However, today there is something worth noting. China might loose Google.

Or in a better phrasing, because of China’s violations of free-speech and some attacks and attempted hacks, found here on Google’s Blog, Google has thought of removing the censorship from Google.cn – their China search engine that runs through the Great Firewall of China.

I applaud the choice by Google to remove the censorship from the internet. The internet should be a free area of debate, where ideas can be shared, integrated, improved and more. I will be disappointed if they allow the censorship back on. Immensely disappointed enough to likely run everything through another search engine and email system as to not use the server of a company that bent to the whims of an oppressive and destructive government.

I think the attacks that Google has information on are enough for me to feel confident in the oppressive and destructive government, even without the atrocities of 1989 and more. Targeting human rights activist that refer to China and trying to gain access to US based companies over the internet is demonstrative of this implicitly. If China is willing to do this and be seen in doing so, it makes myself wonder what is being hidden that we have yet to see.

The bill is designed to allow students to discuss religion with classmates as they would any secular issue in school. However, the portion right after that statement is problematic.

“”Students are discouraged from any conversations about religion,” said Poirier, who also is a co-sponsor of the bill. “Perhaps in science class, when evolution is discussed, a student would be able to bring up creationism.”"

Creationism is NOT science. It has no right to be in a science class and to continue to allow so is detrimental to the students minds. You can discuss religion already in schools, you just can’t say Jesus, or Mohammad, or any religion is the right one. This isn’t needed.

Finally, if you haven’t read it, the new Dawkins book is wonderful. I love my new book. Perhaps we should give Ms. Poirier one. Perhaps she would then see that creationism is not a viable realm to be discussed in science class.

You can review the article here

One can hope,

Issac Mills

I stumbled across this after seeing a commercial for their elections. These people firmly believe in the 2012 fiasco. They have what they call Operation Safe Haven which is hilarious. I believe that the funniest set is in the space colonies and subterranean and floating-water cities.

If you want to save yourselves you can enter the lottery to get into one of their safe havens.

The most amusing thing about the site though is how they know when it is going to happen. Here is the quote that I found highly amusing, “the Institute of Human Continuity is dedicated to scientific research and public preparedness. After more than two decades of rigorous research from the worlds top astronomers, mathematicians, geologists, physicists, astrophysicists, engineers, futurists… we know in 2012 a series of cataclysmic forces will wreak havoc on our planet. The IHC has developed a number of initiatives to prepare the world for this inevitability.” (Emphasis added)

The initiatives can be found here as well and they are planning a subterranean city in Antarctica.

I’ve never found something so hilarious and I perused this site at my own amusement; however, I found that this was more disturbing when I realized that they actually completely buy into it.

Enjoy the insanity!

Isaac Mills

Here’s a picture of it below. Right now, it is my precious and it has been added to my large collection now.

From SSACON2009

Isaac Mills

P.S. Sorry for the late update and lack of them. I will be posting the posts I already have ready over the next day or so.

From SSACON2009

Ok, here are the assumptions. The global flood lasted 1 year and 10 days or 375 days or 9000 hours. (From Gen 7.11 and Gen 8.14) Now, this is why creationist shouldn’t use figures. Because math is their downfall.

Science tells us that Pangaea was formed about 180 Million years ago. Now, I have scoured the Internet trying to find the relative speeds of the continents and such and haven’t been able to find them. However, it is known that the average movement of continents are about 2-7 cm per year (Kanamori, Hiroo & Emily E. Brodsky. “The Physics of Earthquakes.” Physics Today. (June 2001): 34.) This does not mean that the rates were not slower or faster in the past. They were from data we already have. India moved around 15 cm per year when colliding with Asia and some portions today move around 1 cm per year – North Atlantic. The average does however give a reasonable way to calculate the speed for these purposes.

What I’ve done. I’ve taken 2 cm per year, multiplied by 180 Million years, then divided by 32400000 seconds to determine just how fast the continents would have to go, at a minimum, during the flood. It comes out to 1.11 meters per second. If we take the faster of 7 cm per year, we end up with 3.89 meters per second.

Lets up this into perspective. This states that the plates on the earth were moving at least 2.5 to 8.7 miles per hour! Still not going crazy? Ok, I’m sure everyone has taken a bath. If you have ever put your hands at the bottom of the tub and moved them quickly away, you notice there is a sink where your hands used to be. Or perhaps you know what a tsunami is? They occur when earth reforms underwater. The movement here would have created huge sink holes and with respect to the large mountain ranges of the world, rises in the ocean along with large underwater currents. The large waves would have demolished any boat, ark, or vessel on the water because the seas would have been too high just by rocking the boat back and forth. The underwater currents would have created large currents going from the bottom all the way to the top.

One last comment here. Let us compare some easy rates. The fastest continent movement we have recorded is 15 cm per year (that I have found). The slowest in creationist theory is 1.11 meters per second or 35,004,960 meters per year. That is off by a factor of 23,336,640,000% and yes that is in BILLIONS of percent! That is effective of saying that effective of saying that the diameter of Jupiter is .61 meters and that if you want to get to Jupiter it is merely a car drive away, about 4 km at Jupiter and Earth’s farthest distance (928,081,020 km). It is effective of saying that the ENTIRE MILKY WAY GALAXY will fit WITH ROOM TO SPARE in the average orbit of Neptune! (Milky way galaxy number 4,070,851,673 km diameter with Neptune’s average orbit of 4,498,252,900 km).

Look, I am a calm and nice person generally. This is however complete crap. I won’t argue against creationism because your brain must be just too dense to understand basic math and analysis if you hold to it. I will ridicule and mock and laugh and treat creationist as children, because that’s what they are, children. They are children who need to be told that Santa Clause isn’t real, there aren’t fairies in the garden, there is no invisible man in the sky watching over them, and they aren’t better off believing in it.

Hope you all enjoyed!

Isaac Mills

The first movement through the area leads into the Grand Canyon. We see two palaeontologists digging up a dinosaur fossil and the theme of the “museum” begins. “It is all about our starting points,” is the overall theme. “We come to different conclusions, because of how we look at the evidence.”

From SSA2009

The scientist point of view states the fossilization process and such. The creationist states that it was rapid burial during the global flood. There are basic problems with this. On the surface, both theories could be correct with no evidence and just a fossil. However, we have dating of the fossil and surrounding rock, along with no evidence for a global flood means that the creationist theory can not be correct. This is why it is rejected. Creation science is actually incorrect, it is creation conjecture with no basis, no evidence, and no reason.

Here are some while blurry, correctly displayed science photos.

From SSA2009

And here is the creationist alternative.

From SSA2009

From SSA2009

Now, just some funny stuff. The world only goes back to 4004 BC? So 5500 BC when agriculture starts in Egypt is false, Catalhoyuk, an ancient neolithic city (7500 BC-5700 BC) is false, and the creation of beer in Sumeria and Babylonia prior to 6000 BC is false. This is what is know as ridiculous, yet this is actually being taught as science. This is not science. It is blatant lies.

Here’s one that is ridiculous creation funny.

From SSACON2009

So, the blue line you see is the flood. This happened around 2348 BC if I read my pictures correctly, or at least close to there.

Here is some more hilarious stuff. The flood is of course like this.

From SSACON2009

All the coal the coal in the world – coal seam – if from tree bark that fell in the great flood.

From SSACON2009

Dinosaurs are vegetarians.

From SSACON2009

Another depressing part was the portion where the question was asked, “What happens when you let atheism or a world without the bible exist?”

Here is The Door as it was know. It is what you would be doing to stay safe from the evil in the world.

From SSA2009

There was a continent called Rodinia, then the flood, with Pangaea and then the current continents, then the flood was over.

From SSACON2009

And last but not least, Religion gives good stuff and secularism the bad stuff.

From SSA2009

From SSA2009

I shall post my review of Jason Lisle’s lecture later as I am still writing it. I was, for lack of a better phrase, a painful, horrible experience when an astrophysicist talks mostly about genetics upon which he does not properly understand.

Until next time I shall ride off into the sunset on Sarah (see picture below),

Isaac Mills

Sarah, my trusty triceratops. Yes, you are seeing correctly, I decided to take this picture side-saddle (and the dinosaur has a saddle – they teach that humans and dinosaurs co-existed at the same time).

From SSA2009

PS. To the lovely woman who made the armbands, thanks again! Everyone, this is only a portion of the pictures. I have over 120 pictures. Thanks go out to Clark as well for letting me take some of his pictures that were of better quality!

However, I digress as, I don’t wish to cover my dull day of transfers but the detriment of the religiously inclined. The mental wound that I am speaking of is the religious and their firm belief that their version of general sect is correct without question, without proof and without analysis. This assertion to give them a method to rationalize the events of this natural world and a way to live on after their being ceases to exists.

A majority of mankind wishes to believe in a higher power or something to explain why things happen, however, we are restrained in our explanations by our common sense and observations. Science covers why things rise and fall, chemical reactions, growth, how to heal, how to kill, etc and for the events and occurrences in the world, they happen because of natural causes and they events are random. Random in the sense of natural disasters, disease, etc, not my toast is done because I put it in the toaster. Religious people state that these events, such as people coming into your life, a good job, happiness in your home, etc, come from God or something similar. There is no proof of this. You might as well as claim the Cookie Dough Dragon is watching over you and breathed himself into existence. You must eat of his dough and drink of his blood (milk) to not be cast into the stale bread at the end of days. This is seen as ridiculous. However, this is exactly what Christians follow. Accept Christ or go to hell. We let our common sense tell us that the Cookie Dough Dragon is bogus, why hold onto Christianity or any religion? Just because some cattle-sacrificing primitives believe that this book was correct and the word of God, doesn’t mean that you, a rational, thinking human being has to buy into it.

God is not dead because God was never alive. God has never existed except in the eyes of people who instead of seeing the world rationally and objectively, analysing what comes their way and actually thinking about their conclusions, desire a simple explanation to the troubles of the world, want comfort for themselves and others when loved ones pass on, and want comfort that things will be alright when they look bad.

This is not necessarily a bad want, however, it has caused a false construction of reality. To believe in adult fairy tales because it makes you feel better is not intellectually honest. I wish, as Jefferson did, that one day we shall shelve our beliefs that a story of a man who was born of a virgin will be placed on the shelves of our libraries with the myths of Zeus, Baal and all the others already there and yet to be.

Isaac Mills

For those who don’t know, this “museum” is all about creationism and intelligent design. We can see the Ultimate Proof of Creationism on the day we go, and I’m debating if I wish to subject myself to possible torture. If you are attending and haven’t seen PZ’s recommended preparation video, you can watch it by clicking here. I could only make it through two portions before I couldn’t handle more. I must improve my tolerance before Friday morning. I believe it is possible.

Hoping to see the swarm there!

Isaac Mills

I am posting now to dismantle it completely; however I’m going to touch base on the general of the previous topics. Now, I’ve covered abiogenesis already, I’m not doing so again. It takes too long to retype and cut and paste the basics. I assume that one can read and that they can make use of such faculties. Evolution has DNA, fossil and considerable multitudes of evidence. To state that it did not happen or that the facts show a creator is to be either naïve or just a plain ignoramus. The fossil tree of life matches the DNA tree of life without alteration and without interpolation. Fused chromosomes and genetic anomalies can be predicted as we predicted that we as humans have a fused chromosome in comparison with apes.

Onto cosmology, which does not state that the universe began at the Big Bang, but that we can observe the universe to this condensed point at which a rapid expansion happened. The universe could have existed before the singularity, however, we are unable to determine what was prior to 10^-37 seconds prior because we enter a stage where no data can be obtained.

Once disarmed of these “scientific” debates, the point is raised of Stalin and those evil dictators that killed for atheism. It is a failure of understanding as they did not kill for atheism, but for power and control. These dictators were Statists in the sense that the State was to be worshiped and revered. When you return this with the Inquisition, the Crusades, the militant attacks of other religions, the people who believe that when they kill people, they will see Jesus in heaven, and the like, the atheist will be told they can’t do this.

Now why this double standard? Because religion is useless. Prayers get answered but not always the way requested, not at all or you have to squint real hard for it. Devoting time to saving souls is better than devoting time to your local soup kitchen, working on human rights, or doing something to help others. Religion gives nothing to us but division, wars, hatred, bigotry, and truly, a good portion of evil. Science has given us technology including televisions, planes, cars, vaccines, medicine, air conditioning, refrigeration, irrigation, space flight, cameras, improved food, computers, radio, construction, electricity, and so much more. Over 1000 years and religion has given nothing to society except a ritual that people can participate in and science has given us longer lives and better ones at that.

Religion is useless. It gives nothing of merit. If it makes you feel better that an invisible man is watching over you and helping you every day, go right ahead and believe so. Just expect that I’m going to laugh when you try to tell me that it is true and that I just have to seek him truly with my heart and soul. Telling yourself the great adult fairy tale may be nice, but doesn’t make it any more true. If delusion makes you feel better, that is your choice; however, kindly keep those delusions to yourself.

I’m tired of this argument as not only does it hold up to scrutiny, it also has no merit. Because if your religion is shown to be false, then why follow it at all. All religions fail essentially on a majority of scientifically proven theories and data. Therefore, why follow any religion. Put those fairy tale stories from the bronze and iron ages on the shelves where they belong and think for yourselves. And theists, stop asking why an atheist laughs when you make these statements.

Isaac Mills

It is only proper that I respond to the kindness of a post, with one of my own. I shall begin with my comment.

How to easily fix this. Oh yes, I recall now.

Abiogenesis has some very good proof behind it. Such as the research done and covered below.

Also, man rising from the dead has the problems of what occurs after death – enzyme breakdown, cell decay due to fermentation and decomposition (anaerobic), etc. I must go with Mr. Sagan on this.

“In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” [Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257]

God does not appear to suspend the laws he puts forth if he exists, and we have no reason to believe the contrary. Why then, should we state that it is so?

Now, I’ll admit that I really wasn’t attempting to be difficult and I was, well, a bit tired and wanted to be lazy. However, that is not an excuse and I shall do my best to further explain and address the argument against my comments.

Now first we begin with my comment on the good proof of abiogenesis. We have a theory, which fits the evidence and would produce the needed required material. This is a good start in that direction. This is a general overview and not the full list of evidence or the full list of the debate between scientists. There is much debate in specific areas of the theory and the theory is still incomplete in the sense that we don’t fully understand the complete movement of organic materials to life. However, there is research being done by many scientists on this theory and a decent list of what is known and not known can be found here.

First, he argues that evolution does not necessarily involve the belief in abiogenesis. To that, there are two responses: First, I did not say it did. I used the term ‘Darwinism’, not ‘evolution’. I have explained my use of the term ‘Darwinism’ a number of times on this blog as referring to the belief that the current state of biological life resulted solely from prior material factors. This is distinct from the mere theory of evolution, which involves only the belief in biological development over time, regardless of how that life came about in the first place. The former involves metaphysical assumptions which its adherents expects everyone else to accept without question, and the latter, it seems to me, does not.

But it is curious to me that the video Isaac linked to, while it claims that abiogenesis is no necessary part of evolution, defends abiogenesis, as if it is. And, of course, it does so by some rather extravagant speculation. And it does make you wonder: if the people who advocate it know the procedure of how life came about from non-life as well as they seem to think they do, then they ought to be able to perform the procedure, which, of course, they can’t.

Evolution, in the sense of natural selection and those mechanisms, has nothing to do with the formation of the first life. Evolution can be likened to going to an ad infinitum argument. Where did this animal come from, and so on and so forth until you reach the ‘first’. The last common ancestors genes are homologous, thus derived from a single common ancestor by duplication and modification, with this ancestor coming from an even simpler one. A decent article covering a majority of the Origins of Life in detail can be found here (and is also quoted partially in the line before). Abiogenesis involves no metaphysical assumptions. Some people may argue that God put life starting, however there is no evidence as such and no real reason to accept it. We remain agnostic, skeptic, and inquisitive. Experiments done show that organic molecules can be found in the pre-biotic earth quite easily. Learning what lead to life is what is being researched right now, with a good portion understood.

Again, Mr. Carl Sagan comes to mind, “If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly somehow created? How did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a god, or gods, created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question?” If the understanding is that the universe was devoid of all life and then it appeared, how did it happen? It is common to ascribe a god, or gods, to this formation of life. But where did God come from and again, if this is unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of life is a complex question. Since the universe already existed and is observable, we will be able to have data and thereby, able to answer to some degree the questions about the beginnings of life. Just because a question is complex, does not mean that we should assume that it is unanswerable, God did it, or it is irreducibly complex.

It is true that we have yet to create life in a test tube so to speak, from organic matter. Dr. Szostak and others are doing bottom-up abiogenesis research, small building blocks to discover the formation from smaller particles to life; Craig Venter and others are doing a top-down approach, attempting to discover the most simplistic life possible – the threshold on what would constitute life.

Isaac says there is “very good proof” behind the doctrine of abiogenesis. But there is no “proof”: there is only speculation. And just because the speculation is extravagant and even plausible on its face, it doesn’t amount “proof”–at least not in any sense of the word ‘proof’ with which I am familiar. A proponent of parthenogenesis could simply respond that they have proof too: in form of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Undoubtedly this will not satisfy a Darwinist, but point is that the Darwinist will be at pains to explain why his “proof” for abiogenesis is any better that for parthenogenesis.

Now, first off, I just dealt with the first portion, and that proof has geological data used to determine constants for the atmosphere and there are simulated experiments included above. To equate that proof, actual data and analysis, to words on an ancient text that is problematic itself is far less valuable or admissible in the court of rationality.

“Religion submits to the court a signed letter that God created life on the planet earth.” (The letter however is written by many hands, and there is no signature of authenticate the document)
“Science submits to the court geological data and experimentation that shows that with the constants given, the materials for life are formed in significant concentrations and how it is possible life came about. While we don’t have everything, we have a considerable amount.”

I believe a good portion of the world will take science here, than believing a god or gods did so. Please, may the proof her at least be equal in value. Only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth, which, in a biography of God incarnate, would be something that you would expect an author to write down. Maybe we lost those portions, but that is a side observation.

To say that one believes in abiogenesis is a faith statement that is a part of the larger body of Darwinist dogma.

I do not believe in abiogenesis in the sense of a Christian stating that God exists. I hold that the theory is the most plausible, natural method that we have to explain the origins of life. It requires no more assumptions than my doing a chemistry experiment requires, because that’s what a good portion of the theory is, chemistry. Formation of organic molecules, bonds, formation of organic layers, synthesis, etc. are all chemistry (biochemistry really). This requires no divine intervention, it is how the universe works with the pre-biotic conditions.

A miracle claim is simply immune from these kinds of criticisms–precisely because it is a miracle claim. If someone says, “I believe the normal and otherwise uniform course of nature was interfered with in Instance A,” it is hardly a valid response to say, “But Instance A is problematic because it violates the normal and otherwise uniform course of nature,” which, for all practical purposes is what Isaac is saying here.

This would be a problem, if there was evidence that your so called miracle actually occurred. I’m reminded of a George Carlin quote on why don’t miracles happen and why prayers go unanswered.

Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn’t in God’s Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn’t it seem a little arrogant? It’s a Divine Plan. What’s the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

And here’s something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren’t answered. What do you say? “Well, it’s God’s will.” “Thy Will Be Done.” Fine, but if it’s God’s will, and He’s going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn’t you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It’s all very confusing.

Compare the reality with my previous post about what True Christians should be able to do, and it is truly confusing.

The post concludes with this:

Isaac concludes, saying:

“God does not appear to suspend the laws he puts forth if he exists, and we have no reason to believe the contrary. Why then, should we state that it is so?”

Well, all I can say is that the religion that formed all of Western civilization has maintained for 2,000 years that that’s exactly what he did–and given reasons for it.

That’s why some of us say that it is so.

And that sir, is no good reason at all. Western civilization did not rise because of religion, but because of science. Science has brought us the computer, the rocket ship, tools, modern comforts, etc. What has religion brought us? Superstitions continually propagated. Again, science here seems like the winner. I’ll leave with one final video that I found amusing on PZ Myers blog.

Regards,

Isaac Mills