Archive for the ‘Human Sexuality’ Category

IS THE TV SERIES “COSMOS” REMOTELY HONEST?

September 21, 2014

According to the television series “Cosmos”, life “evolved” from “random, unguided, blind, natural” processes. This grandiose superstition of spontaneously appearing life is just randomly pulled out of a black hole rabbit’s hat, without a single shred of supporting evidence provided.

Perhaps the reason no evidence is provided is because there is none. If we set aside how human science arbitrarily chooses to divide life up into various categories and instead, we view life as a larger part of the universal whole, a much different picture emerges.

Based on estimated “zillions” of exo-planets and, based on the fact necessary ingredients for life have been discovered far beyond earth, many scientists today believe life is abundant in the universe. More importantly, many believe life probably existed long prior to our sun and solar system.

It’s fair to assume what causes life came out of the big bang, is refined in stars and, is “seeded” abundantly throughout the greater Cosmos. Where eventually, life arises on untold zillions of worlds, most likely in many exotic forms unknown to us. The most likely conclusion is that life is embedded along with the rest of the universe, within a grand cosmic “mural” of ever-changing creation art, very far over the collective heads of humanity.

If one were to ask how far, consider that many scientists believe the universe has 10-11 or more dimensions, of which we can only detect three plus time. Consider we ourselves are a “bio-universe” to an estimated ten trillion microbes inhabiting our bodies. Suppose our planet shrank down to the size of a single atom but otherwise remained intact.

An atom is inconceivably smaller than a microbe, yet very large in comparison to various sub-atomic particles. Suppose our now inconceivably tiny planet was located within a much larger microbe “galaxy”, the microbe in turn inhabiting a very much larger human being “universe”.

Suppose astronomers on this infinitesimally tiny planet, using the latest technology to penetrate far beyond their atom-sized world, while attempting to grasp the true nature of the inconceivably larger human being “universe” the microbe is inhabiting, proposed a “multiverse” theory of innumerable other human-sized universes. Now we have just a tiny fraction sense of the difficulty of trying to understand, from our incomprehensibly limited earth-based view, when, where or how life initially arose.

Consider the arrogance of people on this atom-sized planet pretending to know that life within the scope of their detection, somehow magically “evolved”; that nobody created their atom-sized world, the microbe it inhabits, the larger human being or other “multiverse” human beings. And all the while, denying that the larger buildings we humans inhabit are designed and created.

Suppose we add to this unfathomably dark and complex puzzle, several dimensions these scientists cannot detect, dimensions which human-sized scientists on our actual-sized earth, likewise can’t detect. Is it possible for science to either know or have any way of knowing, that life evolved from “random, blind, unguided, natural” processes?

Is the television series “Cosmos” remotely honest? You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

DO SPECIES EVOLVE FROM OTHER SPECIES?

September 21, 2014

One of the most blindly accepted and rarely thought through very carefully claims of modern science is, that species “evolve” from other species. This concept is indoctrinated into the impressionable minds of modern students from elementary school forward. But, is this in fact really true?

What appears to be actually true, based on the modern evidence, is that all of life is constantly adapting and changing in reaction to an ever-changing universal environment. This is more fairly and accurately described as “life in transition” rather than evolution.

While all of life continues to adapt and change, human beings have invented a system that artificially divides life up into categories like “species”, “genus”, “family” and so on. Such artificial divisions obviously have no bearing on how life either happens to exist or functions in true universal reality.

It is neither logical, rational or reasonable to claim that a “species”, an arbitrary artificial division of human science, gives rise to another artificial division. Such a claim is misleading, as what we call birds and snakes and all of life adapted and changed prior to the existence of any concept of species. Life long has and continues to function as it does, regardless of how human beings choose to classify and divide life up.

If someone creates an apple pie and then, someone else slices the pie into twelve pieces, it isn’t true that one of the pieces gave rise to one of the other pieces. Rather, someone created the whole pie and then, someone else arbitrarily divided it into pieces. Individual pieces of the pie have no relevance to how the pie either came to be or functions.

Even if individual pieces of the pie were observed to be constantly adapting and changing, such changes would be due to the nature of how the entire pie was created, rather than being caused by specific individual pieces. If the pie was instead divided into six or four pieces or, if the pie was left uncut, it would still have come into existence in the same way and, it would still function in the same way.

This is also true of the whole pie of life. Whether we call all birds simply a “bird” or divide birds up into many species, this doesn’t change how birds either came to be or function within true universal reality. Human interpretations, invented names and artificial divisions of life do not and cannot rationally dictate how life either came to be or functions.

Based on the modern evidence, it is fair to conclude that all of life is created to adapt and change within constantly changing universal environments, so that life itself can survive. This is what the known evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates when human prejudice is stripped away.

Do species really evolve from other species? Or, is modern science just pulling our chain, denying the overwhelming evidence of Who is behind the DNA chain of life and larger universal reality? You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

IS RICHARD DAWKINS REALLY A SCIENTIST?

September 21, 2014

Atheists often claim “atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods.” This statement is a lie unto itself, containing several claims: 1) Atheism makes no claims; 2) It’s doubtful there is a God; 3) It’s doubtful the universe is created; 4) Atheism is the default position; 5) The Encyclopedia Britannica definition of atheism is wrong.

Rather than providing evidence for his baseless positions as required by the rules of science and evidence, Richard Dawkins instead attempts to ridicule and marginalize Francis Collins and other scientists who believe in God. He compares their scientific positions to belief in the spaghetti monster, while branding everyone who believes in God as delusional.

This is a gross contradiction of logic, science and reason and the very worst example of trying to compare apples with oranges imaginable. The obvious reason being, if we eliminate the spaghetti monster, we aren’t left having to explain our existence along with the rest of the universe.

The true default position of science is that there is a physical reality called “universe”. The default question of science then becomes, how and why is there a universe? Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this, stating that the “God question” is “central to all of science” and cannot be ignored.

Mr. Dawkins then contradicts himself, claiming the “onus” belongs on those who say there is a God. The “onus” remains on every human being to explain how and why there is a physical reality called universe. Atheists and agnostics don’t get a pass on the “God question” any more than the rest of us.

And, the history of science clearly demonstrates that the onus belongs on anyone contradicting previously held positions of the majority of scientists. To say atheists aren’t required to provide supporting evidence for their baseless superstitions, is to say Copernicus could have just stood up in a roomful of his peers, claimed the earth goes around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any supporting evidence.

This is exactly the position many modern atheists take, a clear violation of the rules of science and evidence and established history of science. Another well-known Richard Dawkins position is that the universe “represents nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”, exactly as one would expect if there is no God.

This statement openly contradicts the known evidence of Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Tubman, Keller, Parks, King, Chavez and literally billions of people who demonstrate the opposite of “blind, pitiless, indifference”. Obviously if people, who are part of the universe, have concepts of both good and evil, the universe clearly does not represent nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

What is called “science” rarely represents 100% proven fact. Rather, science when applied accurately, is the best conclusion based on the known evidence. And, science requires evidence to overturn previously held scientific positions.

Is Richard Dawkins really a scientist? Would the Greeks allow someone making such claims into the Academy or ban him for life? You Decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

WHERE IS THE GREAT AMERICAN DREAM?

May 26, 2014

Today, there is a lot of talk about the wonders of science and technology, with little mention of any downside. The same science used to create medicine and jumbo jets has also resulted in nuclear and bio weapons and, has left our planet polluted possibly beyond repair. A science that produced the world wide web and remote controlled devices, has created an alternate reality where people interact face-to-face, less and less.

Modern technology is making us more introverted, self-engaged and lost within our own “virtual” existence. This can be dangerous on many levels, creating a social environment with less and less love and feeling for each other. It seems like American society is becoming less and less friendly; a society where everybody talks and nobody listens.

I was raised in working-class neighborhoods in the Los Angeles area, where the majority of families were supported by a single wage-earner’s income. Yet I never once heard of a child without access to health, dental and optical care. Out of 3800 mostly working class students in my high school, I never heard of a single one who was either hungry or homeless.

The term “homeless” was essentially off the public radar in Southern California until after I graduated from high school in 1968. I don’t recall this word being mentioned in any media or in any conversation during my entire childhood. “Poverty” referred to people living on Indian reservations, in Appalachia, Central and South America and especially Africa. There was virtually no conception of poverty within our own blue-collar environment.

As children, we interacted with a large group of other kids outside for hours nearly every day. We often played after dark and in local parks without parental supervision or fear of abduction. We learned to interact with each other on a face-to-face peer basis and experienced a healthy childhood reality.

Kids today often spend a lot of time alone or with one or two close friends, interacting with computers, movies, television, computer games, texting and talking on cellphones. Rather than interacting in real life situations, our children are growing up in a virtual world of digital unreality.

Many studies indicate obesity, suicide, attention deficit disorder and other serious problems are on the rise. Every year brings more media reports of growing school and public space violence. Our nation is artificially divided by a profit-driven media into “red” and “blue” sides, even though the vast majority of us share common complaints about corrupt leaders and concerns of our children’s future.

Today, many Americans working two or more jobs don’t earn nearly enough to provide what working-class citizens once took for granted. Meanwhile, American cities are “dealing” with growing poverty by arresting and criminalizing the poor. Apparently, we incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any other nation on earth.

Albert Einstein reportedly said: “It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity.” “Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?” Where is the great American dream?

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

CAN CHARLES DARWIN BE TRUSTED?

April 3, 2014

Historical people, like the rest of us, sometimes contradict themselves and often change their minds over time.  It is generally fair to conclude what scientists say in their older age represents their true lifetime professional opinion, rather than what they might have said when they were younger.

Human language definition often changes over historical time and words sometimes develop multiple meanings.  To be fair and accurate, one must consider how words were defined when they were spoken, rather than how those same words might be defined today.  Careful historians apply a discipline called “philology” to help understand human language in historical context.

For example, broad-brushing the American founders as “deists”, a consistent bad habit of modern educators, is a historical lie.  The majority ascribed to some form of Christianity and, the very few who claimed to be deists apparently believed God hears prayers and interacts with human affairs.  There is no evidence any American founder was a deist as the term is normally defined today.

Charles Darwin, in the opening sentences of his final revision of “On The Origin of Species”, is humble enough to credit our Creator for being behind whatever universal processes and reality there may be. This edition was published about five years prior to Darwin’s death and thus, it represents a lifetime conclusion.

Some ‘scholars’ today, pretending they can somehow know Darwin’s intentions, claim that he only mentioned God to make his wife and family happy and to otherwise appease the religious leaders of his day.  Because Darwin throughout his lifetime consistently openly debated with religious leaders and others concerning his ideas, such a claim has no historical merit.  One might fairly ask, if we can’t trust Darwin regarding this most fundamental of human beliefs, how can we trust anything else he said?

Perhaps Darwin made no mention of our Creator in his first edition because the overwhelming evidence for creation was agreed to by the vast majority of scholars of his time.  Maybe only after the publishing of his theories had caused considerable controversy, did Darwin then find it necessary to place our Creator where he, like Einstein and Jefferson apparently believed God belongs, far above all human science, reason and understanding.

In a letter published two years before his death, Darwin strongly denies being an atheist, saying his mind was “mainly agnostic but not entirely”.  Because agnostic at that time sometimes referred to distrust in religion and human claims about God, rather than questioning God’s existence, Darwin could attest to our Creator and still remain agnostic but not entirely without contradiction.

Is it fair to pretend one of human history’s greatest scientists can’t be trusted to be honest regarding what he fundamentally believed?  Is it fair to just arbitrarily ignore various words ascribed to Jefferson, Einstein and Darwin because modern liars don’t like what they actually said? Is it fair to speak for historical people, rather than allowing their own words to speak for them?

Can Charles Darwin be trusted?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Video for this article