Archive for the ‘Political Opinions’ Category


October 3, 2014

What is required for life to exist on our planet is extremely complex, intricately balanced and fine-tuned in relation to the size and position of the earth, the sun and other planets, size and position of our moon, our planet’s magnetosphere and various atmospheric layers, the abundance of water, various oceanic and weather patterns and even the temperature, size and properties of the earth’s inner core.  And, this is only a small fraction of the balanced complex reality necessary for our existence.

Because of this, some scientists still insist life may be extremely rare in the universe.  But it appears exo-planets may far outnumber the stars and today, many if not most scientists believe life is probably abundant in the cosmos.  Perhaps few of us stop to consider how truly different, diverse and complex life in the larger universal reality, may in fact be.

Most books and films featuring aliens assume beings more intelligent than ourselves would have superior technology and travel in advanced starships, which isn’t necessarily true.  They are often portrayed as creatures prone to violence and oppression like ourselves, which also isn’t necessarily true.

Human technology arises out of our specific needs for survival. While other forms of life on earth build webs, nests and some even use sticks as tools, what is called “technology” is essentially viewed as being unique to humans. If food was easily and readily available and there was no violence or daily struggle to survive, human technology might not have ever arisen on earth.

Where there is no farming or struggle to eat, there may be no concept of a wheel or plow.  Where there’s no hunting for food and no war, there may be no concept of a knife, spear, bow and arrow or other basic implements at the root of our technology.

Would forms of life more intelligent than ourselves necessarily have any concept of science and education? Would they wear clothing or need to build structures to protect themselves from the elements in a perhaps far less hostile environment?  We can’t even begin to imagine what life would be like without violence and a daily struggle for food, shelter and protection.

At least one scientist has proposed life might exist on giant gas planets, hovering in the atmosphere with no need of a solid surface.  We often assume far too much based on our own tiny window of experience.  The experience of intelligent beings on other worlds may be far different than our own.

We know life on earth is incredibly complex and diverse, even among microbial kingdoms. We can only wonder what it might be like to live on a world far less violent and prone to disease, starvation and death than our own.  Given the abundance and complexity of life on earth and the size and scope of the universe, we can only marvel and remain in awe of the infinite possibilities.

Perhaps a better question is, what might life elsewhere be like?

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

IS ATHEISM SCIENTIFIC? [ Plain English Edition ]

September 21, 2014

Historians say no one knows for certain who designed Stonehenge or exactly how it was constructed. However, scientists have long assumed someone created Stonehenge, rather than proposing it randomly appeared. This is the most likely conclusion based on the observable evidence. Historically, what science “believes” is what appears to be true, unless and until proven otherwise.

Descartes first principle of philosophy, science and reason states: “Accept nothing as true that is not self-evident”. And, the history of science tracing prior to ancient Greece on into the present, clearly represents a history of belief based on self-evidence. What humans call “science” when applied correctly, remains what is evidently true based on the known evidence.

Just as all known evidence indicates for every action there is a reaction, all known evidence indicates no action occurs by it’s own volition. All known evidence indicates a universe filled with energy, light, motion and “zillions” of complex parts within ever greater complexity of parts, containing intelligent finite beings of conscience and conscious awareness, requires Primary Cause and Creative Intelligence.

Supporting evidence is required to overturn previously held positions by the majority of scientists. Thus, the correct postulate of true science remains “Eternal Creator(s)” until proven otherwise.

Pretending “science” is somehow different than belief in God is an obvious lie. Just as scientists “believe” in black holes and invisible light based on mirrored evidence, much more so mirrored evidence of our Creator is overwhelmingly self-evident. Just as the burden of proof remained on Copernicus to overturn what otherwise appeared to be true, the burden of proof remains on atheists, as all known evidence indicates the opposite conclusion.

Basic to wisdom, education, reason and survival itself, is to try to understand and separate what is really true, from whatever fiction the cultures and religions we are born into claim is true. As Jesus implied, if we don’t know what is true, we have no hope of being free.

What we believe does not dictate what is true. Rather, what is true about how the universe and life came to be remains the same, regardless of what we believe or, fail to believe. And whether we label it “science”, “religion”, “philosophy”, “education” or something else, what is actually true remains the same.

Some claim to be “agnostic”, as if this insulates them from providing evidence. Those saying there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, are trying to sell the rest of us the greatest of all human superstitions, that the universe either did or could have magically randomly appeared. Such positions, however far-fetched, require supporting evidence, the same as any other claim.

A virus is several powers of ten larger in comparison to us, than we are compared to just the known universe. Pretending there is no God is like a virus inside of a microbe hiding under a microchip inside of an ivory computer tower, pretending the computer magically randomly appeared and self-assembled, only infinitely more preposterous.

Is atheism scientific? You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article


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


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


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