Footer Pages

WesternLies

Evolution and 9/11

The Evolution of Western Logical Fallacies

Enjoy God

“Why, God, why should I read another article about evolution!” would some readers exclaim at the mere sight of this article’s title. Yet, evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern Humanism, the main ideology behind the atheist states called Western Democracies. Evolution is where some of our times’ greatest atheists hide in; their texts reveal a major logical fallacy that is adapted and repeated day and night by these governments on every possible issue. Logical fallacies were used to market the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Logical fallacies are used by the USA government to explain 9/11. Not surprisingly, schools in Western countries don’t teach logics, leaving Western citizens susceptible to government attacks on us.

Many scientists fail to see that religion and science can live together in peace. They consider religion a threat. Their most troubling claim is: “We know how the universe works; therefore there is no God.” Richard Dawkins in his “The Blind Watchmaker” was one of the loudest advocates of this school. He claimed that if there were a God, He would be a blind watchmaker, since there was no place for Him in a world defined by exact physical rules. He would be to the world as a blind watchmaker to the watches: useless. That was a suspiciously simplistic claim for such a formidably trained mind, who regularly appears at atheists’ conventions with the success of a rock-star. His argumentation is paramount to claiming that since I know how a television set works, then “Sony”—the creator of the set—couldn’t have created it, and in fact doesn’t exist.

In logics, this type of argument is called a “Non Sequitur” (Latin for “it does not follow”). This is an argument whose conclusion does not follow from its arguments; the entire argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. In other words, Sony does exist, they created their own television models, and Richard Dawkins is attempting to bluff us into soulless atheism.

Shifting Models

the universe is more than shape and geometry

Another favorite of humanists and atheists is the Big Bang Theory, a cosmological model that explains the development of the Universe. This theory describes the universe’s early expansion with a complex mathematical model. The argument is similar to the one of the Evolution theory: since we can explain almost all the events defining the universe’s shape and geometry as a set of mathematical equations, there is no room for a Creator. Oddly enough, the theory continuously approaches the moment in which the primordial universe began expanding, but it never reaches it. The cause for the “bang” has not been elucidated. By definition, it will never be elucidated using the scientific method. Science answers “how,” not “why.”

The logical fallacy here is similar to the case of the Evolution Theory; yet, the Big Bang allows us insight into a different aspect of the topic. As said, science answers “how,” religion answers “why.” Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century; he was an Italian Dominican priest and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian. He defined what is known as the “Prima Causa,” five proofs for the existence of God. One of these proofs is called “Causation” and claims that nothing can cause itself; there must be a First Cause, called God. God set the Universe’s rules and initiated it. The fact that there are mathematical rules ruling it is not relevant to the problem. Mocking the claims presented until now, one could claim: “Sony exists, thus also God exists.”

Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas by Fra Bartolommeo

No less curious is the obstinate reluctance of many scientists to recognize certain implications of the Quantum Theory, to the extent that Einstein spent much of his life trying to refute what has become the most exact scientific theory ever developed. The more it is tested, the more accurate it is found. This is not true for the Relativity Theory of Einstein; moreover, to the joy of religious scientists, these two theories have refused to merge (this is needed for the correct analysis of fast-moving sub-atomic particles); all existing models on the topic are basically numerical in nature. The scope of this article doesn’t allow a mathematical treatment of the topic, but the issue is that Quantum Theory demands an observer to the universe; call Him God if you want. Einstein shivers in his cold grave.

Science and State

Thomas Malthus

Thomas Malthus

Richard Dawkins and others are very loud advocates; their approach has conquered the Western educational system. The scientific theories-just models of systems-had become dogmatic statements used for ugly manipulations. Once the state has achieved this dubious goal of creating an illogical population, which is unable to analyze any statement made by its government, the road is open for its using straightforward lies.

Scientists like to portray themselves as unbiased. Sometimes this is true; other times, the scientist is biased, or his work is used in a manipulative fashion by the states. The most astounding example in this category is “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” published by Thomas Malthus from 1798 to 1826. “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man,” his thesis could be summarized. In other words, there is not enough food on earth to feed all humans. This thesis was used by the British Empire and its allies to justify a pretty brutal set of wars, and even the Great Game, the British and Russian empires over hegemony in Central Asia.

Buckminster Fuller

Buckminster Fuller

R. Buckminster Fuller was one of the most prominent scientists and engineers of the 20th century; his best known invention is the Geodesic Dome, the most efficient structure known to date. By 1965, Buckminster Fuller had already proven that although Malthus had been right about food scarcity until about 1955, the Industrial Revolution and subsequent technological advances made general abundance possible. In the many years that have passed since those words were uttered, the world has seen a significant advancement in the production of food to the extent that the Malthus theory looks quite ridiculous. Yet, social claims based on inequality are constantly rejected by greedy politicians and economic pirates with a plethora of obsolete Malthusian clichés; they keep claiming “it is we or them.” States cynically exploit the ignorance of their people, tricking them into unnecessary wars.

In this generation, there is no better example of this than 9/11 and the wars following it. Most readers would accept my claim of being at least as well informed as the average Western reader. Yet, the day after 9/11 I was surprised by the American government’s accusation that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the atrocity. Al-who? Who had ever heard the name of this apparently very dangerous group? Still in the infancy of my dissidence, I prepared a cup of fresh coffee and waited for the American government to provide the proofs. Instead, we all saw how the American government was quick to destroy all evidence of the disaster, to the extent of making sure the steel would be melted and kept in the possession of the state in the form of a war-ship. Under the circumstances, any claims by the American government on the issue are nothing but a logical “non sequitur,” since it cannot prove even one of its arguments, because there is no evidence! Knowing its flock is not prepared to analyze logically its government’s action, the USA took advantage of Western logical fallacies to hide… what?

Share Button

19 Responses to Evolution and 9/11

  1. searching June 2, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    Great article Roy. As always.
    I enjoy reading your articles. They are usually well documented , reasonable and logical.
    Many people are deceived by so- called theory of evolution, which they’ve been taught for so many years at schools ,that many takes it for granted without any further thought or consideration.
    I don’t know if you’ve heard about German Genetic information specialist ,Dr. Werner Gitt , who “shows that coded information can only come from an intelligent source”.
    “In his book “In the Beginning was Information”, he attempts to create a system for dealing with the semantic aspects of information.
    Gitt defines the following empirical principles:
    No information can exist without a code.
    No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
    No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
    No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
    No information can exist without a transmitter.
    No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
    No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
    No information can exist without a will.”
    Here is a video from his lecture.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA1TXfUQElM

    Then of course we have a wonderful Stephen Meyers with his book “The signature of the cell”,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYSmV2FlHDw
    and many other great scientists, who believe in
    so- called Intelligent Design.
    How they’ve been treated by the USA government?? the video “Expelled-no intelligence allowed” documents how.
    There is no free speach allowed when it comes to that subject. Brainwashing , evolution, atheism have to rule.

  2. searching June 2, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

    BTW , the reaction of the American Government to after 9/11 evidence and proofs was the same as the reaction of the Polish Government, right after the POlish president plane catastrophy on 04.10.2010 in Smolensk.
    They made SURE that all the evidence was removed,destroyed, hidden, manipulated etc.
    And everbody, who thinks on his own , even just a little , knows that it was an assassination,
    a pre-planned crime, a murder. Who are murderers???
    Those who hide all the evidence?? Who ordered doing it?? Why??

  3. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 2, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    Roy, I am a fan. I follow your writings sand I enjoy your articles and admire your tireless advocacy for justice and compassion.

    This article I don’t get. What do evolution and atheism have to do with 9/11? What do either of them, for that matter, have to do with the carnage perpetrated cowardly by our drones on a daily basis in far flung corners of the world?

    Who are the atheists and darwinists responsible for all this? In the US “God” comes out of the mouths of politicians with the regularity and frequency of a cuckoo in a Swiss clock. They are “born again” (like Bush) or Orthodox Jews like Lieberman and not an atheist among the lot. Why would their mode of thinking be atheist or darwinist?

  4. searching June 2, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    “This article I don’t get. What do evolution and atheism have to do with 9/11″.?
    ……….
    Lying. manipulating. Distorting facts.
    Hiding all the evidence.
    Forcing “politically corrected” agenda on the public etc.
    That’s what they have in common.

  5. who_me June 2, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

    “Richard Dawkins in his “The Blind Watchmaker” was one of the loudest advocates of this school.”

    dawkings is a zionist who uses “evolution” and “science” and “rational thought” to beat upon muslims in a very jewish propagandistic way. dawkings is the opposite of what evolution brought to the table and is actually closer to priests and rabbis in his way of thinking and distorting things to serve a dishonest purpose. he’s rubbish like all the zionist propagandists that have weaseled their way into academia and the popular discourse.

    “Another favorite of humanists and atheists is the Big Bang Theory….The argument is similar to the one of the Evolution theory”

    that’s actually quite false. the big bang theory is rooted in religious superstition. the basics of the theory itself was originally invented by a catholic priest who dabbled in astronomy and wanted a theory that would match creationism. the big bang theory is about as anti science and anti scientific method as one can get.

    the way the big bang theory works is opposite to the scientific method where one gathers up evidence and looks for common connections and then postulates a theory about how the thing works (whatever “thing” is being studied). the theory is then tested against known facts to see if it holds up. if it doesn’t, then it is dropped and a new theory is tried. this keeps going until a theory is found that represents the reality of the thing without failures.

    with the big bang theory, the theory was postulated first, then evidence sought to support it. as time went on, evidence not supporting the theory was dropped or ignored, and evidence molded and shaped to fit the theory. where the bb theory failed to explain things adequately, new theories were invented to fill the holes. when these got disproved, then new, even less plausible theories were invented.

    there was no investigation into alternate explanations, it was bb theory work only. anything else is either totally ignored, or denounced without investigation. the whole establishment surrounding bb theory is a throw back to the days before copernicus when the church required astonomers to posit that the sun rotated around the earth and any speculation of vice versa was heresy and cause for being murdered by the church.

    in blunt terms, the bb theory took science back to the days of when the catholic church decided what was what, and everyone either followed along, or was persecuted. that is about as far from evolutionary theory as one cant get.

  6. frank scott June 2, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

    very good argument in support of god-belief, but all hurt by the godlike nonsense about 911…please leave the supernatural fantastic in the realm of the “beyond human ability to understand dept.” – first cause creation, etc – and do not treat political economic warlike state business as though it was the result of…god?

    somehow sending wreckage to…the garden of eden?

    where it could not be examined by…god?

    there is and was untruth regarding 911 but there is even more at this very moment, and none of it is happening because people did not take “logic” classes, but because their/our “logic” is a product of superstitious religious scientific rot which has intelligent people creating gods and godlike conspiracies instead of dealing with/confronting the only thing we are capable of understanding and acting upon – material, not immaterial reality – and changing life, the world, in ways that make it possible for all to have sustenance, safety and a measure of successful life instead of the miserable excuse for civilization which we continue to allow while it brings us all closer to an end to big bang-intelligent design-mother goose and other fairy tales posing as explanation for what we cannot understand while what we should and can understand deteriorates all around us…

    dawkins is a fool but we cannot combat foolishness with further foolishness…we can fight fire with fire under certain circumstances , but the result of trying to fight ignorance with superstition or vice versa will be individual stupidity and social disaster…

    fs

    • searching June 2, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

      You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and you have no basic understanding of science, logic, philosphy, religion etc. not too mention the article written by Roy.
      Fools like you should go back to kindergarten,
      and start all over again before they open their mouth.

  7. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 3, 2012 at 2:16 am #

    “You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and you have no basic understanding of science, logic, philosphy, religion etc. ………. Fools like you should go back to kindergarten, and start all over again before they open their mouth.”

    Will you ever get tired of rudely berating everybody who does not share your views? Even if you believe that those who do not share your world view are utter and obstinate fools you could moderate the tone you use to express your frustration.

    • who_me June 3, 2012 at 2:48 am #

      Ariadna Theokopoulos

      i think you may be taking the searching bot a little too seriously. shehe writes that way to create a disruption scene and to discredit anti-zionist views (by associating herhis extremism with anti-zionism). look at anything shehe writes, some rational views supporting anti-zionism intermixed with a bunch of obvious total nonsense. It’s like a redneck who claims he’s for women’s liberation and then in the same breath says he thinks aliens are programming us through low frequency radio waves to like women and that he’s resisting them by sticking to a diet of rocky mountain oysters.

    • searching June 4, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

      look who is talking?

  8. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 3, 2012 at 3:20 am #

    “rocky mountain oysters” :-)
    I have not heard that in a long time. I saw them on a menu once in Little Rock (duh!) but they were called just “mountain oysters.”
    I guess there must be fine distinctions for the connoisseurs just as there are between Maine and Oregon oysters :-)

    • who_me June 3, 2012 at 3:44 am #

      i’ve never seen them on a menu. did try one once. me gran cooked some of the ovidian versions with some lamb chops. nasty, worse than liver.

Leave a Reply