Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Smacking Around Simpson

Andrew Simpson Foreign Born Patriot is making a fuss over on the forums in The Standard's website again.

He is really getting on my nerves. He managed to insult basically everything I hold dear, in a single comment.

Things Amber Holds Dear:
  • The scientific method. Check.
  • Darwin. Check.
  • Peer-review legitimacy. Check.
  • Evidence. Check.
  • My ability to pick apart his BULLSHIT. Check.
  • My ability to read. Check.
You can see the entire conversation HERE.

I feel pretty confident in my ability to knock him around, but if anyone wants to jump in, I would certainly encourage their participation.

Just to make you all angry, I will include the most recent Simpson Foreign Born comment, and my response.

[ Simpson Foreign Born]

MR JT: Peer reviewed is not what it is cracked up to be. Galileo, and Einstein discovered how hard it is to fight against peers in their day as they discovered things that others didn't want to accept as reality but the test of time has borne them out to be true. Peer review is only done according to what is acceptable. Nowadays if you refute evolution as a scientist, you are scorned, even though you might present EVIDENCE, not theories to your peers, nevertheless you are villified because it goes against the current feeling about the origin of man.
Ms Faegre, if you would have read carefully that scripture that you were misrepresenting then you would have seen that at the beginning of the chapter the description that you were referring to was His disciples asking Him about the destruction of the temple that He was referring to and indeed that happened in their lifetime. Nobody but the Father knows when He will send the Son of Man to collect those who are faithful to Him and whom He knows, not "knows Him".

[My Response]

Mr. Simpson,

You used Einstein as an example of a brilliant mind who had to fight against his peers to have his theories accepted.

Yes, when Einstein's initial theories were proposed, they were questioned. But, with time, the scientific community has come to accept that every shred of evidence points towards his theories holding true, at least in this part of the universe.

Similarly, when Darwin's initial theories were proposed, they were questioned. But, with time, the scientific community has come to accept that every shred of evidence points towards his theories holding true.

It is fair to note that Darwin's theory has actually stood longer then Einstein's. Darwin's theory of evolution was already beginning to receive acceptance from the scientific community at the time of his death, when Einstein was only three years old. For over a hundred years Darwin's theories have remained undefeated.

The idea that the scientific community is ostracizing those who explore their environment with an open mind to options besides evolution is patently false. What may be true however is that scientists are expected to shed their personal biases as much as is humanly possible. You cannot approach a problem looking for an answer that undeniably confirms your preexisting beliefs. That is not science, and therefore it would be ridiculous for the scientific community to accept it without questioning it's validity.

You speak of "evidence" brought forward against evolution. I would be interested in seeing the citations you speak of. I have time in the next few days to read through the articles. I would be very interested to see what sort of evidence refuting evolution has been acquired.

Sadly, the mantra of "we have evidence" is often unsubstantiated by Creationists. Take the film "Expelled" for instance. We sat through the entire film without hearing ANY of the scientific evidence they said was so powerful that it was being excluded from the debate.

-Amber Culbertson-Faegre

P.S. I will look further into the passages when I get home this evening, and have my copy of the bible in front of me.

[Response, Part 2]

Foreign Born Patriot,

Just to be sure that I was appropriately interpreting the text, I went back and reread the entirety of Matthew 24 again. You claim that I am misrepresenting the scripture. In the first portion of the chapter, it says clearly that the destruction of the temple would act as a sign of his coming and the end of time. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3, NIV).

The next bit discusses in detail how we can recognize the coming of Christ. The destruction of the temple is just one way we know that the end has come. Since you question the validity of my interpretation of Matthew 24:34, I feel it is relevant to quote the entire portion of the text which is relevant (Matthew 24:30-35, NIV).

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Are you really trying to interpret Matthew 24:34 as a mention of the destruction of the temple? I would certainly stand by my interpretation this as saying that within the next generation the Christ would appear.

Oh... wait...

How many generations have passed since Christ was around to talk to us about his second coming? At least 80?


My point is not to argue the "proper" interpretation of the text. My point is to point out the obvious fallacies which are included.

We argue over which interpretation is correct. What we should be arguing is if the bible holds a single ounce of authority. I believe we have overwhelming evidence to support the complete inaccuracy and fallacy of the bible. Besides the many contradictions, we have literally thousands of scientific studies showing the "whys" of life discussed in the bible are complete mythology.

There is no reason to assume that the bible speaks for the word of god, or that there is even such a being.


-Amber Culbertson-Faegre

1 comment:

Ryan said...

Slow down, Gandhi, you're killin' 'im!