How the Creationists are right, Evolution is wrong. Part Two: All the wrong conclusions.

Part 1

So now that we have established that evolution is wrong, the mountains of observable evidence for it are all fabricated by the biggest conspiracy that ever existed, that is somehow better organised as any human institution, or government ever created, and more subtle as any intelligence agency ever known. ( You know i am suprised these guys dont just take over the world, someone with such capabilities certanly could. But given that i cannot imagine humans doing such a good job, the leaders of this conspiracy must be aliens or something. )
So ahem, now that we know that, lets not even consider any alternative theory for our existence, and get to the conclusion that we must have a supernatural origin!

But there is more then one view on the supernatural. Wich one should i pick, or should i pick any? What if they are all wrong? Obviously, i dont have nearly enough information to make up my own system, and supernatural being mostly odorelss, invisible, noncorporeal… in short, not mesurable or testable in any way, i have a hard time gathering information on it to form my own conclusions. I will have to pick one of the existing views on it.
I could go with the most popular ones, but popular doesnt means in any way right, after all there were times when a lot of people believed the earth was flat. Wait! I got at least one way to test supernatural! After all if supernatural spawned the world, that means nature will allso reflect the supernatural at least partially!

After analysing nature, i finally reached my conclusion. The one religion that should be closest to the truth, or at least less wrong as the others. Behold, my conversion to SHINTO! :D

Monotheists and othervise any non-shintoist ( Given the Japanese relation to religion, even most shintoists themselves. ) will probably be arguing how i am wrong. Well sorry, but the evidence is conclusive.

Take a look at nature, what do you see? Hundreads and thousands of species interacting with eachother. Ahh, the harmony of nature, except if you take a closer look its anything but harmony. Evrything is constantly fighting, unless your on top of the food chain, there is allways something that tries to eat you. And unless you are one of the most basic lifeforms, anything you try to eat does its best to prevent you from eating it, ( True, in cases of plants it mostly just some spikes and thorns, or simply trying to be as of little nutrition as possible.), and no matter what you are, there is allmost certanly competition from other creatures, not to mention your own bretheren.
What kind of cruel being designs such a system? Its counterproductive and inneffective. It causes suffering for the parts of the system, and serves no purpose outside itself.
To give a comparsion, if you design a machine, you will not make the different parts of it fight eachorther, especially not in the energy consuming way nature does it. You will not have a mixer, where the cable does its best to withold electricity, while the motor has to put extra effort in taking it in, and at the same time witholding as much kinetic energy from the mixer part itself, while the whole mixer does its best to withold orange juice from you, and tries to jump at your throat the first chance it gets.

Lets take a look at individual creatures, and their bodies. The designer was apprently not that great of a planner at all. Innefective systems, errors that could have been easily avoided with a little forsight. All it would take for the digestion systems of horses and rabbits, to swap certain areas of their intestines, so it would dissasemble the food first and absorb it after. But the designer was apparently too stupid to do it right. Rabbits have to eat their own feces because of this, horses are simply innefective. Speaking of horses, whoever designed them must have really hated them. The poorly designed guts often cause a slow and painful death for the horses, as if the designer was taking delight in causing pain for them.
Creationists who convinced me often used the human eye as an exemple so i will do so myself. Did you know, that the receptor membrane is actually facing the wrong way? The designer put it facing the insides of our heads, and not in the direction we actually whant to see, while the neural endings conecting these to our brain have been put in the way of our sight, limiting it, and causing a nice blind spot, that still causes hundreads of accidents each year. Oh and dont tell me it cannot be done in another way, because it has been done correctly for octopi and for their relatives. Allmost as if someone else designed them.

See, here is where it has hit me! If i had to assume, that one god did it all, than all these would mean that he is either a cruel bastard who sees life itself as a toy to play with and loves the suffering of its creation, or a blind retard who has no idea what he is doing.
Luckily, there was another option. There is not one, or a few, but thousands of gods! Just like in Shinto ( Alternativly, one could go with Hinduism, or some ancient religion. But many have a single creator god, wich leads us back to the inplausibility of monotheism. ), wich has uncounted gods and spirits. If you assume each of these creatures was planned by a different supernatural being, it all makes sense!
Most of the Kami (god\spirit) who were working on life were not exactly geniuses, but did their best to beat the others, as if it was some sort of contest, apparently.

Wow, this got long again. But i am not doing a third part.
So, whats our final conclusion? I got a message for you people of „Creationism” or „intelligent design” Several things actually that have nothing to do with how much evidence there is for evolution, or how stupid your religion is.

First: In Science, arguments against Theory A, is not proof for Theory B. And so far all i have seen from you are attacks on evolution. Get a clue idiots! Even if you could ( And you cant.) disprove evolution somehow, that is not a point for „Intelligent design”. You have to prove evidence for the god who supposedly created the world, and the worlds existence is NOT evidence, no matter how much you would like that. If science ever comes to the conclusion that any of its findings are incorrect, it will continue looking for answers, and i can guarantee you, it wont have anything to do with ancient superstition. (With excepcion when the object of the study is religion itself of course.)

Second: By promoting the idea that evry single lifeform was planned by whomever you worship, you are basicly saying that your god is either a jerk, or a retard! Seriously, have any of you ever taken the time to take a closer look at nature, and how it works? Have you noticed such basic facts that allmost evry living being needs to destroy another living being to sustain itself? Or the horribly bad design of our, and many other animals bodies? Doesnt that say something about the nature of the supposed creator? Here is a hint, name it “unintelligent design” and you are a bit closer to reality.

Third: If you belong to any religion, wich has a specific god to whom you have to pay your respects, arguments about a hypothetical creator have lost nothing in your reasoning. You have to provide evidence of that spefic god, because even if there is a creator, in no way would that mean that this creator is indeed your god, or anybodys god for that matter. Oh by the way, an ages old book full of fary tales is NOT evidence.

As my last words in this matter for today, let me tell you these. Please continue, make yourself and your religion look ridiculous by adhering to pseudo science.
And should you succeed taking away peoples confidence in the scientific method, no matter how sad that would be, i will still roll on the floor laughing when thanks to your actions people turn to Voodoo.

6 Responses to How the Creationists are right, Evolution is wrong. Part Two: All the wrong conclusions.

  1. Muzolf says:

    Escaped, if i might have a question.

    I would have some ideas for new posts, but this is still your blog and truth to be said what i have to say is will not start from the “No god, no supernatural, no methaphisical” viewpoint. In fact, i am planning to first, write a little story involving some dieties of old religions, second, give a lengthy explanation about how i had posted several times but only in responses regarding my feelings about the god of Abraham and his policies.

    So i ask if it would be ok to post something that has little to do with atheism, but its more in the realm of maltheism. ( Where you beleive in one or more gods, you just think that they are jerks.)

    • Muzolf says:

      An answer perhaps?

      I am still waiting for your approval to post something that might not be of the atheist viewpoint. See my question above.

  2. HAHAHAHAH Odorless, hahhaha SHINTO hahhah retarded Jerk HAHHAHAH. you crack me up man this is seriously funny HAHA if you ever feel like posting again please please feeel free LOL hicst,,,

  3. Muzolf says:

    Whew, finally, finished. Well thanks escaped, it was an honor and a plesure, but im not sure if i ever do it again.

    Of course i would like to hear your opinion on it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: