to Mari’s stepdad… and more importantly, I can talk, see, hug, kiss, and freely love my girlfriend again.

tl;dr - THE INJUNCTION WAS DISMISSED, I’M FREE AGAIN

Key points against the Injunction Against Harassment

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:34:00 -0700

Here are a list of KEY POINTS arguing against the statements made by Mari’s mother and stepfather to have this Injunction Against Harassment issued.

“He has gone to her school looking for her.”

I have never been to Mariana’s high school except with permission from her mother to pick Mariana up.
This permission was not first hand. I would always confirm with Mariana the day before if she had asked her mother about meeting up the next day. If she hadn’t asked yet, I told her I couldn’t pick her up unless her mother allowed it.
Of all the times I picked her up from her school, her mother never called Mariana’s or my cellphones to say we weren’t supposed to be together. She never objected and was always informed.
Mariana’s mother works in eastern Scottsdale close to the eastern loop 101. Either her mother or her sister drops her off at school every day. Her mother sometimes leaves the house before school to go to her workplace, which forces Mariana’s sister to drive Mariana to school. Mariana’s mother generally works in Scottsdale until after 3 PM on most days. School is let out at 2:20 PM. This means she could never have been present at school except a few minutes before school even started or after Mariana returns home. She could not have witnessed my presence at school if I was there.
Mariana’s stepfather lives in California. He could not have been present at school.
I deny that I ever went close to Mariana’s school without parental consent, and there is no way these two can prove otherwise. They have no proof to support their claim.

“She was influenced to run away by him last Saturday.”

I never encouraged her to run away over any other option.
I encouraged working things out with her family in different ways.
Prior to her leaving, I provided information about NATIONAL SAFE PLACE (http://www.nationalsafeplace.org/) and how to seek help from them. I also provided her with bus stop information so she could travel to a local QT convenience store that was in partnership with National Safe Place.
When she ran away, she called me and left a message saying she was running. I did not tell her to run away or convince her to do so.
Mariana’s sister called me multiple times after Mariana left her home. I picked up once. Any missed calls before that were due to me cooking in my home’s kitchen and not hearing my cellphone’s ringtone. On the phone call I picked up, she repeatedly demanded that I tell her where her sister was. I told her I didn’t know repeatedly. She did not believe me. I suppose I chuckled at her because she was acting so irrationally (and rudely). She then screams “FUCK YOU.” around half a dozen times before hanging up.
Mariana’s mother called soon after. I could barely understand her at all. She blamed me for everything, wailed at me, asking how could I do this, and much more that I could not understand. She would not calm down and listen to anything I had to say. She interrupted me every time.

We have told him to stop calling the house and not to come by.”

At the time the injunction was issued, I had not been told to stop calling the house and was not told not to come by.
Aside from the two calls I received from Mariana’s sister and mother during the running away incident, I was not spoken to by them about any problems before this injunction was issued. There was always a concern about my age
After the injunction was issued, Mariana’s stepfather calls me to tell me he helped his wife get an Injunction Against Harassment against me.
He tells me that this is because Mariana’s mother is scared and wants security. He also claims that he has linked me to Mariana’s poor grades, that before we met her grades were good, and after we met her grades went downhill. He believes that getting a court order to bar me from seeing her will help her grades.
He tells me I’m an okay guy and he has nothing against me, but that he has no other choice. He says basically that if I contact Mariana in any way, he will have the order served on me.
Approximately three months later, the injunction is served on me for reasons I do not know as I had not met with Mari in person since the injunction was issued.

LIVEBLOG - CREATIONIST DVD

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:09:00 -0700

TODAY, I WILL BE VIEWING THIS DVD. IT WAS SENT TO ME BY MY FATHER VIA UPS AND HE’S TRYING TO CONVINCE ME THAT CREATIONISM / INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS MORE VIABLE THAN EVOLUTION.

UPDATE - I’ve been listening to the title screen music for a while now. Busy chatting with someone on AIM. I’ll get around to this soon. Oh, lord. I must cave and go get alcohol. Not only did I have trouble sleeping without it last night, but my god I’m going to need it with this movie. More to come.

UPDATE - Done chatting, now time to go shopping. This is going to feel like a long movie. FEAR AND DREAD OVERCOME ME.

UPDATE - I have booze. I have munchies. I have a film to watch. Here we go.

(DVD time: 00:30) In the first minute, there is some poorly recorded footage. Big strip of video garbage at the bottom of the screen. Great production quality, guys. Oh god. What film school did these people go to? I haven’t gone to one and I know that these effects are piss poor.

(DVD time: 03:20) They’re laying out the question now. Where did life come from? Why would we think about anything else?　They’re mentioning that people started to challenge the accepted view of evolution with a new idea… but intelligent design has been an idea for thousands of years. A very wrong idea. Are these guys really thinking that hard, or is the DVD trying to make this idea seems more revolutionary than it is?

(DVD time: 08:47) Eight minutes in (I’ve been pausing a lot due to distractions), and they’re still explaining Charles Darwin’s theories. Let’s see where this goes. I haven’t had any booze yet.

(DVD time: 10:50) “A GROWING NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS AND SCHOLARS … NOW CHALLENGE KEY ASPECTS OF DARWINIAN THEORY” - really? I just see Christians with budgets releasing the same drivel on VHS and DVD like they always have. Oh, now they’re saying that as science gets more advanced, design is more apparent than gradual evolution wooooow science couldn’t disagree with you more. The guy speaking is Michael J. Behe, an advocate for this topic.

(DVD time: 15:55) They’re attacking DARWIN on current day information. Why is that necessary? Darwinian Evolution is an old theory and it has matured a lot since then. OH, HERE IT IS. BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM TIME (extra information). This music has such a SENSE OF DISCOVERY AND TRIUMPH.

(DVD time: 20:12) They state that no Darwinian research has been able to disprove this as of yet. This is true, as the DVD came out in 2003 and was probably made throughout 2002. The rebuttal paper “The Flagellum Unspun” was published in book form in 2004. The problem with this film is because this topic has not yet been refuted at the time of publication, they will hammer home that evolution cannot be true based on this one piece of information (which turns out to be false). I may not update for a while because there is no need to continue to refute this.

(DVD time: 22:29) Wait, the narrator just said “the irreducible complexity of melcular machines…”. There has been one example and nothing else. This is manipulative and incorrect, as no other machines have been presented. Plus, evidence seems to say that the current topics in the argument for irreducible complexity are mostly debunked and don’t actually support intelligent design except by providing perhaps some doubt. Certainly nothing conclusive.

(DVD time: 26:20) These guys are treating the THEORY of evolution (in its basic form according to Darwin) to be a LAW. They’re trying to disprove a LAW, in other words. They treat evolution as if everything about it is set in stone, and when there are variations that deviate ever so slightly from the original Darwin text, EVOLUTION IS WRONG. A very poor argument. A theory is open to changes and scrutiny, that’s fine. Challenging one argument under a theory does not undermine the theory itself as it would a law.

(DVD time: 28:10) OH, OH, I’M BARELY HOLDING ON NOW. BARELY. MY RAGE AND SWEARING POTENTIAL ARE ABOUT TO BURST OUT. Let me address the problem calmly, though. First, on screen, a diagram of the parts needed to construct a bacterial flagellum motor are shown. Then they show a diagram of a house. A FREAKING HOUSE. I know they like to talk about complexity and compare complex things to complex things, but an biological motor on the microscopic level and a human construction of a house being compared on any scale is EXTREMELY POOR FACT MAKING. Allow me to use a very simple example to explain the exponential difference between a house and a much smaller object. Drop a bug off a cliff and it will survive when it hits the ground. Drop a house off a cliff and it will smash to pieces. When SCALE comes into view, DO NOT LOSE FOCUS OF THE DIFFERENCES ON EACH ITEM. It’s very easy to think of a bacterial flagellum being created from nothing if you compare the size and weight and structure of a house. You could compare each as being equally complex, but the scale of each makes spontaneous construction for the bacterial flagellum much more likely than the spontaneous contruction of a house.

(DVD time: 32:15) WHY SO GREEN-SCREEN, BUDDY? Why aren’t you talking with a real background behind you? I should mention we’re about halfway through and there’s only one debunked example that has been presented.

(DVD time: 37:00) Still harping on proteins and the BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM OMG. Nothing interesting so far. Nothing scientific.

(DVD time: 44:44) Question about probability of random chance creating two lines of Shakespeare with dropping scrabble pieces again and again. This idea has already been addressed by the learning and adaptive qualities of evolution and how it’s a learning experience, not simply random chance.

(DVD time: 46:00) Natural selection couldn’t have existed before the first living cell, as these cells must be able to self-replicate and pass on genetic information to future generations. Can’t have natural selection without DNA. Where’d DNA come from? That’s the question. There is a guy who gave up on evolution because of this. It doesn’t make sense that he gave up because of this. Sounds to me like the fancied the idea of intelligent design and jumped on the bandwagon

(DVD time: 49:15) LITTLE THINGS ARE AMAZING AND DO AMAZING THINGS TO MAKE THINGS WORK. Must be intelligent. Really now. These people say that it is possible that the world was intelligently designed. I agree this is a possibility. The evidence that exists doesn’t point to this possibility.

(DVD time: 52:15) At this point in the film, they are showing us garden plant sculptures (think of an elephant cut out of a bush), hieroglyphics, and the heads on Easter Island as proof that intelligence is needed for a certain level of complexity. These are all examples of SHAPES, not actual living things or the proteins they got unnecessarily deep into.

(DVD time: 67:00, Conclusion) Film is over. There was some information provided from the last checkpoint I made and now that I need to review. It was restated in more detail that because some people have some doubts as to individual points in evolution (such as a point where one thing can’t be explained, or what created DNA / information that caused the creation of cells in the first place), that they could no longer “believe” in Darwinian Evolution. This is a lie. These people still hold facts from Darwinian Evolution true. In fact, all modern information for Darwinian Evolution is fine and dandy and scientists agree on it. The problem that these intelligent design advocates are harping on is that since we don’t know X, the only plausible explanation can be Y. This is an argument of ignorance. Logically, because we don’t know something, we shouldn’t be trying to fill in the space with something that still doesn’t explain the problem.

For instance, we have a biological motor used for bacterial propulsion. Even if this example did prove to be irreducibly complex, all that would leave is a very small gap in the overall theory. What made that object irreducibly complex? Well, it’s POSSIBLE that it was done by an intelligent designer that we have never met and can find no other evidence for. It is also possible that there was a large drunken Irish sailor with a microscope and pinpoint precision with a microscopic pair of tweezers that constructed it, or it used to be a piece of moldy cheese, or whatever. If you think hard enough, there are an infinite number of different possibilities with different probabilities that could explain this. Having a small-scale explanation, however, is much more understandable and probably than a fantastical explanation. Because an intelligent designer would have to have power, we have to ask, “well, where did this power come from?”. This simply leads into religion that no one can prove beyond “faith”. Also note the improbability of intelligence before there was intelligence. It may me probable that intelligence constructed a complex structure, but it is very improbably that this intelligence exists before intelligence, and even less probable that that intelligence even remotely resembles any of the current established forms of godliness that we envision on this planet.

Because of all of this, I conclude that this DVD proves nothing, does not raise any interesting questions that have not already been in the public forum already, and honestly this DVD makes people stupider by not allowing them to think in multiple directions to realize what I have stated up in the paragraph above. It puts a limiter, a cage, a wall around what you’re supposed to think about. Let’s use the tortoise racing the hare argument. The hare runs at a fast speed and halves the amount it has until the goal again and again. 50%, 25%, 12.5%, 6.75%, and by continuing to divide in half, the hare will never make it because it is looking at making it to the finish line. Its viewpoint is limited. It’s not looking PAST the line, which will allow it to win the race and go beyond its limited viewpoint. If the hare kept its thinking of dividing the distance by half, it would never make it over the goal. If the turtle continued at a definite continuous speed that knew no limits, it would beat the hare.

In closing, open up your minds, and don’t let this DVD clutter your mind with close-minded thinking.