10.13.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:48 am by Administrator
There’s a rather strange claim that is running around the world these days. It’s one that really doesn’t make sense to me, and I can think of only one real reason for someone using it. The claim is basically that science is separate from and does not include the supernatural (more often it is stated in the form of “religion is not science”, but the form I presented is more accurate to the intent). It’s just so very strange that a person could say such a thing. Let me explain.
Science is supposed to be our knowledge of reality, right? It is from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”. It is our understanding of what our world is and how our world works. So, quite simply, if there is a supernatural aspect to the world, then the supernatural should be a part of scientific study.
The above proposal is considered absurd by a sizable number of people. The basic reason behind this is that they do not believe in the supernatural, or they do not want to acknowledge its existence. This sentiment is also the root of the claim that religion is not science. Taking the statement literally, it means that there is no supernatural. Of course, not everyone who uses the claim “religion is not science” believes that there is no supernatural, since many who use it do not really understand its literal meaning. The more naïve lot tend to believe that science and religion just occupy different planes of existence. But is this valid?
Let’s go back to the reason behind the claim. It is a claim of commitment to materialism, the belief that there is nothing beyond the physical realm. One thing really needs to be made clear: This belief is a starting premise. It cannot be reached through empirical evidence, as proving this claim necessitates absolute knowledge that there is no supernatural anywhere, and that no supernatural force has every interacted with the physical realm. Even one instance in which the supernatural has interacted with the physical realm would completely invalidate the premise. However, it is upon this premise that today’s materialistic science bases all of its thinking, and this is a big part of why scientists have such a hard time accepting the supernatural fairly into their study. Doing so would put so many sacred calves in jeopardy, especially the concept of Darwinism. Contrary to what some would say, however, it would not jeopardize such things as the laws of gravity and thermodynamics, since these laws were accepted under a scientific frame of mind that there was a supernatural.
Yet has there been any instance of supernatural interaction that would invalidate the premise? Actually, there is such evidence, both direct and implied. The implied includes irreducible complexity of life and the exquisite design found in all areas of nature. The direct includes eyewitness accounts in which individuals as well as masses of people witnessed divine acts and divine presence. There are eyewitness accounts that survive to this day that tell us of the beginning of the world, of a flood from the hand of God that covered the whole world, of a visitation of God a Mount Sinai, of the incarnation of God in the form of man at Bethlehem, and of the raising of the dead in the first century AD. Nonetheless, there are those who refuse to accept this evidence. As it is written:
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers dies, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:3-7)
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. (Psalm 53:1)
Permalink
10.12.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 11:23 am by Administrator
I’ve seen in the news lately that the US Congress is now recognizing the Turkish killing of Armenians during WWI as being genocide. Of course, I have done no real research into the matter, and so really have no disagreement with the turn of events one way or another. But it’s interesting where the US is standing in relation to our condemnation of the Ottoman Empire’s actions.
The United States is a leader in a worldwide policy of oppression and mass murder. This campaign has killed more people than every single American war put together. Because of this policy, an average of 46 million people are killed worldwide, with over one million of those being in the US itself (as of 1996). This policy is marketed as part of the package of personal freedom and is called quite deceptively “the right to choose”. Everyone knows what I’m talking about, and by now I’ve already polarized my readers.
It’s obvious what side I’m on from the language I used above. In this entry, I’d like to present the reasons for my position. They are many.
First off, it is often asked, “Is the unborn fetus actually human?” This has a certain ring to it that’s similar to the question of whether or not Africans were human. This is extremely ironic, since those who identify themselves as “pro-choice” also tend to identify themselves with the civil rights movement. As for the actual question, even if there is no easy scientific way to decide, there is a common sense method of settling it. Say there is an old building that is being taken down via controlled demolition. The explosives team is all set and the countdown has already started. Then someone shouts out of nowhere that there is someone still in the building. Immediately, any sane person manning the procedure would cancel the countdown. If there’s any risk at all that the actions are going to kill a human being, no person in his right mind would just blast through anyway. Yet in the case of abortion the argument goes, “Well, we don’t really know sure, so we might as well do it anyway.”
There is also the argument that a fetus is really only an extension of the mother up until some point, and that the point where the child can live on his own, without her support, is the point where that person becomes a human individual. After using the same argument as my first, I must asked how this can be used as any sort of guideline, since scientists have for years been confident that some day we’ll be able to have “test tube” babies that are outside the biological womb from conception to “birth“. One must also take into consideration that a newborn child is unable to survive without parental care. The same goes for severe anemia patients and the frail elderly. If this argument were applied fairly, then involuntary euthanasia should enjoy the same acceptance as abortion.
The vast majority of abortions are carried out because having a child would be a “nuisance”, a “burden”, ect. Why is it then that so many people who are “pro-choice” are also pro-social security and pro-welfare? Why do they want government assistance? Is not someone who benefits from government aid leeching off of society and being a nuisance? Furthermore, if a child is a burden, then why is it all right to kill that child earlier and not later?
It is argued that abortion should be made available to rape victims. To me, this makes no sense. If a crime is committed where someone assaults, say, a street vendor, should the witness be put to death? In the case of abortion, it’s even more than that. Should one of the victims be put to death? Moreover, very very very few of total abortions are a result of this crime.
The very phrase “a woman’s right to choose” is so extremely arrogant and elitist. Why is the child not given a voice in the matter? It sounds very much like the old mentality that Africans were just property. It also ignores the fact that many of those children who are put to death are female. Did those women have the right to choose life?
There was a time when children were routinely sacrificed to various gods for various perceived reasons. In the Old Testament, there is mention of the detestable practice of burning children alive in sacrifice to Moloch. Today, we still have child sacrifices. It’s called abortion. It’s “necessary” in order to ensure women’s liberty. It is a tribute to the goddess of America, the Roman goddess Libertus, after whom the Statue of Liberty is modeled.
Why are so many people blind to the fact that abortion is a form of paganism and tyranny? Why are so many people blind to the fact that the woman’s true right to choose is the right to choose whether or not to go out with that guy? It’s because this is America. In America, liberty has a special meaning, a meaning that lies in the origin of the goddess Libertus. For those curious, check out the website aoreport.com. You’ll either be shocked or humored, but it’s up to you which one it’ll be.
This is only a small sample of the arguments that can be raised against abortion. For further reading see:
http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2706543/k.AE15/DA375.htm
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
http://creationwiki.org/Abortion
Also check out http://www.aoreport.com/mag/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=47
Permalink
08.11.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 10:36 am by Administrator
I’m still ticking. I’ve been a little busy with other projects, plus I seem to have a case of writer’s block. Of course, it’s not like very many people traffic this place….
Permalink
05.28.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 11:36 am by Administrator
I seem to only sporadically post anything around here, but when I do, I tend to have a long list of possible interests to from which I must choose to write about. First off, the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum is having its grand opening today. Protestors are quite numerous around the internet, and a group has even pitched camp at the gates of the museum in opposition to the structure. Funny how the evolutionists, who have a monopoly on public education, who have multimillion dollar museums all over the country and all over Europe, and who have pretty much complete control of Hollywood should feel so threatened by one single museum that presents an alternative view of the scientific evidence. You’d think that evolutionists, who profess to believe in scientific inquiry, would welcome other takes on the evidence. Apparently, a lot of people think that one dogmatically held theory having a monopoly over public presentation is good science. Anyway, today’s a good day for freedom of speech, but more importantly for the glory of the Creator. For info on the museum, head to:
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
While lurking around the internet this morning, I came across an article from The Telegraph entitled “Speaking in tongues.” In short, it’s about a number of Christian denominations that believe in the modern day gift from the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues. What really caused me to roll my eyes was their definition of “speaking in tongues.” Basically, they say it’s babbling in a language no one understands. Obviously, adherents to that definition have never read the verses dealing with the phenomenon.
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” (Acts 2:4-12)
Clearly, those speaking were not speaking gibberish. To the contrary, they could be understood quite well in everyone’s home language, and maybe even without an accent! I considered posting a comment on the site, but decided I’d just say a little something here. Checking back right now, I see that someone else has already pointed out the poor research. The article can be found here:
http://www.thetelegraph.com/onset?id=1993&template=article.html
Permalink
05.21.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 3:44 pm by Administrator
A theory is being proposed by evolutionists that is to explain the extinction of a number of animals (such as the mammoth) and human cultures during the ice age. Much like their popular theory regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs, a big rock from space is supposedly to blame. As evidence, they apparently have tiny diamond fragments as well as high levels of iridium that have been found around North America. The diamond fragments point to a carbon rich comet exploding over the continent, but this space rock left behind no crater either because of the thickness of the continental ice sheet or because the comet exploded in the atmosphere.
Did this actually happen? Who knows? The reason I’m bringing this up is because it brings to mind a certain hypothesis floating around concerning ancient high technology. Some believe that there is evidence that the ancient world experienced some sort of nuclear war. Besides interesting desert glass found around the world, a kind which was perfectly reproduced during the US’s atomic testing programs, there are such things as descriptions of a nuclear holocaust in ancient Sanskrit. Could this “comet” idea be further support for the concept of an ancient war after Babel? Instead of it being a comet, might it have been a nuclear warhead from the time of Peleg, in whose day the earth was divided? Perhaps in this way the technologically advanced societies of the past were brought to an end? I’ve got no idea, but it’s interesting to consider.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6676461.stm
http://s8int.com/atomic1.html
Permalink
05.20.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 12:09 pm by Administrator
Although organized Creationists use basic and popularly accepted operational science as their backbone of support, after the Bible of course, a rather intriguing aspect of Creationism involves the unique predictions it makes. One of them in particular, though not so advertised, is of great interest to me, and I believe should be of great interest to UFO archeologists. However, the starting point of this prediction is not Creationist models. It goes back over two thousand years, not to the modern proponents of special creation, but to the writings of the wisest man ever to have walked the earth. The prediction was made by one King Solomon, son of David and the third king of Israel. It was recorded in the first chapter of the book of Ecclesiastes and it stretches across three verses as part of the book’s introduction.
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, ‘Look! This is something new’? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11)
What exactly is the prediction being made here? After doing a Google search some time ago, I came across some page or other that was discussing how the phrase “there is nothing new under the sun” meant that whatever man designed, the principles of that design can already be found in nature. That’s something that Creationists have been saying for some time, that God’s designs found in nature will always be more efficient than anything humans can dish out. But I think that takes the verse out of context. At the very least, that phrase goes along with all the sentences from verse 9 through to 11.
“It was here already, long ago.”
“There is no remembrance of men of old.”
Do not the emphasized parts above seem to indicate that this is not simply referring to man being outdone by nature, but rather to man being outdone by men of the past?
The Bible indicates people before the Flood as well as a little while after had extended life spans, and that it was not uncommon for people to reach six hundred years of age. The record holder is the well known Methuselah, who lived an incredible 969 years. Unlike evolutionists, who believe that things evolve from less complex to more complex (despite any word games they might like to play), Creationists believe that the world is deteriorating. In fact, the farther back one goes in time, the more likely one will be able to find people capable of mental and physical feats of strength. We today are only a shadow of what once was. Our ancestors of several thousand years ago were not unintellectual brutes barely stepping out of the fog of the “caveman” life, although they sure were capable of great atrocities in the same way we today are capable of. Contrary to what fish to philosopher evolution would predict, we find such “anomalies” as the great Egyptians starting out with the grandest of pyramids and then deteriorating in architectural skill until the newest structures were able only to stand short for a little while before crumpling into jumbled mounds.
And this brings the topic to what Solomon may actually have meant. Every kind of technology that we have today was already invented and implemented before the time of Solomon. That’s right, we lost the space race before we even started for us. This is a ridiculous claim for sure, but only if one does not stop and consider what a mind such as Edison’s or Tesla’s or Einstein’s or da Vinci’s would have been able to achieve given several hundred years with which to work. Adam had a quick enough mind that he was able to name all the kinds of animals in less than a day, and he eventually reached the age of 930!
But wait. This is all fine and dandy as a religious or philosophical hypothesis, but the idea of advanced technology in the past doesn’t float when looking at the archaeological evidence. Or does it? Aside from the example of the pyramids given above, there is ample evidence from all over the world. The link on the blogroll to the right has a site called s8int.com, which is devoted to compiling stories of “out of place artifacts” (ooparts) that support such things as past technological sophistication. The list of evidences is actually quite astounding.
So everything that we have today is nothing new. This isn’t the whole picture, since Solomon didn’t say only that there is nothing new. He actually started off by saying that “What has been will be again.” What he did was to effectively mark the line of symmetry in the timeline of the world. Before the time of Solomon, mankind had already advanced as far as he was allowed. After the time of Solomon, it would all be repeated. What we have today was in the past, and what was in the past we will have sometime in the present.
I admit that I’m a sci-fi nut, and this may have theoretically skewed my reasoning in some way, but hey.
Permalink
02.05.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 1:55 pm by Administrator
There’s an old phrase that has surely gotten on many a nerve: “I know what you are, but what am I?” This is obviously a child’s thing, and anyone who’s grown up should automatically despise using this phrase. By the time a person has become an adult, the lesson should have been learned that an argument is never truly won by smearing the other side. Even if one is personally assaulted, at which point the possibility of using “I know what you are, but what am I” opens up, it is out of the question for an honorable person to return spite for spite. However, I believe there is a difference between using this phrase out of spite and using this phrase to provide a certain point against the original name calling.
Upon my lurking in several reaches of the Internet and the world of entertainment and literature, I have come across a number of snide remarks against Christians in general and Young Earth Creationists in particular. You see, many evolutionists, like other people, can be very childish in their arguments. Take for example this statement by an evolutionist on Wikipedia ridiculing Creationists:
“Creationisn [sic] is all POV [Point Of View] and nothing more, so is any other religious mumbo jumbo, nor indeed that world is a creation of a my Pet Cat, who happenned [sic] to think it all into existence, therefore we might be no more than the thoughts of my Cat. Oh Lord Cat grant me the ability to forgive the Creationist zealots who put POV all over wikipedia. Remove Creationists before they remove free thought”
This is on the talk page for the Neanderthal article, in which a paragraph on Creationist beliefs regarding the fossils could be found under the heading of Popular Culture. At the time of the remark, the section had long been removed and there was a lone editor making a case for it to be put back up.
What really makes me raise my eyebrows and shake my head in amusement sometimes is how so many insults against Creationists could simply have their proper nouns switched around to provide a perfect description evolutionists themselves. Let’s take a look at a different version of the above quote:
“Evolutionism is all POV and nothing more. It proposes that the world is a creation of random processes, which happened to chance everything into existence. Therefore, we might not be anything more than insignificant animals without purpose or reason for morality. Lord, grant me the ability to forgive the evolutionist zealots who put POV all over wikipedia. Remove evolutionists before they remove free thought.”
Evolutionists claim that science is on their side and that anyone who doesn’t believe in molecules-to-man evolution is blind as stupid. Creationists claim that science is on their side and that evolutionists are blind to what is right in front of them. Indeed, I have read someone’s writing where it was stated that the author saw no evidence of water crafted landforms on a global scale. Then I spend an hour and a half in my secular Geography class hearing the instructor talk about how nearly all of the earth has been shaped by weathering from water.
It’s crazy how evolutionists keep saying that Creationists are narrow, closed minded religious fanatics while at the same time brushing under the carpet and conveniently forgetting glaring evidences and inconsistencies which go against the concept that they are shoving down the throats of people who aren’t allowed to hear alternative theories. Of course, and evolutionist would scoff at this use of the word “theory,” because Creationism is “completely unsubstantiated.” Again, this is name calling. A Creationist would say that molecules-to-man evolution is completely unsubstantiated. Give evidence.
Creation is said to be purely religion, having no place in science. It promotes the suspension of natural laws in favor of miracles and hinders the advancement of man’s knowledge. The act of creation is unobservable and unobserved, so the argument goes. Yet it is evolution that is purely a false religion, having no place in science. It promotes the suspension of natural laws (such as the law of biogenesis and the second law of thermodynamics) in favor of miracles (such as abiogenesis, which has never been observed) and hinders the advancement of man’s knowledge of true history. Because the course of new kind creating evolution is said to require thousands and even millions of years to yield a noticeable change, it is by its very nature unobserved and unobservable.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
–Christ Jesus (Matthew 7:3-5)
Permalink
« Previous Page « Previous Page Next entries »
