Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
Poll
Who is the biggest Creationist traitor?
Kent Hovind 12%
Duane Gish 2%
John Morris 0%
Josh McDowell 7%
William Jennings Bryan 10%
Bob Jones III 2%
Antonin Scalia 5%
Jesus Christ 60%

Votes: 40

 The Treason of Creationism

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 02, 2002
 Comments:
A recent trend in the United States has centered around the idea of "creationism", which holds that 1) science does not hold all of the answers to the questions that Man has about our universe and 2) the teaching of science in schools should be augmented or (preferably) replaced by literal passages from the Christian Bible. Now, few reasonable people can argue against the first point. But the second point is a load of hooey, and most people (including the "creationists") know it.

Rest assured that I am not about to embark on a "here's lots of scientific reasons why creationists are wrong" crusade here. This has been done to death, and I don't intend to reinvent the wheel. If you're looking for that kind of debate, go here. Instead, I would like to spend a few minutes examining the dark underbelly of creationism, which is a movement that is so foul and odious that one struggles to find the words to most aptly describe it.

science

More stories about Science
Why we must increase Space Weapons research - a proof from the Drake equation.
Eugenics: The choice for a superior generation
Knowledge Containment: A Tradition Under Attack
Caffeinated Mints: A Comparative Review
We Need Creationism In Our Schools
Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
We need more toxins
New medical study: Microsoft products better for your health
Which is the best way to predict the future ?
Debunking the Holocaust Hoax
Amateur Psychology
Humans: Murderous Freaks of Nature?
The relationship between science and the American public over the years of the 20th and 21st Centuries has been an interesting one, to say the least. In the years following World War II, there was very little emphasis on science in American classrooms. Most of the subject matter regarded reading and writing, and there was a very strong focus on consumerism, and conspicuous consumption in particular. Science may be interesting, people of the time argued, but most considered it (at best) amoral and of very little use to modern American society.

A Reality Check: October 4, 1957 -- 17:32 Zulu Time

The national psyche of the United States was forever altered on a brisk Autumn evening in 1957. A sense of smug self-assuredness and invincibility was replaced by waves of paranoia, self-doubt, and fear. The "honeymoon" was over, as the saying goes. This was, of course, the day that the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first man-made object to leave the Earth's atmosphere and go into orbit around the planet. This feat demonstrated to a stunned nation that the Soviet Union had just upped the ante in the Space Race, and that the U.S. was clearly in second place.

Comfortably examining these events from our perch in the year 2002, it's easy to scoff at this paranoia. After all, Sputnik was nothing more than a metallic sphere the size of a basketball; its primary capability was to emit incessant beeping. But at the time, the nation was reeling. I know, because I was there. The initial reaction was one of denial. "They're Russians, for Christ's sake!" people could be heard to say. "How in the hell could these drooling, vodka-swilling, bushy-browed, slope-headed, Mongoloid bastards put a probe in space?"

But the period of denial was (thankfully) short-lived, and the citizens of this country got together and collectively woke the fuck up. We had been far too complacent for far too long. The early- to mid-1950s, for most of us, was a period of antlike conformity, conspicuous consumption, and "old-fashioned values" in education. This meant that we were only taught "moral" subjects in school. We were not taught many natural sciences at all, and we were only taught enough mathematics and reading to be able to "get by" in the real world.

But all of that changed on October 4, 1957.

The Mother of All Wars: January 16, 1991 -- 23:38 Zulu Time

"Operation Desert Shield has become Operation Desert Storm. ... The liberation of Kuwait has begun." -- Marlin Fitzwater, White House Press Secretary to President George Herbert Walker Bush

Operation Desert Storm (or, the "Gulf War", as it is more commonly called) has been called the world's first "media war." Certainly, there were television crews on the scene in Vietnam, and moviegoers often thrilled to the Movietone footage from the Korean War and World War II. But the Gulf War was the first armed conflict that played itself out in front of the world on live television. It was a historical event that literally put CNN on the map; the cable network that was formerly referred to as "Chicken Noodle News" suddenly found an audience of tens of millions of addicted viewers who were glued to their television sets 24 hours a day.

Oh, and what a war it was! Gone were the days of Vietnam-era carpet bombing, napalm, and government-fabricated casualty figures. No more did we have to put up with the grainy footage that war viewers had become accustomed to. This was war as it should be, with live, high-quality satellite reports directly from the action. Correspondents such as Bob Simon and Wolf Blitzer showed us U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles striking their targets in real-time, often with impressive explosions and smoke plumes. The Gulf War marked the advent of the most impressive and formidable technology ever unleashed in the history of war.

Who designed that technology?

By and large, it was the children of the Cold War era that put these military marvels together. These are people that grew up during a time period where this nation realized that it had to take science seriously. I can tell you this: the people that put together the technology that liberated Kuwait did not draw upon stories about talking snakes, poisoned apples, and leaf-obscured nudity. No, they depended upon the principles of physics, chemistry, biology, and countless other natural sciences. And they were taught in an environment where science was taken seriously.

The importance of this point cannot be underestimated. This means that we cannot ban the teaching of geology because it debunks the notion of a 6,000 year-old earth and biology because it teaches about twin-nested hierarchies of biological evolution. This means that we shouldn't ban physics, chemistry, astronomy, or any other of the natural sciences because fundamentalists feel threatened by them. The very survival of our way of life depends on us taking science seriously. Which takes us to ...

Hello, Fundamentalism: September 11, 2001 -- 08:45 Eastern Daylight Time

Nobody needs to be reminded about what happened on September 11, 2001. It was a horrific spectacle, a tragedy unrivaled in recent history. Certainly, there have been tragedies in past years that have claimed thousands of lives (earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters come to mind) but none that have been committed by crazed humans with such malicious intent, with innocent civilians being deliberate targets.

The bottom line is this: On September 11th, the United States (and by extension, the Free World) was attacked by zealots who hail from countries where science, reason, and progress are shunned in favor of religious fanaticism. And so how do Christian fundamentalists in the United States propose to fight this war? They wish to turn our own nation into a country where science, reason, and progress are shunned in favor of religious fanaticism. You would think that after the attacks of September 11th, these "creationists" would have stepped back, admitted that they were wrong, and thrown their support behind full science education for the future generation of Americans on whose shoulders the burden of fighting terrorism will fall. Amazingly, their response has been exactly the opposite; they have ratcheted up their attacks on biology, chemistry, and similar sciences.

Pardon my French, but what the fuck? What is wrong with these people?

These actions are not only morally but legally treasonable against the United States of America. Those who would weaken or destroy science education in the Western world are seeking to unilaterally disarm it in its war against Islamic aggression. This is unacceptable. It is not an idea that can be digested by moral, decent people, and it is certainly not an idea that comes from the mind of patriots. It is something that can only come from the festering cesspool that is the mind of a traitor. If we are willing to try a scumbag like John Walker Lindh for treason simply because he happened to be in Afghanistan (and the government admits that there is no evidence that he ever fired a weapon at Americans), then what does that say about the eventual fate of those who seek to disarm our entire nation in its perpetual struggle against evil?

Biblical creationists are traitors, and they need to be tried for High Treason against the United States of America. If found guilty, I believe that they are deserving of the penalty that is typical for that particular crime. This is not some cosmic game of pick-up-sticks that we're playing; we're talking about the survival of our country. With that being the case, the United States cannot tolerate this type of treason within (or without) its borders.


The problem is simple, they lack trained priests (3.00 / 1) (#1)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 01:36:25 PM PST
Many of the rank and file creationists come from small, backwards born again churches which have been founded in the hubris of a heretic who has found he can read the Bible and understand the words, and can pick up a rattlesnake without being bit. From this they conclude they understand the mind of God perfectly, and don't need any of that book larnin'; they have a copy of Good News for Modern Man, they have a rattlesnake, and they follow the Book literally (well, except for the pig-eatin' part).

In reality, the Bible is only a start, without a firm theological grounding and a keen grasp of history, you would be better served living your life to Davey and Goliath. The Church has 2000 years of experience in training priests in what can be safely disregarded in the BIble as cultural artifacts (much of Leviticus, for example) and what should not be. The Church has 2000 years of scientific experimentation (disregarding a few false notes), indeed, the Pope has come out in favor of evolution.

Now, it would probably be politically unpalatable to have Dubya ask the Pope to have teams of Jesuits scour the country, seeking out snake handling Fundamentalists for religious education camps, but it would be a step in making America a better member of the True Church.


A. Rightmann

Before you flame. (none / 0) (#2)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 01:55:07 PM PST
Remember that the Bible is not a uniform book, like the Koran -- the Bible is a layered amalgam of several millenia of human development. There is no Bible outside of historical context.


--
Peace and much love...




In that case... (none / 0) (#4)
by walwyn on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 02:11:57 PM PST
...as nothing has been added for 2000 years I guess we are all free to reinterpret it on a daily basis.

Personally I hold to my interpretaion of Nov 6th 1974.


Certainly, post your theological credentials (none / 0) (#6)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 02:22:27 PM PST
or are you of the Lunix hacker type who think that because they can understand the individual commands in the kernel source (ooh,, an fopen!) they're l33t hackerz who are the equal of a PhD in computer science.


A. Rightmann

Certainly (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by walwyn on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 02:42:21 PM PST
I refer you here.


 
Nothing added for 2000 years??! (none / 0) (#21)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 11:03:56 PM PST
That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Don't you even realize that the official Biblical canon was formed only around 400 A.D.? Not to mention that much of the New Testament was written in the second century.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Well (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 03:05:56 PM PST
I wonder if the Pope could recover from a rattlesnake bite without undergoing any conventional treatment? Possibly, but it has not been proven. It has been proven that I can, twice at least. There is something in that somewhere.

To say that Christians other than Catholics lack a firm understanding of history or theology is a bit shallow. It is easy to develop grandiose delusions about yourself or the group to which you belong. It happens to many people. Luckily, with the solid cornerstone of Christianity to guide you you should be able to lift yourself up out of this mire of pridefulness.

That said, I don't expect to see any Jesuits trying to hunt me down, at least not any time soon. This should leave me adequate time to work against the real enemies of society rather than bickering with other Christians about whether we should be drinking strychnine and water or red wine and water.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Catholics (none / 0) (#13)
by The dev0 on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 06:31:26 PM PST
I agree. Catholics are not even true Christians, they worship false idols (Mary), spread fear through violence, and the organisation is a cover for thousands of paedophiles. Unfortunately, with their strongarm tactics in politics throughout history they have ensured a powerful control over modern governments and economies. It is this powerful organisation that threatens to start pushing its beliefs onto innocent schoolchildren. As a Christian, I feel that there is a need for science and religion to reconcile their respective differences, if only to ensure an education for children free from the conflicts they are bound to encounter soon enough.

Won't somebody think of the children?
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...

 
Genetic Test (none / 0) (#12)
by NoahVale on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 06:20:16 PM PST
Isn't there some kind of genetic test that can verify who was created and who evolved?
Surely, the relevant theory could be taught to the corresponding demographic.


 
Creationism is hooey, but not necessarily treason (2.50 / 2) (#3)
by akepa on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 02:04:56 PM PST
As a biologist, I completely agree that creationism is a bunch of superstitious nonsense. It is religion, not science. It is a belief shared primarily by fundamentalist Christians. The vast majority of scientists, non-Christians, and most reasonable thinking Christians recognize it for the fundamentalist dogma that it is. It doesn't belong in a science class any more than the creation myths believed in by Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, or pagans. I went to a private Catholic high school, yet I was still taught evolution in science class.

Efforts to teach creationism in public shool are an attempt by religious fanatics, America's Christian version of the Taliban, to impose their shallow literal interpretation of the Bible onto America's children. It is a first step towards enforcing their entire theology and repressive morality on the American public, and to hell with separation of church and state, to hell with reason and science. If you want to know what a fundamentalist Christian America would be like, look at Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban. Whether Christian, Jew, or Muslim, religious zealots all behave much alike.

Nevertheless, expressing belief in creationism is NOT treason. Expressing any idea, no matter how silly, absurd, offensive, or just plain wrong, is a fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution, and essential to any democracy. A religious belief such as creationism is further protected by freedom of religion. However, forcing creationism to be taught in science classrooms is a form of treason, as it blatantly violates the separation of church and state.

If Christian fundamentalists want to teach their children Creationism, then let them do so at home, at Sunday school, or in private religious schools. Let them get a waiver to allow their kids to skip science classes, or teach their children at home. But under no circumstances should they be allowed to corrupt science classrooms with their nonsense. The rest of America's children deserve an education that will adequately prepare them for careers in science & technology. America's status as a great world power depends on it.


I cannot be satisfied with this argument .. (none / 0) (#5)
by Earl Grey on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 02:17:50 PM PST
.. for the following reason.

You suggest that if a Christian family decides to home-school their children and forego an adequate science education, then the loss is proportional to the number of children as a whole. That is, we have a few less children in the United States that are trained in the ways of science, but they are a tiny minority compared to the vast numbers who are receiving a quality education, and so therefore we should not worry about these creationist-trained children.

This logic is fallacious because it assumes that all children have equal potential, and that one arbitrary child can be "swapped out" and replaced with another, with nearly identical results. This, unfortunately, is not true. Most children, by and large, are stupid. They are intelligent enough to get through primary and secondary school, and they have the mental facilities to get a job selling car insurance or managing a Wal-Mart, but that's about it. What if the child of a pair of fundamentalists is the next Albert Einstein? How is such a child going to reach his full potential if he is being taught about burning bushes and global floods instead of electrodynamics and astrophysics?

The parents of such a child, by denying him a proper education, would be denying the Western world of a potential savior that could design the next generation of defensive technology. To say that this is not treason is, I believe, inexecusable. It is the responsibility of everybody to educate their children appropriately; it is not only the responsibility of normal people. If parents are unwilling to educate their children properly, then I see no reason why the state should not take matters into their own hands while the criminal justice system deals with the parents.


Well if only it were true.. (none / 0) (#9)
by RandomAction on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 03:52:29 PM PST
..that

but they are a tiny minority compared to the vast numbers who are receiving a quality education

a significant number of children in the public school system were getting a 'quality education'. Then you would be right, we would have less to worry about.


Actually (none / 0) (#10)
by Earl Grey on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 04:03:19 PM PST
The majority of all public schools do provide a quality education. There certainly are some problem schools (particularly in urban, inner-city areas) that consistently underperform and need to be fixed, but they are a tiny fraction of the total number of schools in the system. Unfortunately, some people like to take this tiny number and use it to indict the public school system as a whole. This is a treacherously deceitful tactic, though it is not at all uncommon for creationists.

The vast majority of all Americans are products of the public school system. They become research chemists who work for pharmacy companies, software engineers who work for Microsoft, rocket scientists who work for Lockheed-Martin, etc. Nearly all of these highly-skilled workers come from public schools. The enemies of public education and the American way of life consider it hateful to point this out, but it's the truth. Yes, there are some bad public schools. Let's fix them. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


In which case we do.. (none / 0) (#11)
by RandomAction on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 05:03:02 PM PST
..have less to worry about as per my post.

Well thank the lord for that then.


 
Kill the zealots! (none / 0) (#14)
by legalcharacter on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 06:45:11 PM PST
So basically you're arguing that people who lack your faith in Science or Nation should be put to death? How splendidly reasonable.




No. (none / 0) (#16)
by Earl Grey on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 07:19:01 PM PST
So basically you're arguing that people who lack your faith in Science or Nation should be put to death? How splendidly reasonable.

I am simply making three basic points:

  1. The United States is facing the greatest threat in its history.
  2. There has always been a standard punishment for high treason during times of war.
  3. I see no reason to change that policy now.
Any characterization beyond that is yours, and yours alone. This has nothing to do with "faith in Science or Nation", both of which are ridiculous ideas.


 
Creationism and evolution reconciled (4.00 / 4) (#15)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 06:53:47 PM PST
The mounting evidence for evolution is certainly difficult to ignore, but at the same time, we cannot overlook the accounts in the bible of the creation of man. Evolution can explain much, but it cannot explain why people are raised above animals.

It is my strong suspicion that there are really two races of men. The first race of men was created by God, in the Garden of Eden. While this race is born carrying the stigma of the original sin, it may find forgiveness in the Lord Jesus. This race is that which theologians refer to as the elect.

The other race of men, the preterite, evolved from apes. There may have been some unfortunate interbreeding between the elect and the preterite which may have contributed to the startling similiarities in appearance and behaviour between the two races.

This dual nature of man as a whole has confused science for centuries, perhaps millenia. One race created by God as his chosen people, with free will and immortal souls, and the gift of Divine Providence, and the knowledge of good and evil. The other race, evolved from base creatures and still in part the puppets of powers beyond their understanding. Hence arises the confusion between free will and determinism. With this brand new theory, I have established the synthesis of the two competing metaphysical schools. On the one hand, the children of the Lord are in control of their own destinies. On the other hand, evolutionists are simple mechanistic beings, no more capable of free thought than an amoeba.


I am confused (none / 0) (#17)
by First Incision on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 09:33:41 PM PST
Your theology confuses me.

All the people I have talked to who believe in predestination say that free will is an illusion. Maybe they are just ignorant and don't understand their own denomination's beliefs.

But, are you saying that God's predestined elect posess free will, and the unelected do not?

Is it possible for the elect to use their free will to reject Christ and go to hell? That was never my understanding of this type of theology. But you never mentioned predestination, so maybe I am confusing your beliefs with others'.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Of course you're confused (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 09:44:21 PM PST
It's a difficult thing to grasp, and it sounds like you've been in the company of Calvinists. Calvinism is mostly followed by half-caste races, produced by interbreeding of apes and men.


Calvinists, yes. (none / 0) (#31)
by First Incision on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 08:48:53 PM PST
You hit the nail right on the head. While I think many protestant figures like Luther make some good points, I've never been a fan of Calvin.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
Slight problem (none / 0) (#19)
by jvance on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 10:39:47 PM PST
Weren't the Elect who interbred with Preterites committing bestiality? Are they not therefore condemned to Hell?

--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Yes. (none / 0) (#20)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 10:49:15 PM PST
That would definitely be bestiality.

P.S. What do you mean "condemened to hell"? You must have confused us with some sort of Judaist sect.


--
Peace and much love...




Since one of us (none / 0) (#22)
by jvance on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 11:39:58 PM PST
must be an animal, there's no point in continuing this conversation, is there?
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Exactly. (none / 0) (#24)
by tkatchev on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 02:17:08 PM PST
You're learning, aren't you?

Bad person. The Monkey God will be angry at you!


--
Peace and much love...




 
A quick explanation (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 02:00:32 PM PST
This is, of course, an elaboration of the modern white supremecist, for lack of a better word, thinking.

Basically, they say, the Master Race were the ones created by the judeo-christian god in the garden of eden creation myth. The other races evolved out of monkeys.

Belying, of course, their continued ignorance of evolutionary theory.

Any real 'master race' worth the name would be controlling the world, manipulating the media and brainwashing the public to serve their ends. Any "preterite race" would be one that, say, ran around in white hoods around in white hoods, lived in trailer parks, and advocated the political theories of the losers of World War 2.

Ergo: if Mr. Gibbons is correct, the Jews are the master race, and aryans are the preterite.


Disregard this comment (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 04:35:53 PM PST
The writer is clearly an ape-descendant. His tenuous grasp of logic and his apparent obsession with "white" supremacy (as though there is such a thing as the white race) reveals him for what he is.


Well (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 05:14:28 PM PST
The alternative would be to judge the "preterite" as "anyone stupid (and traitorous) enough to believe in creationism, while the elect would be the individuals enlightened enough to turn away from the inanities and evils of fundamentalism.


So you're saying... (none / 0) (#28)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 05:23:24 PM PST
The chosen of God are those who turn their backs on His teachings? That doesn't seem very likely. Maybe you shouldn't trouble your ape-brain with these difficult problems. Not that you have a choice, since your kind are all subject to the determinism that shapes your lives.


Following your logic, (none / 0) (#34)
by jvance on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 01:25:57 AM PST
there's no point to evangelism. It's just trying to preach to monkeys.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Evangelism? (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 6th, 2002 at 05:04:18 AM PST
It seems to me that Mr. Gibbons is suggesting that the preterite ought to turn away from the question entirely. This hardly fits any definition of "evangelism" that I am familiar with.


 
hmm.... (none / 0) (#57)
by gohomeandshoveit on Sat Apr 6th, 2002 at 08:04:05 PM PST
You know what would be REALLY funny? If this Mr. Gibbons is black (or African-American), and using white supremacist logic. Would that make him a "backer"? (like a black "cracker")


 
HO ho HO you (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 05:19:51 PM PST
Might be right. I sure do miss hanging from trees... :-(


 
Two points. (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 05:23:26 PM PST
we cannot overlook the accounts in the bible of the creation of man.

Yes we can. Non-traitorous individuals already do, though doubtless Al-Queda sympathizers such as yourself revile us westerners for embracing the path that will lead to our continued world hegemony.

Evolution can explain much, but it cannot explain why people are raised above animals.

Well, it can explain the current status of humanity's place in the ecosystem pretty well, but I grant you that when you use nonsense terms like "raised above animals," the only thing that can explain it is more nonsense (i.e., the entire body of theology).


snicker. (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 05:37:04 PM PST



 
But wait... (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 13th, 2002 at 01:53:46 AM PST
You CAN explain how the human race, the ONLY RACE, is "raised above animals", our technology. In all reality humans are animals; humans would extist in the middle of the food chain without technology, but because we evolved from A COMMON ANCESTOR OF HUMANS AND CHIMPS, NOT APES, we have the opposible thumbs that allow us to create tools, so we move up the food chain. Please, don't confuse this explaination with a belief in creation or this "hybrid theory" that is posed above.


 
Wow. (none / 0) (#32)
by Valrus on Wed Apr 3rd, 2002 at 09:38:22 PM PST
Mr. Gibbons, people like you terrify me, not in an "awe-inspired" kind of way, but in a "how on Earth have we survived this long as a species when people such as this exist" kind of way.

Your words are fundamentally repulsive to me. Perhaps this is because I am an ape-man with no free will and I was programmed to respond this way so that I would stand out as a preterite.

That's what you were going to <em>say</em>, wasn't it?

On the other hand, perhaps it's because it's fairly reasonable for a person to be repulsed by someone who uses the word "ape-man" to refer to everyone who doesn't agree with him.

We had white supremacy, and that was bad enough. Now it's "progressed" to religious supremacy.

Whatever happened to religion being about making people happy? How many thousands of years ago did that fall by the wayside?

Sigh.


Umm... (none / 0) (#70)
by hauntedattics on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 03:49:42 PM PST
Where in heaven's name did you get the idea that religion was about making people happy? My knowledge on the subject is limited, so please show me some religious text that indicates that its ideas are for this purpose.

And what exactly do you mean by "happy"? "Happy" can be interpreted as anything from "Oh boy, I'm gonna have sex with my girlfriend tonight" to "Thank you, God, for loving me the way You do." Believe it or not, there's quite a difference.





 
Interesting hypothesis, needs revision (none / 0) (#38)
by akepa on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 06:58:38 AM PST
Very imaginative and original. It is, however, completely wrong. Of course there is only one race of humanity, created through evolution, as is every other life form on Earth. Nevertheless, let us assume for argument's sake that there are indeed two races of men, one created by God, one created by evolution. This hypothesis needs some revision to make it a little bit more believable (but still wrong).

It seems evident from the rantings of religious fundamentalists that God demands blind faith and unquestioning obedience from his followers. The unthinking process of evolution through natural selection, conversely, would favor those individuals capable of free thought, who are willing and able to objectively experiment, question, and study the world around them, allowing them to use the knowledge thus acquired to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Therefore those humans created by evolution have superior intellect, which is what truly separates humanity from other animals. The race created by God were most likely the Neanderthals, who never dared to question whatever little knowledge God gave to them in the beginning, and assumed that anything they did not understand was simply caused by the will of God.

Consequently, modern evolved humans, with their advanced thinking capacity, rapidly replaced God's obedient, unquestioning Neanderthal sheep. Unfortunately, some of the more randy evolved humans bred with the Neanderthals, which is why narrow-minded religious fundamentalists are still among us today.


What (none / 0) (#39)
by Right Hand Man on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 07:10:42 AM PST
created through evolution

Therefore those humans created by evolution


I am confused, could you explain how evolution created us? I wasn't aware that it sought to do that.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Creation through evolution (none / 0) (#40)
by akepa on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 07:37:29 AM PST
Creation of new species is a consequence of evolutionary processes (natural selection, mutation, genetic drift), just as a tsunami (tidal wave) can sometimes be the consequence of an underwater earthquake. The earthquake creates a tsunami without seeking to do so, and evolution creates new species without seeking to do so. For excellent explanations of evolution and how it works go to the Talk.Origins Must-Read FAQ's.


 
Evolution didn't create you; neither did God (none / 0) (#41)
by because it isnt on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 08:28:32 AM PST
Your mother and father did. It's amazing how many people forget that.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Ancestors (none / 0) (#42)
by akepa on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 09:14:42 AM PST
Yes, and our parents were created by our grandparents, and so on. But go back a few million years and your ancestors would be Australopithecus afarensis instead of Homo sapiens.


quite so. (none / 0) (#43)
by nathan on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 10:57:48 AM PST
The ancestors of the australopithecenes were, in turn, more primitive organisms and, far enough back, a stew of organic chemicals in the ocean; and before that the planet didn't exist, and before that the universe didn't exist.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

And (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 11:07:05 AM PST
.. far enough back, a stew of organic chemicals in the ocean; and before that the planet didn't exist, and before that the universe didn't exist.

And before that, Joan Rivers didn't exist.


 
Following your logic further, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by jvance on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 12:27:28 PM PST
abortion is not murder, since only a preterite would consider such an action, the child of a preterite is a preterite, and therefore only an animal without free will or a soul.

Killing an abortionist is not murder, since abortionists are preterites.

It is perfectly acceptable to kill those who do not share your faith, since they obviously are preterites too.

Thank you, kind sir, for opening the floodgates. The final cleansing is at hand.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Scared (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 08:51:24 PM PST
I dont know what scares me more. The fact that I may not be ape descended (I've always been rather proud of that fact :-) or the fact that this guy actually believes what he is saying.

One questions to old reginald there, I take it you are inferring that you are of the elect, that at no point in the thousands of years the 'elect' have been around did any one of your ancestors have a quiet little dalliance in a tree with a preterite. Prove it. Thats all I ask, just simple proof that shows a) there are two kinds of humans on this planet, and b) there are still 'pure' people left. Surely IF you are God's chosen you can show it to the world (just think of the talkshow kick backs involved!)

And I must thank you for giving me and my work collegues here a damn good laugh, we spent most of today grunting at each other and then laughing.

PS Tonight I am leading a band of men to free my fellow preterites from the local zoo, hands up who is with me.


 
funny.... (none / 0) (#52)
by gohomeandshoveit on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 12:37:50 PM PST
I find it funny that the author, T. Reginald Gibbons, shares his surname with the plural form of a primate. Since last names are usually based on occupations or appearances, I wonder to which race he belongs, don't you?


 
recent years? (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 01:06:29 AM PST
What exactly do you mean, Earl, when you say that no comparable tragedy to the September 11 hijackings has occured in "recent years?"

Since you mention Sputnik as being relevant in this discussion, perhaps you would be willing to stretch back a few years to the end of World War II. The United States, in a barbaric display of scientific prowess, dropped two atomic bombs on expressly civilian targets in Japan. Certainly we could have chosen military targets (though why the lives of unwilling soldiers should be less valuable than those of "civilians" is beyond me), but we did not.

2800 dead is a pittance compared to the hundreds of thousands dead at our hands in those two bombings alone. I'm quite tired of spoiled american brats with the nerve to even compare these two events (WTC vs. Hiroshima/Nagasaki) in terms of gravity, much less ignore the greater in favor of the lesser.


Bombings (none / 0) (#36)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 05:03:18 AM PST
Hiroshima and Nagasaki unfairly take all the fame.

My pet peeve with them is that in their light nobody mentions dozens of other Japanese cities of the same kind, where the same degree of damage was achieved by conventional incendiary bombs.

Hey - we don't even need to go so far away. What about Dresden?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen over military targets because they were "softer" targets; basically unprotected, built mostly from flammable materials, with lightweight buildings. Perfect target to demonstrate the weapon. The effect on a hardened military installation would be much less visually attractive.

I am not apologizing for being cynical. The scum that governs us thinks this way.


errata (none / 0) (#37)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 05:11:08 AM PST
scum


 
in fact (none / 0) (#48)
by PotatoError on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 10:34:21 AM PST
It was just a weapons test. The US military wanted to see the effects on a real civilian population - the war in Japan gave them the chance. The first bomb on nagasaki was enough to make the Japanese surrender - there is evidence that a second bomb wasnt nessicery especially on a civilian population the size of hiroshima.
But of course the nagasaki bomb was a fission one and they wanted to also test out their fusion one. Using the war as a cloak it didnt even raise the slightest of critisms at the time.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Corrections (none / 0) (#53)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 01:38:10 PM PST
Before someone even less pleasant will come with a flamethrower and make you crispier than you'd like, I should correct some details.

It was just a weapons test. The US military wanted to see the effects on a real civilian population - the war in Japan gave them the chance. The first bomb on nagasaki was enough to make the Japanese surrender - there is evidence that a second bomb wasnt nessicery especially on a civilian population the size of hiroshima.

The first bomb, Little Boy, was on Hiroshima. Aerial burst, uranium-235 gun assembly. The second bomb was on Nagasaki (should've been on Kokura, but it was cloudy over that city so they dropped Fat Man on a "backup" target; from then, "having luck from Kokura" is reportedly Japanese idiom for really really good luck).

But of course the nagasaki bomb was a fission one and they wanted to also test out their fusion one. Using the war as a cloak it didnt even raise the slightest of critisms at the time.

Fusion bombs weren't around for couple more years. Both Fat Man and Little Boy were fission ones; there were differences though.

Little Boy was a U-235 core, gun assembly. The only bomb of this type that was ever detonated.

Fat Man was based on Pu-239, spherical implosion assembly, constructionally the same as The Gadget, the very first nuclear bomb ever detonated - also known as the Trinity test. All nukes from those times are based on implosion cores; they have huge advantages over gun assembly.

Fusion bombs, also known as thermonnuclear ones, are just fission bombs with addition of the second stage; the fission bomb works as a "fuze" to ignite the second stage. The most common design is "Teller-Ulam" one, though there are various other possibilities. The fuel for the fission bombs is usually lithium deuteride (a harmless-looking white powder), though the first successes were done with liquid deuterium/tritium mixture - the required cryogenics were impractical for weapon use though.


oh, come on (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by nathan on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 05:43:42 PM PST
You may have evidence, but PotatoError has a half-baked anti-American conspiracy theory. He is obviously right.

Nathan, trying to imagine unimpeachable evidence that the first bomb 'would have been enough to make the Japanese surrender'
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
ah yes (none / 0) (#59)
by PotatoError on Mon Apr 8th, 2002 at 07:57:49 AM PST
yea my mistake. I said fusion/ fission (from what i remmebred wrongly) whereas i meant one was uranium and ther other plutonium. I used to remember the reaction chain for the 235 detonation. Something like going to U236 and then decaying to something else 236 before bang.

Although I find the explosions resulting impressive I found the way they split u238 from u235 really hard to believe. I read somewhere that they turned it into gas or vapour form and passed it though a series of barriers with holes only large enough to allow the u235 through (can u imagine how small those holes would have to be?). Anyway after a load of passes the result was a reasonably pure collection of u235. Pretty neat.
And of course with the U238 they could convert it to plutonium. So not much waste at all - pretty nice.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

And more... (none / 0) (#60)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Apr 8th, 2002 at 09:55:56 AM PST
I used to remember the reaction chain for the 235 detonation. Something like going to U236 and then decaying to something else 236 before bang.

Radioactive decay is way too slow process for yielding a decent bang. The timing at the moment of explosion goes in order of tens of nanoseconds. What you think about is more likely the process of conversion of uranium to plutonium - capture of a neutron by U238 leadinf to conversion to unstable U239, which decays with halftime of about 2 weeks to Np239, which furter decays with similar halftime to Pu239, which is fairly stable. (And which tends to capture neutrons too and convert to Pu240, which is not suitable for bombs as it is fissile but doesn't produce neutrons when split, so lowers the bomb's yield. Weapon plutonium has to stay in reactor for as short time as possible.)

I read somewhere that they turned it into gas or vapour form and passed it though a series of barriers with holes only large enough to allow the u235 through (can u imagine how small those holes would have to be?).

The mechanism is a little different. The gas used is UF6, uranium hexafluoride. The effect used is that U238 atom is heavier than U235, so the 238-UF6 molecule is tiny little bit "lazier" than 235-UF6. The difference causes that 235-UF6 passes the glass membranes used in this separation process a little bit faster than its heavier version. It's a painfully slow process. There are other ways for isotope separation, all exploiting the mass difference; from mass spectrography to ultracentrifuges.

It's technically easier to just take the 235-238U mixture, irradiate it in reactor for some short time (no more than few weeks), let the 239U decay, and then separate plutonium - both 239 and 240. If you hadn't messed up in the fuel irradiation phase, you have 239/240 ratio suitable for a dececnt bang.

And of course with the U238 they could convert it to plutonium. So not much waste at all - pretty nice.

Which produces a lot of waste because the yields aren't too high (but still enough to be effective); check the waste tanks of Site W in Hanford. (Check also their ways of solid radioactive waste disposal.)


at Los Alamos, (none / 0) (#62)
by nathan on Mon Apr 8th, 2002 at 06:40:21 PM PST
According to Feynman, they did it with magnetic deflection. Can you imagine?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Mass spectrography (none / 0) (#63)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Apr 8th, 2002 at 09:41:50 PM PST
According to Feynman, they did it with magnetic deflection. Can you imagine?

He most likely refers to the mass spectrography way. A stream of ions gets accelerated to certain speed, then is deflected by electrical and/or magnetical field. The angle of deflection is directly proportional to the particle's charge and (I think) inversely proportional to its mass; lighter particles have less inertia, deflect more. Then you just take two holes, position them the way that U235 ions go through one and U238 through the other one. It's very accurate, but quite slow.

It was one of the first separation methods. There were lines and lines of the separators, running in parallel. The facility was obsoleted by the gas diffusion one, though, and was later decommissioned.


yeah, that's what I was talking about n/t (none / 0) (#65)
by nathan on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 05:18:20 AM PST

--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Those numbers... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by because it isnt on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 03:10:05 AM PST
A Reality Check: October 4, 1957 -- 17:32 Zulu Time
The Mother of All Wars: January 16, 1991 -- 23:38 Zulu Time
Hello, Fundamentalism: September 11, 2001 -- 08:45 Eastern Daylight Time


I couldn't help noticing, but those numbers look somewhat... familiar.

In fact, I'd say they look rather Arabic.

Arabic numbers? You're not a traitor, are you? You're not primitive and backwards and against all progress, are you?

Obviously not. Here, let me show you the way of our enlightened and scholarly Western date system:

A Reality Check: iv October MCMLVII -- XVII:XXXII Zulu Time
The Mother of All Wars: xvi Januarius MCMXCI -- XXIII:XXXVIII Zulu Time
Hello, Fundamentalism: xi September MMI -- VIII:XLV Eastern Daylight Time

adequacy.org -- because it isn't

That sounds painful... (none / 0) (#51)
by gohomeandshoveit on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 12:31:22 PM PST
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the Arabs came up with that number system a long time ago. They really haven't left that time period yet. And, just because their ancestors came up with a different way of numbering things doesn't mean that the attackers weren't religious fanatics. They were.


 
my god... it's not drivel... (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Apr 4th, 2002 at 04:23:40 PM PST
this could very possibly be the only article i've ever read on this site that made an ounce of sense... either i've been doing some heavy drugs, or earl posted a day too late.


 
How do you know that you have free will? (none / 0) (#49)
by PotatoError on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 10:46:56 AM PST
You cant.

Maybe you think you have free will - but that could just be the determinism of your mind fixed on a path of believing you have free will.

Remember that belief isnt truth. What seems to be true isnt always the answer.

You make up a two tiered theory of humanity which has no proof. Of course lack of proof makes a theory but you dont even have any foundations to propose such a theory. I could easily theorise that everyone here isnt real and are just a figment of my imagination but I wouldnt dream of using such an off the wall theory as an argument because it has no foundation.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Hypothesis versus theory (none / 0) (#50)
by akepa on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 12:15:25 PM PST
Actually, it's an hypothesis (and a bad one at that). Only after an hypothesis has some evidence to back it up does it become a theory. There is no evidence whatsoever to support either the two-tiered humanity idea or creationism. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution. Theory: Implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of a certain phenomena. Hypothesis: Implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation.


I thought evolution was fact though (none / 0) (#58)
by PotatoError on Mon Apr 8th, 2002 at 07:45:31 AM PST
I thought the theory was down to how it worked, how it happened, not whether it happened.

sorry about the hypothesis, theory thing. Ill try to get it right next time.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

You're right (none / 0) (#66)
by akepa on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 06:10:27 AM PST
There's no doubt that evolution takes place (except to a creationist nitwit), but some of the details on how it happens are still theoretical (i.e. is natural selection more/less important than genetic drift, does evolution occur gradually and steadily or in rapid spurts, etc).


not quite (none / 0) (#69)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 14th, 2002 at 09:38:40 PM PST
> There's no doubt that evolution takes place (except to a creationist nitwit).

Tut tut, says the skeptic. For all you know, you could be a brain in a vat. More interestingly, assuming that an omnipotent deity exists, He/She/It could have created the universe five minutes ago. Being omnipotent, He has complete control of everything, including our memories. The world, and in fact the Universe, could be a ruse designed to keep us believing that it was created in a Big Bang about 15 Gigayears ago, underwent inflation, yada yada, the world condensed and cooled off, and we evolved.

I have no idea why God would want to trick humanity (or any other intelligent life that exists anywhere in the Universe), but then again I'm not an omnipotent deity, so I don't know how bored God might have gotten...

Even though the above possibilities are exceedingly unlikely, we can't discount them as possibilities. Of course, if the Universe was created in a state that made it seem as if it had gotten here over a very long time, we might as well proceed as if it did in fact begin 15 Gyrs ago, evolution and everything, so none of my theorizing has any bearing on anything, except as something for your first year philosophy class in case you do more than mention the brain-in-a-vat possibility. Even if the perceived world is not the same as the actual world, all that matters is the perceived world, unless there is a matrix-pill that will wake you up from your vat...

On the other hand, given the possibility that we were created 5 minutes ago, with the memories we have now, we have no way of assessing the probability of this having happened. Not even Occam's razor can cut down the capricious-deity hypothesis, because the validity of our experience of the simplest explanation being correct is dependent on the hypothesis being false. It would be circular reasoning to apply Occam's razor here.

Anyway, I believe the Big Bang theory of creation (with the above caveats). I take comfort in the idea that God set off the big bang, but I have no evidence of His existence. I wouldn't by any means call myself a creationist. The only circumstances under which I think creation might have happened is if the perceived world is not the same as the actual world; i.e. if God (or something else) is deceiving us. I'm Christian, but the only parts of it I really take seriously are some of the moral guidelines.

--
Peter Cordes


 
my God, he's right (5.00 / 3) (#55)
by nathan on Fri Apr 5th, 2002 at 05:50:12 PM PST
Not only that, but we could all be brains hooked up to sensory feedback mechanisms but actually stored in vats full of nutrients. You know. Like in The Matrix!! That could totally be true! And how would we know?

I mean, it could actually be that I'm sitting here reading the Adequacy. Or I could be imagining it. You know. In my head! And how would I know?

Nathan... OR IS IT?!?!?!%!@$#&^$
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Time to burn (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 8th, 2002 at 11:14:06 AM PST
Death to all Fanatics, especially those fanatical creationists! Lets burn the bibles and the churches! (They are very good for roasting marshmallows.)


 
September 11th (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 8th, 2002 at 10:41:03 PM PST
I love how anyone can use September 11th as a referrence in their articles to add weight to what they are trying to say. I don't want to be known as a youth who grew up in the 9/11 generation, I find it stupid that our nation dwells upon such a drab event. We pissed a particular set of people off for 40 years and after 40 years of threats, they finally came through and got their vengeance, frankly I don't see the big deal(other than the civilian death, which is terrible). Does anyone know how many civilians died in Afghanistan died while we bombed them from above? Home of the brave, indeed.
Also, I find it unfair that you exclude relgion completely. I think that there can be a compromise struck between evoultion and creationism. I've read a few books on the topic and found that creationistic evolution is a plausible, working theory.
Oh, and I don't think the word "fuck" is French.


The 9/11 generation (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by hauntedattics on Fri Apr 12th, 2002 at 10:11:54 AM PST
Would you rather be known as a youth who grew up in the Britney Spears Wearing a Python Generation?




 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.