The building of the Tower of Babel and God's confusion of mankind's language at Babel has a significant amount of evidence to support it:
The Tower of Babel account is supported by linguistics
The Tower with many flaws
is their archaeological evidence for the Tower of Babel?
Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages
Barack Hussein Obama's BRAIN Initiative
Saying that he wanted the next job-creating discoveries to happen not in India or China, but the US, President Barack Obama has unveiled a $100 million initiative to unlock the "enormous mystery" of the human brain.Barack Hussein Obama's presidency has a greater probability of coming tumbling down than mankind's language barriers. The American public has been smiting Obama's daily approval numbers since December of 2012. Who is Obama trying to kid with his grandiose and impractical plans? The BRAIN Initiative is just another evolutionist boondoggle that will fail to have a favorable return on investment.
"I don't want the next job-creating discoveries to happen in China or India or Germany. I want them to happen right here, in the United States of America," the president said on Tuesday in an event in the East Room of the White House.
"And that's part of what this BRAIN Initiative is about," he said referring to the initiative, dubbed Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies...
"What if computers could respond to our thoughts? Or language barriers could come tumbling down? Or if millions of Americans were suddenly finding new jobs in these fields -- jobs we haven't even dreamt up yet because we chose to invest in this project? That is the future we are imagining. That is what we are hoping for," he said.
Barack Hussein Obama is America's most hostile president to biblical Christianity
America's Most Biblically-Hostile US Presidency
Question Evolution! Campaign resources and other resources
Question Evolution! Campaign
15 questions for evolutionists
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15
Other related resources
Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: Godless religions
Refuting evolution
Evidence for Christianity
More evidence for Christianity
Creation Ministries International Question Evolution! Videos
An article like this really discredits your site. I mean really you think improved communication between humans is a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteChris Jensen,
DeleteWhere is your data showing the return on this particular investment will likely pay off in terms of language barriers falling because of this work?
Can you show me private investors willing to make the same gamble? I noticed you failed to bring forth such evidence to buttress your complaint.
Are you an evolutionist? If so, are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )
via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.
If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod
If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua
There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.
I was mostly just making a comment about how you said one of the goals of the BRAIN Initiative is to try to undo God's confusion of languages and that he's "shaking his fist at God.". The way it is written makes it seem like you would be against a world that didn't have communication difficulties due to language barriers. If I misread your intent than I apologize.
DeleteI'm no economic expert (didn't even state whether I was for or against the investment) I would assume that if the BRAIN Initiative achieved what it sought to accomplish that mental disorders like Alzheimer's could be cured or treated better which would lower health care costs of retirement homes and the like that spend a load of money tending to patients that can't take care of themselves. Just my two cents as an "average Joe".
While I do think that evolution has some validity to it I am, however, not an evolutionist in the manner in which you use the word. For me the story of Genesis, if taken literally, doesn't quite sound like a good enough explanation for life and, I mean no offence, but I personally disagree with god as he is described in the Bible. Though it is possible that some form of a god might exist I seriously doubt it has anything in common with the gods thought up by man.
As for your debate I am confident in my own understanding of evolution enough to incorporate it into my personal worldview and that I am familiar with many of the inner subjects that explain evolution but I am by far not an expert. I'm still learning and exploring this fabulous science.
Chris Jensen,
DeleteYour second comment showed some sincere effort so I will respond and waive the debate requirement.
Second, you need to read the article more closely. Specifically, the article stated: " The BRAIN Initiative is just another evolutionist boondoggle that will fail to have a favorable return on investment. " So I was very clear. And you failed to show that a favorable return on investment will happen. In addition, I have doubts that a $100 million investment to unlock some of the mysteries of the brain will cause language barriers to come tumbling down and you provided me no data showing that it will likely do so.
With the above being said, if you want to comment further, you will have to accept the debate offer. If you back out, your comments will not be published.
Dear Sir/Madam,
DeleteI too saw the news (albeit from here in the United Kingdom) about President Obama's BRAIN project - and I think it's a wonderful thing. It will hopefully help us to understand complex neurological puzzles, such as Alzheimer's and autism, and surely President Obama makes a good point when he says (I paraphrase) 'we understand more about galaxies billions of light years away than we do about our own brain'. It's scientific research with a laudable cause.
I don't whether you're serious when you say this is an 'evolutionist shaking his fist at God'. No, it's a President who's funding scientific research, which may also have benefits of economic stimulus, into one of our least understood bodily organs - the brain. I think it's ludicrous that you somehow try and link this to an anti theistic motive - you have no evidence that he's trying to shake a fist at God, at all. Zilch. Remember that President Obama is a Christian, and his views on evolution have nothing to do with neurological research. This is just scare-mongering, reactionary hype with no real grounding in reality.
I also wonder why many commentators on your side of the pond have this delightfully quirky and seemingly non-partisan habit of referring to him constantly as Barack Hussein Obama? Do I detect a hint of Islamaphobia there, I mean seriously - why not just call him Obama, Mr Obama, President Obama etc. no other public figures routinely have their middle name in their style, no other commentators apart from the conservative/Christian Right in America do it, so honestly why?
So in conclusion, I think your argument that a piece of neurological research project commissioned by a Christian President is somehow a hidden attempt to undermine God is farcical. There are some genuine points to be made against evolution, serious discussions to be had, not this kind of silly, crypto-conservative scaremongering. Your blog seems like a good idea, but keep it on the subject - evolution!
Yours sincerely,
Mr A Catherall
P.S. And please stop using 'evolutionist' in a pejorative way - I never do it when talking about creationists, I respect their beliefs and it works both ways!
Andrew,
DeleteA few points:
1. As far as your government funding of scientific research providing "stimulus" remark, it reflects an ignorance of basic economics.
In the 1930s, it was only the USA that attempted to fight the post-1929 economic contraction with Keynesian stimulus policies and only the USA suffered a Great Depression. In England, the contraction stopped in 1932, France never saw double-digit unemployment, and the Japanese economy was actually enjoying significant growth. This time, Europe, China, and Japan all followed the US lead and applied their own stimulus plans in 2009, which we are already seeing is now in the process of backfiring on everyone. See: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/overprepared.html
Also, the John Maynard Keynes (the father of economic stimulus type notions) said debt was a drag on the economy and the America federal government has a 16 trillion dollar debt load. Keynes advocated having a surplus in the good years and government spending in the bad years. He never advocated so called government "stimulus" spending when a country is deeply in debt.
2. You failed to show that Obama's government investment in brain research will likely have a favorable return on investment. Where is your data supporting a favorable return of investment. I merely saw ranting and voodoo economics.
3. I cited a source showing that Obama was hostile to the Bible. You failed to show that the abortion loving and pro-homosexuality Barack Obama is a Christian. Nor did you prove your Islamophobia accusation with any credible evidence. Keep your armchair internet psychological analysis to yourself please unless you provide sufficient proof and evidence.
4. You never showed that evolutionary beliefs deserve respect. I am not going to respect flat earthism, Darwinism, astrology and host of other quackery.
Dear Sir/Madam,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your prompt response. I'll try to respond to the points you put forward one by one -rebut some and clarify others.
1) The big difference between you and me is I say that it "may" provide economic stimulus, you say that it definitely won't. I think as well we clash on certain points - you seem to be referring to the failure of the very idea of economic stimulus, a point which I would agree with. Yes, most major, large scale pan-industry stimuli simply result in a very short term boost without addressing the problem of long term decline. But this is not the point I put forward, which was about the specific benefit coming from stimuli related to scientific discoveries and research. It seems a fairly easy link to make - science discovers new things, sometimes these beliefs can be applied in a way that makes economic sense. Graphene is a good example - scientists discovered this new material (the thinnest carbon structure produced), and now with grant funding, scientists around the world are racing to produce manufacturing techniques. This is an example of government funded research bringing about real economic stimulus.
2) Surely any knowledge gained about the human brain is just a net benefit for humanity? This is medical/neurological research, surely it has its own intrinsic moral worth. Also, seeing as the research hasn't yet been done, neither us can pontificate on the value of the research - how on Earth am I supposed to provide evidence for the value of research that hasn't been conducted? Wait to see before jumping to condemn; I'm sure that most humans would agree that medical knowledge and scientific knowledge is useful and if it helps alleviates pain and suffering, then it would be a sufficient return on our investment.
...
Andrew,
DeleteI don't believe you made a good case for government subsidized scientific research rather than allowing the private sector to put those resources to use. Certainly, the private sector performs research and companies have research and development departments. We will agree to disagree.
You case would have had to be a very good case since the United States government has a 16 trillion dollar debt and not much to show for those investments. For example, here is CNN showing that the Obama administration's high speed rail investments were a boondoggle: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/cnn-exposes-obamas-high-speed-rail-boondoggle/# The Bible says you don't throw good money at a bad steward. This is a common sense principle.
Plus, you failed to show that Obama's dream of having language barriers tumble down through brain research is doable and not a pipe dream. Furthermore, you didn't show me any data as far as a return on investment on this particular BRAIN Initiative investment. I want to see numbers. Here is a guide on calculating a return on investment: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/10/guide-to-calculating-roi.asp Please show the return on investment will be worth it.
3) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/bob-jones-iii-on-obama-asks-where-is-the-evidence-that-he-is-a-christian/ gives a couple of quotations on the President's religious views. However, none of us can know, as whilst he has stated his belief, there is no conceivable way of knowing how sincere it really is. I would presume that the rational response would be that as we cannot know, we rely on the facts available - in this case his stated religious belief. I doubt he 'loves' abortion - he simply supports the right of women to choose. I don't personally support abortion, but don't 'love' anti-abortion campaigns. There's a difference between tolerance and love for something. The same with 'pro homosexuality' - pro implies that it is actively propagated - this is false. President Obama instead fights for tolerance and equality, not saying that homosexuality is better than heterosexuality. Supporting gay marriage is supporting equality, supporting only gay marriage would be an example of 'pro-homosexual' behavior. You failed to answer why you always write President Obama's full name (inc. Hussein), I'm still interested to know. Prove my Islamaphobia accusation wrong, explain and enlighten me.
ReplyDelete4) Lastly, I agree that flat earthism and astrology is quackery. To call Darwinism quackery is disingenuous. Quackery is defined as (by the Merriam and Webster Dictionary) as: medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings. I wont try and claim a semanticist or definitional victory and will ignore the medical part, but lets look at the rest. "in ignorance of scientific findings"- the consensus by virtually all scientific bodies support evolution, there is a mass of evidence: Anatomical homologies, DNA and RNA code,endogenous retroviral insertions, pseudogenes, embryology, chromosome fusion, convergence, phylogenetics, geographical distribution. These are just some of the many groups of evidence which support evolution - it's a mass of overwhelming evidence. In the scientific community, there is no real controversy over whether evolution is true - 97.3% of biologist science department heads accept it fact, for example. Surely if Darwinism honestly was pseudoscience and quackery, there would not be these high number of people who support it. On the other hand, note that only 700 of 480,000 (0.14%)of life and earth scientists support literal biblical creationism. Granted there are many concerns within evolution which are unsolved and are really exciting areas of scientific research, and it's a shame you never talk about these on your blogs. I can provide examples if you wish.
I enjoy engaging in proper rational debate and discourse, but as I am sure you'll understand, you need two to argue! So I've answered your points as thoroughly as I can, so I'd be very grateful if you could answer these two questions:
1) Do you really think that President Obama's motivation for commissioning this BRAIN project was a slight at God, or for medical/neurological research?
2) Why do you always write President Obama's middle name Hussein, but omit it for everyone else.
Thank you very much in advance.
Yours faithfully,
Mr A Catherall
P.S. Sources for the statistics -
97.3% ... - http://ask.metafilter.com/52973/What-percentage-of-biologist-accept-evolution
0.14%... - "Keeping God Out of the Classroom", Newsweek, June 29, 1987, pp. 23.
Andrew,
DeleteYou claim that supporting gay marriage is supporting equality. Yet, you failed to show that so called gay marriages are equal in value.
For example, please show that so called gay marriages do not have more promiscuity and do not contribute to more disease in society. Please show that homosexual "couples" do not have significantly more domestic violence and that the violence does not tend to be much more horrific. Please see: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 and http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/pr_wegner_shawano_acpeds_ss_parenting_detrimental_013012.pdf
and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838474?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
The Bible declares that homosexuality is a sin and there is plenty of evidence supporting the authority and accuracy of Scripture. See:http://creation.com/homosexual-behaviour-v-the-bible and http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html
You claim there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. I think you are a poser and don't believe this. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )
via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.
If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod
If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua
There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.
Dear Sir/Madam,
ReplyDeleteI'll do anything if you actually answer the two simple questions I've posed to you. I thought that you were engaging in a rational debate with me, so I went through and responded to each one of your points. I conceded some, and argued with others. At the end I said that I'd appreciate it if you could actually answer two simple questions - so for the third time sir/madam, please do this. I will then happily accept any challenge etc., but I need to be sure that you will 'play fair' as it were, I am more than happy and always do answer questions but I don't like people who dodge them or weasel their way out, and I'm sure you would find this equally annoying. So yes, I accept the offer but I need to know you are serious about the notion of debating by you answering the two questions I put to you in my previous post. I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Mr A Catherall
Andrew,
DeleteBarack Hussein Obama in plenty of cases shakes his fist at God (abortion and homosexuality issue; his hostility to biblical Christianity and religious freedom, see http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=106938) . I could cite more but I don't want this to turn into a lengthy political discussion.
As far as whether Obama knows his Bible enough to know about the Tower of Babel account, I am betting yes. So to think he could drop the language barrier with his $100 million dollar investment is not only impractical and a pipe dream (and you haven't shown me it is not) it would reflect some hubris on his part too . Hence shaking his fist at God. Whether or not he knows about the Tower of Babel account, there was some tongue in cheek humor being employed and I think you are aware of that. I think you are being a sore loser because you lost so badly on the stimulus and return on investment issue.
Next, the name Hussein has nothing to do with Islam. It is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hassan which means "good", "handsome" or "beautiful". This is Islamophbia fishing expedition you are trying to pin on me is based purely on ignorance and reflects badly on you. I also think it is small-minded and petty of you. Why trifle with small matters such as this especially when you lack sufficient evidence to make such an accusation.
Lastly, until you show your sincerity and follow through with the debate, I am going to assume you are merely one of the many evolutionist posers on the internet. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/evolutionist-posers-naive-evolutionists.html
Dear Sir/Madam,
ReplyDeleteThank you for kind of answering my questions - you admitted that you did embellish your criticism of President Obama for comic effect, something you previously did not concede. With regards to the whole stimulus thing, I think again you misunderstand me - I agree that economic stimulus/bailouts often don't work, in respect of the kind of international, pan-industry ones you rightly criticize. The UK where I live is part of the EU, and I'm sure you're aware that we are currently experiencing massive problems with countries in debt etc. caused by these bailouts. However, I still think (and the graphene example stands unrefuted) that funding scientific research publicly is better, because rather than the data being kept by one company, all companies can access it, creating commercial competition and avoiding monopolies (the data is in the public domain). Also, I think companies would research on what could make a profit, whilst science would research regardless of the economic benefits. I think we will agree to disagree as you said earlier, we both have different views on what research should achieve. You want an economic return, I want more knowledge which will benefit humanity and which may (may as we don't know what it is yet) provide economic stimulus, but that is secondary.
The origin of Hussein is interesting, I didn't know that. You didn't answer why you only put it in President Obama's name, but you're right, it's petty.
So yes, I'd love the chance to debate. I think everyone would agree that the most would be gained by both sides if the debate is held fairly. Who exactly would I be debating against, and would it be oral/written? Who will the neutral moderator be? Which time would it be held at? Which neutral location will it be held in if using microphones, as it would be unfair if one participant could control the microphones and the other couldn't. Will the neutral moderator ask questions and give each candidate time to respond, or will there be a set list of questions agreed ed on by candidates before, maybe each choosing half? I think this could be a really great debate, as you are obviously very passionate in your beliefs, and I'd find it really stimulating to debate against someone like that. I'm not a 'staunch' evolutionist, I simply believe in it because I think it has overwhelming evidence to support it. So yes, I think a debate would be very interesting, I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Mr A Catherall
Andrew,
DeleteYou wrote: "Thank you for kind of answering my questions - you admitted that you did embellish your criticism of President Obama for comic effect, something you previously did not concede."
That is not what I said.
I clearly wrote:
"As far as whether Obama knows his Bible enough to know about the Tower of Babel account, I am betting yes. So to think he could drop the language barrier with his $100 million dollar investment is not only impractical and a pipe dream (and you haven't shown me it is not) it would reflect some hubris on his part too . Hence shaking his fist at God. Whether or not he knows about the Tower of Babel account, there was some tongue in cheek humor being employed and I think you are aware of that. I think you are being a sore loser because you lost so badly on the stimulus and return on investment issue."
So I clearly said Obama is probably aware of the Tower of Babel account. It is a very famous story. So I don't think I likely embellished anything.
Lastly, I did my part, now it is time to do the debate. You have the instructions to move forward on the debate in terms of contacting us. You will not be able to post comments here anymore until you do the debate.