Odinists are generally very pro-science in our beliefs, since our beliefs do not conflict with science, and we think anyone can believe whatever he or she thinks most rational in regard to how life came about. We prefer freedom of thought to indoctrination.
It saddens me personally to see such a display as this debate being promoted, although it was so bad I could not even watch most of it, luckily. It must have been hard indeed to find someone who makes even Mr. Nye look reasonable by comparison, so all credit to whoever cast Ham. Our Jewish supremacist creationist Ham pushed the Jewish “we are all one race” agenda, and implied Darwin was racist for pointing out differences in the races, while the Jewish Nye, while agreeing with the one race agenda of course, since it is Jewish, pushed the typical Marxist world view that if we did not believe in evolution in the sense of there being no spiritual aspect, we would not have “progress” in America.
Some of the highlights were Ham saying that brain tumors in dinosaurs and thorns on ancient plants were bad things, so this showed that they dated to after the fall of man, and Nye saying that there being no Kangaroo fossils between the Middle East and Australia disproved the concept of life being created, which at least was amusing. In my particular point of view, the entire exercise was a waste of time and based on a false premise, the idea that evolution, whether correct or incorrect, can be equated to the idea of creation. They may be related, but they are not the same topic.
Atheist and Christian fundamentalists both do exactly the same thing when confronted with reason or facts that they cannot handle. They attack with ad hominem ravings or run. They do this because they do not wish to explore the real topic because neither of them actually wish to find out the truth. They are both trying to fit the evidence to a hypothesis or theory, or the bible, which the evidence does not support. In scientific terms, what one should do when one has a theory that does not fit the evidence is to formulate a new hypothesis, but the Atheists have also taken their theory as an article of faith, so they cannot do that any more than the Jewish book worshippers can.
The truth is that Darwin had no explanation for creation itself, only for change. The only scientific explanations for the creation of life that have been advanced are the Miller–Urey hypothesis and panspermia. The first of these was a thought-provoking experiment, but far too limited in its scope, and never enlarged upon. Ask any real scientist not how life evolved, but how it originated. The answer is that no one knows.. The Miller Urey theory is that amino acids combined over millions of years to eventually create life randomly with the help of lightning… the “primordial soup” theory… There was an experiment done in the 50’s which managed to create amino acids, but which could not create “life”, or even a single self-replicating molecule. Recent molecular science strongly suggests that a chemical reaction such as this, leading to the formation of amino acids alone (which is what the experiment demonstrated), would never be able to account for the creation of something as complex as a self-replicating molecule. I do think it is interesting that they actually acknowledged the great forces of Nature, but they did not go far enough for anyone to know if this was a valid direction or not. Possibly in the anti- spiritual atmosphere they were working in, one that would never have allowed for a consideration of a higher intelligence in Nature, they could not acknowledge the wider implications or delve into them freely.
Even at the time the primordial soup hypothesis was first advanced, the odds against it actually having happened mathematically and randomly with no other factors involved were so extreme, even over a vast period of time, that the idea of panspermia was advanced to explain the origins of life instead. Panspermia is the concept that our planet was “seeded” from other worlds by bacteria on meteors which survived travelling through space and hit earth. I enjoy this hypothesis myself, but it does not seem to occur to anyone that if one cannot account scientifically in any rational way for the supposedly random origin of a self-replicating molecule on Earth, it is also a stretch to account for it on any other worlds.
There are only slight variances from Darwinism allowed, and no matter how fanciful it becomes it is sacrosanct. In more recent years, we supposed to believe that very complex adaptations we observe happened in rapid order due to lightning fast mutations and that this is why we see no stepped changes in the fossil record and no missing links. The idea that we are descended from monkeys is pushed, for political rather than scientific reasons. Indeed our closest relative genetically is a chimpanzee, but there is no real evidence for anything further. We share 50 percent of DNA with a banana too. Related maybe, descended? No.
The idea of life being created by a Jewish god is so ridiculous that I am not even going to go into it. Honestly, I find our own Nordic creation epic by far the most interesting, because even though it may be allegorical in some respects, it is at least a sincere rendering and based upon real traditions, and in fact, it is more scientific in aspect than other creation stories. The Rígsþula, which gives a more rational account of human evolution than those currently in textbooks, is also fascinating.
There may come a time when we understand far more than we do now I hope, but if that is to happen, we really need to take these monkeys and monkey kissers out of the arena and replace them with human beings.
Please help us with our work!
Like or Share this Article:
Like or Share our Facebook Page: