I decided to leave my Christmas post until well after the holiday as to not incite rebellion to those who believe the holiday is secular. Incidentally, I did receive gifts at family gatherings and at work parties. I enjoy these parties because they tend to bring out the best in people. However, I would say this about most parties (except a recent wine tasting party which turned into a wine guzzling party with many drunken arguments of a personal nature, the kind you would not have normally), organised fun tend to bring out happiness in all who participate.
I am pleased at the direction that Winnipeg Skeptics is taking. Recent articles in several news papers have encouraged people to take a look at the group and take notice. I enjoy the activism that has occurred at a recent psychic event where a few skeptics stood outside the theatre, in the bitter cold, and handed out leaflets telling people how they too can be psychics. Brilliant!
A trip to the Winnipeg Creation Museum has garnered several responses including one request for Gem Newman (Winnipeg Skeptics founder) to debate John Feakes (proprietor of the WCM) at an event for Christian Home Schoolers. I will go to this debate if I am invited to.
Guys, I have made it quite clear about my thoughts on Evolution and Creationism. In case you missed it here is a recap. Creation equals Myth, Evolution equals Fact. Below is a brief rant on this topic because of a recent debate I watched which annoyed me (and a few others) to say the least.
Honestly, I think about the debate (which is really a “no debate”) between these two groups a lot. I try to think of arguments on both (for and against) sides about the topic of the “Origin of Species”. I can think of only one argument supporting creationists (loosely) and that is, no one knows what happened at the beginning. I am speaking about the beginning being life on earth. We can, with careful observation and calculation, see the first few seconds of our universe. We know our universe is expanding at an exponential rate from a point of origin. The beginning of life on earth, how that spark of life began from a soup of liquid elements, is something we may never understand. I would like to point out that scientists are trying to recreate the moment of “Immaculate Conception” (interesting how Word forced me to capitalise those two words) in the virgin womb called Earth, but have been unsuccessful to this day.
Creationists have fuel to continue their debate because you cannot refute their claim of a Creator without looking like a mad person. God, as an entity, cannot be proven or disproven without a body to dissect. And even if a body does surface, I would suggest that it would be similar to the body of Superman in that you cannot dissect it with any known tool (referring to the infallibility of the God they speak of). To defeat a Creationist in a debate you simply have to bombard them with the numerous contradictions in their claims (they are not theories). I have watched a lot of debates between these two groups in several different venues, all of which have the same outcome with similar ways of achieving said outcome. Evolutionists nearly win them all. If they don’t win the debate it’s because the person who is debating in the evolution corner is a complete moron.
Creationists tend to debate evolution scientist, when they should be debating Abiogenesis scientists (which are another example of the creationist ignorance about their own claims). Evolution is something that cannot be questioned. I won’t go into why it cannot be question anymore than I will explain why the sky is blue. If you don’t know the answer when you read this blog then I suggest you do your own research into the topic. Evolution of a species is a fact.
Here are some of the arguments used by young earth creationists.
- Perfection of the Eye, ear, nose, etc. (I look to my deaf friend and shrug)
- Intermediate species in the fossil record (Evolutionist:”They all are.”
- New species generation (god damn Crocoduck, Steve Irwin rolls in his grave)
- The Fossil record (and the Grand Canyon)
- Dating methods (Are they accurate, not to the minute but damn close)
- Historical document legitimacy (the bible is the word of god or the word of gold)
Currently, these are all the arguments I can think of regarding the creationist strategy to win a debate. An issue that plagues the creationist point of view is the complete lack of experts who are accredited to be experts (which means legit credentials from legit universities and acceptance of these credentials by accredited organisations) and the complete lack of legitimized peer reviewed documents (peer review does not mean your brother, aunt, clergyman read the article and liked it). There simply isn’t any documentation, other than the propaganda papers the creationists put out themselves, to support the claims made. I find it extremely insulting to my intelligence to listen to the “experts” creationists bring to the debate table. Kirk Cameron (an actor) is the poster boy for creationists. I have heard him debate on numerous occasions and I wonder why, the hell, he is there. The boy (he will be a perpetual boy from his rolls in late 80s early 90s television sitcoms) literally has no expertise in this field.
Kirk is followed closely by the “Banana man” who tends to make a fool of himself in front of the scientific community every chance he gets. The banana, he shows as proof of God’s creation, is simply a hundred year tradition of selective breeding in the banana cultivation industry. In other words the fruit was twisted and deformed by man to be more pleasing to our senses.
The point of this rant is to show my reader the complete lack of incite that a creationist debater and creationist community has. If they picked their battles more efficiently, they may be more respected at the debate table. (Just thinking about the damn Crocoduck that Kirk Cameron keeps showing makes me upset at the audacity of this group of people. Honestly, dude, learn about evolution prior to debating it, I promise you that you will stop debating it and start debating Abiogenesis scientists. They are working towards the origin of life on earth not Evolutionists.)
I have several more blogs to post that are currently waiting in limbo in the “my drafts” portion of this blog website. I am not sure what order I will be posting them but you can expect one closer to February (I will be on vacation most of January).
That being said, I am looking forward to a guest blogger to post her finding on the Church of Scientology. This particular group has been a recent topic at the Winnipeg Skeptics drink up and she felt it prudent to warn her fellow skeptics about this dangerous criminal group of fanatics. So you too can be excited to read the blog from this to be announced accomplished scientific mind. This looks like it will be an exciting year in the world of Critical Thinking!