What's the difference between creationists and the mentally disabled?

Posted On Nov 13, 2008 at 8:00 pm
22 Comments

Here is another tasteless production. What is the difference between a creationist and a mentally disabled person? One of them cannot help being retarded. I apologize to the mentally handicapped for associating them with those creationists.

creationists are retards

If you're a creationist and you think this is harsh - read a science book.

If you're not a creationist and you think this is harsh - read a creationist book.

This topic has the following tags:

Comments (22)

Felix Rocha Martinez's Avatar
Reply To This

Felix Rocha Martinez Jan 06, 2009

Darwinist evolution is one based on fossils. There are not fossils for every stage of evolution, therefore, the gaps are filled without enough information. It is the same as considering that you can decipher a one thousand piece puzzle with two or three pieces of it.

Natural selection would kill evolution. If only the fitest would survive, the exclusion of the rest would kill the fitest by hunger.
Example: if you had a forest with only one kind of tree and a plague comes that defeats that tree, the forest would be converted into a desert. It is more reasonable to consider that the equilibrium is more important.

My theory does not require fossils to be corroborated. Every time there is a mutation there are vestiges, evidences, scars left behind.

If you receive a deep cut, What is left after you heal? a scar. Then why a male baby is born with a scar (in the lower part of the penis, through the middle of the scrotum and almost to the anum? The answer is right there in my blog. For many years, my theory was corroborated only by evidences, vestiges and scars, now it is also corroborated by fossils. My theory is the result of 44 years of indepentent research. It is iconoclast, easy to understand (I teach it to seventh graders and they understand it quite readily), but you have to read it. If you do not read it because it does not say what Charles Darwin (I do not believe in the common trunk) said or if you do not read it because it does not say what the Bible says (it says that the first human being was hermaphrodite and not a male)and you discard it for those reasons, I do not have a chance.

Please read it. There are more than a couple dozen of articles, aditionally to the book ("Cicatrices, nueva teoría de la evolución","Scars, New Theory of Evolution", book available only in Spanish)in the language of your choice, English or Spanish.

Félix Rocha Martínez
frocham@yahoo.com

Interesting's Avatar
Reply To This

Interesting Feb 21, 2009

I think its a bit of a stretch to state that all creationist are retarded. Personally I would be more interested to see how each individual came out to their decision in chosing their path instead of making a general assumption. There were plenty of great minds that were creationist and to say they are retarded is well... retarded especially in light of their discoveries and contributions. If that is the case only a small portion of the world population is not "retarded". But i guess if that is true natural selection surely is favoring the "retarded" people. Of course if you believe that religion is the downfall of mankind,natural selection is favoring our destruction. Of course personally I think blaming the "badside" of humanity b/c of religion is completely hilarious. Attrocities are commited by people regardless of religous belief, and in their absence they still occur. Those who are religous may simply use and bend religion for justification of their actions, to make themselves feel better in light of the deity they worship. If your non-religous technically you chose not to be restricted by a deity and can do whatever it is you please. At the end of the day both sides do the same thing which has made me come to the conclusion that the wickedness of mankind and the religion a man is affiliated with is often times irrelevant. Atheist, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, all of them are the same. All have made good contributions to man and all have made bad contributions as well. I've seen hate and love on all sides, ignorance, and evil. To me an arrogant ignorant religionist shares more in common with an arrogant ignorant non-religionist even though the 2 probably don't even realize it.
For me I think the issue goes to what is right and what is wrong, what is good to what is evil. Science can only explain how some things work, but it can never go into what is morally right and what is morally wrong. Yet it is this sense of morals that greatly influences the religion or lack of relgion for an individual. If a man purely believes science has the answers to everything then morals and values are completely irrelevant, b.c science dosn't recognize them. This is why I sometimes laugh when atheist say religionist do bad things. If an atheist believes science is the truth for everything, yet science can't support morals, an atheist has no weight in saying what is good and what is evil for science does not recognize it. A religion and other faiths will but not science. Science would say It would be completely logical and beneficial for me to kill off every other male member of my species and for me to sleep with all the females, especially the high quality ones so that my lineage would survive. I would have eliminated the competition and so long as I impressed the women enough I could get my kids to survive long enough to be reproductively successful. Any kids with genetic defects I would kill off so that they wouldn't be able to reproduce. Then if one of my son's got the idea of killing of all the other males that were born and sleeping with the women it would seem that this would be natural selection favoring the mass murdering of competition. Those males that were the most resistant to disease I would keep and kill the those which were of less genetic stock. Scientifically this is a completely logical plan but morally depending on what you think is good and evil this may be extremely twisted. Ironically religion groups have used a simillar aproach instead of killing those of lesser genetic stock they kill those solely on the fact that they don't believe the same way they do. Slavery is logical scientifically b/c it makes sense to use an inferior human genetically, to do work which would be of high risk danger to the superior human. It would be like using the mentally handicapped and those incapable of having children, as slaves. Scientifically its a good idea to preserve the favorable and good genes, morally its pretty twisted. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that morals and values cannot be defined by science, which is a big reason why many people do not become full atheist. Science can't answer that question.

Copout's Avatar
Reply To This

Copout Feb 21, 2009

Religion is a copout and cover for man's evil deeds. If religion didn't exist at all man would continue being wicked. At least with certain religions certain beliefs hold men accountable for their actions. Alot of people like to say that religion caused a whole lot of mass killings, destruction, pain, blah blah blah. But the truth of the fact is that most teachings don't support alot of what these so called individuals proclaim. Basically they are using religion as a mask for their own gains. Its like how Americans use the guise of democracy and the free market to take advantage of other countries. Sure the principles in itself are good but there WILL ALWAYS be people who try to manipulate the core roots for their own benefit. The problem isn't religion its people. If people would know their religion for themselves instead of getting it 2nd hand from others "brainwashing" is minimal b/c people are conducting the research for themselves. The same can be said for Atheist. I get tired of talking to drone atheist who discredit other people's personal faiths b/c someone who shares their view said so. And when in debate they back their "personal" claims with other Atheist arguments. In the world of journalism this would be called plaugerism, and both sides commit it. Do I think that a religion may have all the answers to what really matters in life? Maybe? Do I think that science will be able to explain every single phenemonon? Not in my life time! Can science disprove the existence of a supernatural being? No. If science can't give a defenite answer on why I have feelings of what's right and wrong I have extremely little faith they can tackle the existence of this creator of right and wrong. I grew up loving biology, thinking it was an amazing subject. When I heard of evolution for the 1st time I didn't understand it and due to the influence of others heard both good and bad things from it. IT wasn't until I researched the facts for myself that I discovered the truth. And I will state that evolution, which is change over time isn't that mind blowing of a concept. Its common sense really. Applied to biology it means organisms change over time.

Now after studying math and physics realizing that evolution from something as simple as a extremophile bacteria to a complicated structure as a whale,in the time allocated was some extreme, especially when calculating mass extinctions and things of that nature. I can see how people can become skeptics of this idea in relation to the mathematical propabilities and what not. It also dosn't help that scientist have a history of distorting experiments, in hopes of achieving recognition and fame. They steal others work, steal others idea, manipulate experiments so to favor their position, and do other means which undermine the very principle of science to get fame. Science is so terrified of being wrong that they don't prove anything but only can disprove things. This is a clever approach b/c then it would be more apparent to see how often times science is wrong. Many of the great scientific minds when they 1st made their proposals were usually rejected by the scientific community. This in itself is a waste of valuable resources and time as scientist can't test new ideas and hypothesis,due to lack of funding and credibility. As a scientist I eagerly look forward to new ideas, methods, and hypothesis. If their sound points then the test of time will show their worth, and if they are wrong does it mean to abandon the idea? No not necessarily b/c your hypothesis could be on to a major breakthrough but your research may be slightly off. As I read up on those who were greats in science often times originally it seeemed as if their theories could be debunked. However as they perservered their hardwork paid off and ultimately the truth was revealed. If people honestly believe that evolution is incorrect an want to scientifically disprove it then attack the weakpoints logically and scientifically. Even if you personally believe that God is responsible you can't use this as scientific evidence regardless if its true or not, since science cannot explain God. Therefore Creationism is truly unscientific.

Also until science is able to explain the supernatural it is not the abosolute truth, and if anyone who believes that itis not only needs a history lesson on the history of science and those who contributed, stole from others, and deliberately manipulated and decieved within it. They also need to understand the limits and restraints of science. I used to be like many who thought that science was uncorruptible and yes technically pure science is uncorruptible but when man is put into the equation science can become biased and tainted. For centuries science claimed that races had intelligence differences, but now we know that's not true. This was a big shocker for me b/c I had so much respect for science but when I did the research I learned how important it was to test all things for yourself, so that the truth may be revealed. Not just in science but religion itself.

CopOut's Avatar
Reply To This

CopOut Feb 25, 2009

Thanks and not a problem. After reading up on history and seeing the world and talking to people myself it becomes clear to see that all history of mankind has done is repat itself and those who had wicked attrocities done to them in turn do it to others. I don't mean to rail on any particular people group but look at black america. You think for a people that were oppressed and were dealt with so violently they would be the last people to pull the trigger on somones head. Yet you here of more black on black violence then anything else. The jews were oprssed for centuries by various groups, and now that they have their own country they opress those who aren't jewish. I'm not saying that they shouldn't defend themselves from terroist and militant groups cuz they have to if they wish to survive. But those who you know are innocent in the matters and only on ethnicity alone do not deserve to be opressed. A friend of mine who was a Palastenian Christian not even a jew was oppresed, simply cause of his ethnicity! Before european based slavery and the white man, Native American and African groups practiced barberous acts on each other as well. Slavery has been present in every society regardless of ethnic of makeup. They all say its horrible when it happens to them but they still keep doing it to others. At the end of the day I have come to the conclusion that all of man is messed up in general. Sorry about that but I recently have become upset in light of sex trafficking. Honestly those who practice in that garbage should get life imprisonment, benefitting of ruining the lives of innocent little girls and women is sickening.

Post Comment

You are replying to cancel reply

Your email address will not be visible to the public

Avatars by Gravatar. Join Gravatar for free to have your avatar shown everywhere you post.