The Early Days of a Better Nation

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Sunday morning sermon

I recently attended a talk on evolution and creationism by Edinburgh student humanist Stuart Ritchie. It was good.

I'm pleased to report that Stuart didn't make use of any dubious anticreationist debate tactics, such as those deprecated here:
Anticreationists are frequently uncivil and even hostile. Many of them often come into a forum lying from the very beginning, are easily angered, and complain if they are not heard. They are experts at guilt trips. Some are swift to use cuss words and are also swift to call other people names. And always have to have the last word. Engaging in a discussion with such a person requires diplomacy that is not natural to the human condition, and may only be available to someone truly able to demonstrate Christ-like love.
I know the feeling.

From the same source, we learn some fascinating physics, and even more fascinating biology:
All elements in the universe (periodic table) get their properties based on their combinations of 3 specific sub-atomic components (a trinity). Protons, Neutrons, & Electrons. No element has the same combination, in other words Gold has 79 protons, 118 neutrons, 79 electrons while [17] Carbon (man) has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons or 666. This will be the number in which the Antichrist will be identified by. And because a clone does not have working sexual organs, this explains why a cloned Antichrist will not have need for a woman.
And there are some misguided people who will tell you that creationists have no scientific discoveries of their own to contribute!


I am in awe.

Except now I think of a highly possible future president whose popularity I'm trying to ignore, and I'm just depressed again....

("E Pluribus Unum" -->"The Enlitenment: ur doin it rong")

Problem is, 6 + 6 + 6 doesn't equal 666, it equals 18. Among Jews, 18 is the number traditionally associated with life (because the Hebrew word for life, khai, is spelled with the Hebrew letters that correspond to the numbers eight and ten).

(I'm leaving aside the discovery that earlier version of the Revelation of St John have 616 as the Number of the Beast.)

So what is really being tought at those tax-subsidized 'faith schools'?

Cuss-words fail me.

668: the neighbour of the beast.

Personally, I've always subscribed to the Discordian rule of five.

Doesn't this trinity stuff ignore the anti particles?

Somehow, I don't think arithmetic or theology are among the writer's strong points.

My office neighbour is in room 333, complaining that he is only half the beast he used to be.

As for the 666, it is obvsiously a vector: <6,6,6> ... hmmm ...

Keep the interesting observations, coming, Ken. You'll know we have read them when we reply something only marginally related to the main article.

Ken, I've been getting a fair bit of traffic from here but it's unclear from a quick glance at your front page what your position is on religion and creationism? Would you mind clearing it up?


Mike, please tell me you're joking.

But in case you aren't, have a look here, here, here and here.

Wasn't joking, the only post on your front page I could see on the topic was this one, and there's not much comment there. Whilst your blogroll has some cool astronomy stuff on it etc, there's also a fair bit on creation and flood geology. Anywho, glad to have it cleared up, cheers.


And there I was thinking that having the YEC sites listed under 'Faith' along with the Flat Earth Society and the geocentrists was so obviously insulting that no one could possibly mistake my intention. Oh well.

I think it's just a testimony to the level of idiocy I've witnessed in creationists.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on contemporary geocentrism at

Almost all contemporary geocentrists are creationists, but most creationists are not geocentrists. In their intramural arguments, it seems to me that the geocentrists have the better case, since many passages in the Bible, at the very least,if taken literally imply geocentrism and if these creationists are able avoid accepting geocentric conclusions by reinterpreting these passages, then what is to prevent someone from reinterpreting the Bible to make it compatible with Darwinism?
Thus, the acceptance of one lunacy, would seem to logically require the acceptance of additional lunacies as well for the sake of consistency.

So I'm arriving late to this conversation, but while following Ken's links regarding evolution, etc, I discovered a gem of a reader review of Prothero's book on Amazon. The sad part is that I think the writer is serious... and I think I might know him. Check it out:

This guy must think Non Sequitur was one of the Fathers of the Church.

players to jump to a assertive point aural the video stream. A THE DISTRICT DVD
can accept up to eight altered audio advance and 32 explanation advance. The THE DISTRICT DVD COLLECTION
architecture doesn't annihilate the differences.

Post a Comment