Category Archives: Science

Humans and Monkees

This actually could be a major step towards breaking the “species”   distinctions which some PC people hate. Discrimination against animals is a real thing for some of them and they have an ism called “speciesism”–the assigning of different morals and rights, etc., based on the species and different from humans!
 
Apes especially, since they resemble humans in some ways, are frequently looked at as having similar rights as humans!
 
I don’t think apes and monkees should be needlessly harmed and treated cruelly and they definitely are a neat species—but they are not on the same par with humans! We have to make that difference or….!
 
A few quotes from ethicists of the past should make us pause concerning where this kind of thing can lead.
 
1.  The fact that animals are nonhuman makes no difference. In fact, an intelligent adult ape has more conscious interests than a newborn human infant. Therefore, faced with the choice of rescuing from a fire either a severely retarded infant, who is unlikely to develop many preferences in the future, and an ape, we should rescue the ape. To think otherwise is simple bigotry, an example of speciesism. We should no more be speciesists than racists or sexists.     Peter Singer
 
2. In reference to the Baby Fae case, in which a baboon heart was transplanted into Baby Fae, David Larson said, “If a primate’s capability was higher that that of a child-I think it would be appropriate to support the opposite of Baby Fae, a transplant from a child to save the life of a healthy baboon or chimpanzee.”
 
These quotes are a few years old and reflect the beginning of a philosophy which may begin to flower even more now given the right circumstances!
 
And who can predict when those circumstances arise?
 
This “selfie” case does seem comical, but then again—we are living in a “brave strange world”—you never know when one thing ends up leading to another, and then ends up leading to a situation which will make our heads spin due!

Marshall Plan and Paris Accord

Gergen, the CNNiot, makes a comparison with the Marshall Plan, the international agreement made after WWII to help restore Europe from the devastation of that war.
 
And it was physically destructive on a massive scale, cities literally laid waste, infrastructure decimated everywhere, economies destroyed ,it definitely was good that this Plan was initiated. And it was very successful as well.
 
That was a great action and deserves to be acclaimed as such!
 
But Gergen, in his apoplectic reaction, makes a comparison ridiculous in scope and magnitude. Somehow the international agreement which the Paris Accord represented, was on par with the Marshall Plan, the scope similar in what it wanted to achieve.
 
Except for the obvious difference of what was being fixed! Nothing was destroyed, nothing was on the verge of collapsing. there were no ruins to rebuild, nothing like what Europe experienced. So I find the comparison a bit childish and simply the result of “whining”.
 
The issue is carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and its supposedly catastrophic impact it will have on climate through the greenhouse effect. The problem remains whether the climate changes we are experiencing are just regular fluctuations or whether raised carbon dioxide levels has sped up the warming. No one really knows, even though a “consensus” can claim what it wants. There are just too many variables no matter what a particular climate model may claim!
 
So the Marshall Plan, which addressed an actual catastrophic state of affairs, seen with the naked eye and experienced by major populations, is compared with a theoretical, apocalyptic scenario, with no visible present effects, with no real conclusive proof, but has a lot of probability, conjecture, extrapolation, politics, fear and mongering! Hmmm!
 
Actually, more carbon dioxide may help the growth of plants which then could help feed the hungry, etc—a good thing! Wouldn’t that be “a kick in the head” to these global warmists,  as Dean Martin would sing!
 
Sorry Gergen—no comparison! Try something different! 

Baltic Sea Anomaly and God

“Out There?”
 
I came across a story about something called the “Baltic Sea Anomaly”, a “formation” discovered at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. What makes this a bit more interesting is the resemblance the formation has with something possibly extraterrestrial. One can, with a little imagination, make out the outlines of the ship in Star Wars called the Millennium Falcon. I am not a Star Wars guru, and although I love sci-fi, I never took to Star Wars. I guess we all have our foibles! 
 
For me, and this will inevitably invite the charge of “arrogance”, although arrogant towards what is somewhat vacuous, but, I don’t believe there is “life out there”. I believe that this universe was made for Man exclusively and we are it as far as intelligent life is concerned. Following the Biblical account in Genesis, that is a valid inference. And so, as Genesis states, the universe we see displayed was for “signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years”. In other places in the Bible, the “Heavens and Earth declare the Glory of God”.
 
However, I do think space exploration should continue, we should go back to the Moon, and we should still continue to understand the cosmos. As well, I don’t think Government money should be spent on searching for “life out there”. And—–if it should happen that there is alien life—then I have to go back to the drawing board!
 
Debate-wise, this idea of no “life out there” is a negative and hence an impossible to prove statement, but the existent of life out there can be “proven” by just providing one example! So for those who don’t accept “life out there”, arrogance is not the adjective which applies to that belief—why should it be? It is sort of the default position, after all, where is all the intelligent life?
 
That is a valid question. Many believers of alien lifeforms believe in evolution and with the many billions of years of time available, and with the many stars with potential solar systems, and with many of those solar systems having planets, and with at least some of those planets having a status commensurate with the possibility of life emerging, there should examples of life everywhere! It isn’t! Excitement abounded recently about the discovery of 7 earth-sized planets but that guarantees nothing, from trying to describe how life emerged here!
 
One of the major hurdles scientists are still dealing with on this planet concerns our emergence of life! You would think with the rise of supercomputers and the many breakthroughs we have made scientifically, that we have the tools available to finally crack the “beginning of life” mystery. It shouldn’t be that hard, things are suppose to follow a simple-to-complex scenario, and there are only so many processes available that were in operation some few billion years ago when life was supposed to have emerged. But it is impossible to come up with a scenario that works! Why? It shouldn’t resist the technological capability of a species who put a man on the Moon and returned him safely! So then how did life start on this planet?!
 
And….we we are supposed to believe that this same scenario has been played out many times throughout the universe! Mathematicians already challenged the evolutionists decades ago about the basically 0% mathematical improbability of life emerging here only through random and chance processes!
 
For me, that mystery can never be solved because it never happened that way to begin with—it is a story that can’t be written! Man was created special, by God, and he was created all at once. If that is the case that lends credibility to the idea, from Biblical inference, that we are all there is! So maybe this search for extraterrestrial life, which has been going on for awhile will be evidence against evolution in the end!
 
Of course—if that Baltic Anomaly is really a ship and it took off in flight one day for the world to see—that would definitely get my attention!!
 
This whole Baltic Sea Anomaly example is part of a phenomenon in which we “see” what we want to see. That happens to all of us! One of the things noticed by others, as these kinds of “alien similarities” have occurred before, is the way “structures” happen to appear like artistic representations of some alien structure already created for other purposes, such as books, movies, etc. For example, when Star Wars was produced, did the producers get help for their ship designs from alien sources? Where did the designs then come from? Some kind of 6th sense with what is “out there”? It seems there is a tendency to see things the way we want sometimes and this is another example of that. It does make one wonder how these “alien” anomalies happen to look like t hings we have created!This one can easily be verified though one way or the other, and maybe will in the future.
 
Verification though, especially with extraterrestrial scenarios, still offers no guarantee that a mystery has been solved or not! The “Face on Mars” photo from the Martian surface, taken by Viking I in 1976 did seem like an actual structure shaped into a human face! A whole mythology of a dead civilization was built around that with more structures of that civilization supposedly existing in the area. Complex geometrical and mathematical measurements were also “produced” which supposedly indicated relationships not believable as having occurred by chance alone. And then the verification came in 2001, which to any reasonable person (I think anyway), should have settled the issue—it didn’t—there are still those who believe in this Face and unless we believe in a grand cover-up, the Face is actually just a geology formation, clear from newer photos taken of the Martian surface!
 
Many more examples can be produced dealing with a diverse array of examples around the world—many websites are devoted to the working out of these theories and their implications. It can make one wonder if this whole search for extraterrestrials and the “believability” many want to have about it, isn’t indicative of a deeper desire to replace something which seems to have been lost in the past couple hundred years. And that is God! We need something to believe in that is “out there” or beyond us. If it can’t happen with a God who is outside the universe, having been somewhat displaced through science, then the next best thing is something which is outside the Solar System—something to ponder given the near-religious devotion from those who believe in  it.
 
As for me, I actually enjoy the imagination associated with these ventures and though I don’t agree with them, I do admire their tenacity. I love sci-fi fiction and following these developments are like a sci-fi story to me, a real-life fiction. But I really don’t make fun (maybe just a little!) or condemn what they are doing, for in their searches for extraterrestrial evidence, actual useful information can be uncovered in spite of not establishing an “alien” connection! When one goes out and analyzes real things, then that can be important in its own right.
 
However at the end of the day, their ultimate goal, whether Face on Mars advocates or scientists searching for possibly inhabitable planets with prospects for life—all will end in disappointment—but if that Baltic Sea Anomaly did emerge and fly away, well……!
 
The pictures are the Baltic Anomaly, artist rendition of the anomaly, and the Millennium Falcon. The faces of Mars follow with the original 1976 photo followed by a more modern and closeup picture from a later Mars Mission.

Materialist Woldview and the Resurrection

Materialist Worldview and the Resurrection

I came across a very interesting theory in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy. The article was dealing with the concept of justice/injustice in a Materialistic worldview.

Some preliminary thoughts. One of the philosophical problems which has emerged since the Enlightenment and its scientific worldview was the process of slowly making religion, particularly Christianity as an outdated kind of thinking, was the problem of values. In other words, what is the origin of values, of any values? Most of us don’t worry about this too much because the fruit of Western thinking, especially the Christian values, still abounds.

But as science makes more of an inroads into people’s trust, as in thinking science can really solve most of our problems, even those of a spiritual nature, what we call good and bad and why we make those distinctions will become very important. A total rejection of religious thinking and a total reliance on science will inevitably make every decision a matter of politics!

That will seem to be the logical when we examine the worldview of science which, with the exception of a minority, is exclusively evolutionist! Why that matters is that pure evolution has nothing to say about values and ethics. Evolution is brutal, impersonal, blind, purposeless, and valueless! If we took a cross section of every ethical maxim and value-laden rule and asked how did that emerge—then the values question becomes obvious! Any kind of thinking which we have arrived at has to be sourced in the very cosmic material which is influenced by evolutionary processes, namely the atoms and molecules of our brain. So the movement of electrons and the chemical processes taking place in the brain is undergoing continual evolutionary change even as I write. It may be slow, but what is viewed today as a “value” may not be down the road—so what is “right”?

With that state of affairs, one could then ask about actions which have made the news in the past few years, for example, what makes Isis’ acts of beheading innocents wrong, or what makes those terrorists who go through theaters and killing as many as they can, wrong? What do we appeal to? Our evolved thinking? Isis’ thinking could also be claimed as “evolved”—evolution makes no distinctions and so then how can we? We really can’t, and that is where ultimately politics will have to be the arbiter and the world may not like where this will eventually head since it will be a matter of who has the power! Hence our future if we are not careful!

Back to the article. One of the questions confronted is the idea of justice and injustice. The article makes one feel the tensions brought about by the science/evolution worldview and its possible atheistic “resignation”! The “absurdity of a world without God” is even mentioned. To avoid the consequences of those tensions, which any reasonable person should recognize as a bad state of affairs, an effort was made to justify “bodily resurrection” as a way of making life seem more attractive. Now, resurrection should not be possible according to present day science—as the article states about science’s thoughts on the matter: “We die, and we remain dead.” But due to some theories about the mathematics of “infinite” quantities, the author sees an opening for the idea of bodily resurrection. These mathematical theories generally prohibit the possibility of science/mathematics ever completely encompassing all “logical possibilities” and with some tricky reasoning an argument is made that bodily resurrection is a “logical possibility” and so not absolutely prohibited by science after all.

The problem that is not answered is whether it really really can happen and following that, what is the “how” of resurrection. And, this whole discussion is not predicated on a God who will do this later, this is all assumed without a “God” behind the scenes. So the idea comes across as just some kind of therapeutic notion, or a kind of “pretending”, which if bought into, makes life easier to face. Sure, in a world in which we are finite, then how are we to really know that bodily resurrection just can’t occur on its own? But the way this is presented is a leap!

In this article, the ultimate injustice is death! If we have a “chance” of being resurrected then that takes away the injustice in a way! Knowing that bodily resurrection is possible serves to counter the injustice in the world and so allows one to not give in to a nihilistic life! But at the end of the day, I really don’t think many people will buy this!!! Some years age I remember a quote by an evolutionist in which, paraphrasing, he said that immortality is a part of life! After all, when we die and our bodies get broken down into its respective atoms, they will be absorbed into other structures of the universe—hence we live on!! Sorry, that just doesn’t capture immortality for me. The same for just the “idea” of bodily resurrection—thinking something may happen due to some mathematical possibility just doesn’t give much comfort—human nature is a bit more complex than to fall for that kind of thing.

It did interest me that the concept of bodily resurrection was considered in this way! Was he influenced by Christianity? I don’t know but, for the writer, there seems to be a “sense” that something beyond this material world that we experience, is needed to offer “hope”.

He is on the right track because in Christianity, resurrection is also the ultimate source of hope! But the bodily resurrections we are looking forward to are not predicated on some “chance” possibility, but instead is based on the actual Resurrection of Jesus Christ, who will do the same for His followers. And for the record, His resurrection has been challenged but never refuted—so this is an actual real hope which has endured, one that a person can stake this life upon, and have for 2000 years! To the Christian, we don’t look at resurrection as a “panacea” idea but a real event which will occur. The confidence one can have in the resurrection after receiving Christ is hard to put into words but to those who believe, it is not hard to understand!

So I end with the Apostle Paul:

“If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable…For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

I’ll stick to that!

God Shows Up Everywhere

God Shows Up Everywhere
 
This is an interesting thing and should be placed squarely in the camp of atheists for their comments. And while proofs of God of this kind, though not as  mathematical as this one, have been presented down through the centuries, the computer verification of Godel’s proof is interesting. I am sure many will discount this for one reason or another but Godel did illustrate one thing in his life—the concept of “God” is not incompatible with genius!
 
Godel should know since one of his main theorems of math dealt with the foundations of mathematical structure. In his work he showed that many things are “true” in a mathematical sense but can never be proven! All arithmetic systems will inevitably have things that have to “assumed-to-be-true” or be taken “by faith” (my words). Or in other words, to quote Godel:
 
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”
 
This was extremely devastating to mathematicians back then and one title of a book about the history of mathematics had a chapter entitled “Paradise Lost” due to the implications of Godel’s theorem. For the everyday person one of the things this meant is that mathematics can never reach a place in which the need of God can be eliminated. No matter how developed math and science gets, there will always have to be something outside all that knowledge which one has to assume.
 
The implication against atheism and for religious views of God are staggering. This is why scientists, those who believe in the Big Bang and evolution, even in their system (though many do not accept anyway) as they create such a complex theory regarding how we got here, reach a point back in time which is completely unknowable and inaccessible. That moment is when it all began, that initial “umph” when the Big Bang started. What was there at that moment? What was going on right before that “Big Bang” moment? How did it even begin?  It is too much to review all the crazy theories about this, but they are views totally outside the arena of scientific experiments or mathematics—it is a giant unknown realm.
 
Godel’s circle, when drawn around this scientific view, implies something outside of that circle is needed to explain it, that something is not more science or math, it is God the Creator! Many evolutionary scientists refuse to even admit to that possibility and will still try to construct crazy views to avoid the need of a “Creator”!
 
What is also interesting is that Godel’s implications only apply to a concept of “God”, not anything personal about God. And that backs up Romans 1:19-20—:
 
“19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:…”
 
Once again, mankind tries to eliminate God from necessity, which is what many of these mathematicians tried to do with their mathematical systems. That system which needed nothing from outside it, failed miserably. And now they backed themselves into a corner where knowledge fails and there is only one recourse for a final explanation—there is a Creator. Romans 1:19-20 says we can reach that place of understanding about God, we just can’t “know” Him without Christ.
 
We have heard during the time of Rome that “all roads lead to Rome”—well, all knowledge and understanding, when pushed to its limits, can’t help but bump into “his eternal power and Godhead”!
 
The question is what do we do with that knowledge!

3 Minutes

3 Minutes
 
I started reading a 1976 Sci-fi novel called “Triton” and came across an interesting scenario. In the world of this novel, every person had an average of 10 hours of their lives videotaped by the government, along with transcripts of those sessions. Machines were eventually created allowing any citizen to have access to a random 3 minutes of those government videotaped histories. These machines were called “ego-booster booths”.
 
Of course, we are 40 years removed from this tale but we do see semblances of that technological scenario today! Not all of it, yet, but sci-fi has always imagined the future in its stories and the seeds of those stories are drawn from the theorizing going on around them at that time. Often, what is theorized by scientists, imagined through novels by sci-fi writers, ends up being accomplished some time in the future. Just consider Dick Tracy’s two-way wrist radio and today’s Apple Watch. From what I could find, Tracy used it in 1952 in a comic strip. I am personally not into gadgets that much but one can’t help but be impressed by this evolution!
 
I don’t know if we really want to know how much the government has on us and whether it comes with full transcripts and video, but Big Brother is an ongoing concern! And, with the increase of cameras and tracking devices throughout society and in all our electronics, there is probably quite a bio on many citizens in many nations! While the “ego-booster booths” don’t seem to be close in our future, we do have ATM machines! Could they be a forerunner? Something to think about!
 
Now those musings are one thing, but what captured my attention was the 3 minutes worth of info one could access. I began a “thought experiment” about this from a slightly different angle. My thought was this, what if we could show 3 minutes of any part of our life, what 3 minute time period would we pick? That was difficult to think about as far as I was concerned. I could break my life down into different decisions and actions, and take 3 minutes worth, but which 3 minutes? I would want to take those things which I considered positive (after all, who would want to have the worst of our actions to be shown?) but the problem still remained—what part!
 
And to make this thought experiment even harder, what if this was a one time thing—in other words, one chance to take 3 minutes of your life and that is what everyone would see! That made it even more difficult! What 3 minute time period would really capture my life? Would it be a single moral decision, an academic thing, an athletic moment, a deed undertaken for someone, or what. And it is not about being full of pride or being overly humble, but when we try to reduce our life to a single 3 minute action, I think for most of us it would be impossible to do.
 
And so I was left with, not a 3 minute period (I couldn’t think of one), but a question about a person’s life. How do we appraise a person, is it from a 3 minute time period or is over a lifetime, or part of one? There may be actions committed which “mark” a person from that point on, crimes, etc., but for most of us our lives can’t be reduced to 3 minutes but instead is a function of habits and dispositions and actions which have accrued over many years.
 
I think I know one thing though—if it was possible to access a random 3 minute period—I don’t know if I could do it!
 
Which is scary, since one day we will all give a full account before God, and that won’t be by choice!
 
Something to think about!

Darwinism—the Hoax!

Darwinism was broken at the time it was proposed, but many who saw it as a replacement to a Biblical view latched onto it and pushed its “ability” to provide a naturalistic answer to our being here, and, at the same time managed to cover over its inadequacies.
 
One of the ways evolutionists have covered up the weaknesses of evolution is continually applying the intimidation techniques which have mainly consisted of comparisons—in other words—scientists know better than non-scientists and so the non-scientist should just trust the scientist and his pronouncements.
 
The implicit assumption in that attitude is the assumption is that everything can be explained in a naturalistic manner!
 
It can’t!
 
Reality and life consists of more than “material” and so is too deep for these scientists naturalistic assumption—and— one of the byproducts of the evolutionist’s attitude is that the spiritual dimension is robbed of any validity, after all, all that life is–is material, thoughts of the supernatural are just interaction of atoms in the brain. Hence the clash that evolution has with religious thinking.
 
Eventually though, when something doesn’t really work, it can only be kept hidden for so long, someone will complain or feel like they are wasting their time and so futility is given up for a something else. While evolutionists have not reached that point yet, at least for most of them, the weaknesses of the theory are growing and reaching a breaking point. This article mentions some of the “edifice” crumbling.
 
The view of evolution, in which everything has come to be via processes of a simple-to-complex scenario, just won’t hold as it strains the imagination more and more to see how the complexity of the world, which is increasingly more evident with each new discovery, can be explained by random chance interactions of simpler things! Supercomputers can not even replicate the supposed processes which would have to had occurred to bring everything into existence, even given billions of years. And “simple” processes brought things about?
 
As an example, consider that the Earth is already formed by evolutionary processes and that there is even water around, and of course the sun is there (this is a generous assumption). What are the processes that would be available for “life” to begin, with all its complex molecules! Well, there would be varying temperature such as hot and cold, the wind would blow, the sun would shine, lightning may strike (which gave rise to a theory many bought into but has since been denied), maybe a meteor strike (if there are meteors), and not much else!  Not very creative! We are supposed to believe that it happened anyway!
 
Why?
 
Because the only other view would be Special Creation by God, and evolutionists can not accept a non-naturalistic answer in their philosophy!
 
This brings up one of the main assumptions of science and why it needs to be shelved—science is not the be-all and end-all of man’s efforts. There is a realm it can’t reach and it needs to learn to accept its limitations!
 
The problem is that this whole evolution/religion issue represents just as much of a spiritual problem as it does a question of knowledge!

Egypt, Pyramids, and Climate Change

Egypt, Pyramids, and Climate Change

A while ago I was reading about ancient Egypt and some of their religious views. I came across a reference concerning the Pyramids and the “why” of their existence. Not necessarily the tomb aspect or things of that nature, but rather the genesis of the actual shape. A photograph was presented showing light rays filtering through the clouds. Descending to the surface in an angled tilt, the overall shape could be represented as pyramidal in shape.

My first photo, similar to the one I mentioned above, gives a possible example of what the Egyptians would have seen many times over their skies. A Pyramid picture follows and the resemblance in shapes is clear. But a question is why would that sunlight view become an impetus for those Pyramids and their shapes?

sun-pyramid-image

pyramid

In studying ancient Egypt, one can’t help but be exposed to many stone reliefs which were made part of all their building architecture. Because of their material nature, thousands of those reliefs have survived the millennia and have been studied for the past few hundred years for historical insights. On many of the reliefs, the sky is portrayed above various types of Egyptian scenes and pictured coming from the clouds are what looks like arms with open hands reaching down.

The third photo shows an example of that type of relief.

egnk_akenanen_reliefb

My fourth photo indicates how that “arm” representation could have been “imagined” from typical cloud + sunlight interactions (this one is my personal picture). But the question of “why” still pertains. And again we may ask what was there about those images from above which inspired the iconography so important to these people?

img_9064

I believe part of the answer lies in the Biblical view of Mankind sinning against God through Adam and subsequently becoming alienated from Him because of that sin! One of the consequences of that alienation was the loss of the ability to recognize God in His true nature and attributes. In a sense, Mankind became trapped to physical world and the spiritual world largely became only a shadow.

Romans 1 also brings out the fact that the one thing Man held onto was the knowledge that “something” had to be behind all creation but the details were out of reach. Another point which relates to the Egyptians (and others besides them) was that Man would commit to the worship of the creation rather than the Creator. That would take many forms but physical creation now would act as a substitute in many ways for God! As well, Man has an unavoidable religious nature and has to worship something.

Metaphorically, due to his religious sense, Man looked to the heavens for answers but could not “see” beyond those physical heavens to understand the True God, and thus they had to settle on what they saw with the eye and the imagination then added to that! And for the Egyptians, those basic atmospheric phenomenon and all its interactions gave inspiration, the sun being an obvious influential heavenly body. And what is interesting is that the gods these Egyptians created, which they believed was behind everything, looked just as human as them, literally they created gods in their own image. Many cultures down through time have repeated that aspect and that was the best that could really be achieved. The “shadow” of the True God was present but the proper apprehension of Him was not!

Moving into our modern age, or “postmodern” according to many, societies in many places have lost “meaning”. With the assault on Truth and with more and more sophisticated arguments convincing people that there is no real Truth anyhow, “meaning” becomes problematical. Basic questions such as the purpose of life, etc. become harder to answer and so must be found by other avenues. Though uncertainty may prevail, people do feel a need for a sense of purpose. And while the philosophical aspects associated with the “postmodern” approach to Truth may not be important for many to debate, that sense of loss can be real to an individual and their own kind of searching may occur!

Where does one go to find meaning and purpose if one hasn’t already accepted the true God, the Father of Christ? Well, for one group the answer lies in the Creation itself, just like Romans 1 suggested. If all one can be sure about is what the senses provide, then Creation fills that requirement. And so the “worship” of that creation follows. It’s a kind of worship not involving altars necessarily, but a worship which command the total devotion from the individual. The obvious group I am referring concerning this are those who accept the view of man-caused climate change and that we are maybe only a few atoms of carbon dioxide (mild sarcasm) away from eventual and unstoppable annihilation–hence the earth must be saved from Man and his approach to nature! While some of their points may be accepted, after all we do need to think about our finite resources, their remedies of fixing what they think are the problems, would literally wreck society and create many hardships for people.

Their basic premise seems to be that Man is made for the Earth and not the other way around, as Genesis implies! Their zeal for these kinds of matters seem to approach a typical religious sense and others have made reference to that effect, especially when they are engaged by those who feel that the climate is in no danger from Man and that climate is to complex to be reduced to the simple increase of carbon dioxide atoms, the so-called Climate Deniers.

So the physical heavens have been a source of worship and worship-inspired actions for millennia! It still goes on today, but the cost to society today may be more than we can bear if Earth-worship gets too powerful and has its way among us with the changes it wants!

Imagination

What will it take before scientists finally realize that evolution is false! Random chance events can not produce the amazing complexity of the world! As each layer of the “onion” of knowledge is peeled back, the complexity only increases as well, making it even harder for evolution to work.
The jig was really up in the sixties at a conference called the Wistar Symposium, held in Philadelphia in 1966. At that conference probability mathematics was used by some scientists to raise serious doubts on the possibility that random chance could do what evolutionists claimed. Evolutionists like to say that billions of years is enough time to do anything randomly but the mathematicians said otherwise. Ever since that time, probability mathematics has been the “thorn in the flesh” to evolutionist scientists and they have never mounted a good case against it.
While they love to laugh and sneer and cut down those who disagree, especially Creationists, they are yet still without a legitimate model showing how life could even begin. Even with supercomputers, many geniuses, countless thinkers reflecting about it, the origin of life is still impossible to crack. And this was supposed to be a simple-to-complex theory and they can’t even get started! And garnishments and creative “tweaks” trying to overcome probability has still not solved their basic problem—which is “How did life begin?”
And really the origin of life problem is only one, there is still not a good theory about planet and sun formations which has to take place before the life question can even be anticipated! Critics are being kind to evolutionist in allowing them to have an earth, maybe some water, and some other things, and even then, they are lost! In actuality, evolutionists have really established very little in the way of legitimate solutions to how the universe was formed. Maybe that is because the whole idea is flawed!
The hint should have been taken back in the sixties about the impossibilty of evolutionary processes producing all this and scientists should have raised the white flag to “design” advocates back then! But this whole thing is really a spiritual battle involving the question of God’s existence or not and His role in this universe! With no choice but naturalistic processes or God as the answer, evolutionary scientists would rather accept the impossible scenario, as in random chance events,rather than acquiescing to the thought of God!
In the end they are only making themselves look more ridiculous—but they are developing a good imagination with all the practice of story telling they do regarding how random chance can produce so much! I liken their problem now as being worse than the example someone gave as illustrating the nature of evolution. That example was of a tornado going through a junkyard and producing a Rolls Royce car after it had passed through. Now with even more complexity since that quote, it would be as if there was an airless atmosphere and then the tornado episode would occur. Even more difficult! Some people can believe it if they want—I’ll stick to a Designer!

Humans, Chimeras, and the Nuremburg Code

Chimeras, Humans, and the Nuremburg Code

The Nuremburg Code arose out of the Nuremburg trials of Nazi war crimes following WWII. It was a standard work meant to set limits on human experimentation and consisted of 10 main points. Although not legally binding, it has been influential in many ways and to which various nations and organizations refer when setting up various medical scenarios.

One of the most important principles was the first point: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

During the Nazi regime consent was NOT in the vocabulary of the ethical profession as they performed many horrendous experiments on prisoners of war and others deemed undesirable. Many of these people were either severely maimed or died afterwards!

There were other principles enunciated by the Code, involving limits of experiments, who can perform them, risk/harm assessments, etc. The overall tenor of the Code emphasized the person first! Results second!

We now live in an age in which science has flowered beyond belief! We are really at a place in which effectively we can “play God”! Much too often breakthroughs far outpace society’s ability to digest the results and to assess the ramifications of these results for the future! Science should pause so that the ethical aspect of these things can be effectively discussed.

Just because something can be done—doesn’t mean it should!

Some of the newer scenarios in the works is “chimera” (animal/human hybrid) research. Before, this involved injecting human cells into animals for the purposes of growing organs for transplants, assessing treatment effects for cancer, etc. Now it has taken a far more serious turn—after all, it seems like the paradigm of science today is that idea that if it can be done then it should be done!

Now the experiments involve mixing DNA of humans and animals at the embryo level. Very serious step! Embryonic stem cells of humans will be inserted into the embryos of animals. What will this do? Scientists are not really sure, but one matter of concern is what happens to the animal brain when human DNA becomes a part of it? A chilling thought!

One of the evolutionary artifacts left over from Darwin is that humans are just another kind of animal, though more advanced. Experiments like this only serve, in the end, to dehumanize”man” even more. After all, we have already by fiat, declared a whole class of humans as”nonhuman”, and I’m talking about those in the womb! And now we are treating human DNA as just some kind of object to be used in whatever fanciful way imagined!

And where does this DNA material come from? The human stem cells used in these “chimera” experiments are from human embryos, which have to be destroyed to obtain the material! By defining life as starting somewhere other than the most logical place, conception, then those embryos are now open for use, and experiments!

The Nuremburg Code says voluntary consent is absolutely essential from the human subject. When a person is unable to provide that consent for whatever reason, then society answers for that person with an assumed “no”! Humans in embryonic form can’t give consent but instead of being protected by society, humans at conception have already been given up as “nonhuman”!

So science is free to experiment—similar to the Nazis! After all, one of ways the Nazis got around the intellectual challenge of doing these horrible things to their fellow man, was to redefine them as something else!

We don’t need to fool ourselves, the ends do not justify the means here! These “chimera” experiments may open up many new things regarding the health of humanity, but at what price! That is why we need to really pause and think these things through—-but unfortunately we won’t! Health, longevity, etc are now seen as something to be grasped at all costs!

But we better beware, some things considered utopian, turn out to be Faustian in the end!

Just wait until animal DNA is pushed for insertion into human embryos! It’s coming! Science will never stop and has the ability over time to justify anything. History, even WWII history can be repeated! Only in a different form!

Do we have the ability to recognize it!

http://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2016/08/06/obama-opening-door-for-human-animal-hybrids#