In a very contentious election year, it appears that the rights of individuals have taken center stage. In Virginia, it is the right to keep and bear arms that is under fire. And freedom of speech is being contested by many on the left as they seek to get conservative discourse banned from campuses and on the internet.
And now many on the left have decided for themselves that they somehow have a right to health care. Maybe that is so - let's assume for a moment that there is some unspoken right to health care. I will accept that - provided they will accept a truth - that every right comes with responsibilities. If they cannot accept that basic premise, then their argument goes right out the window.
The right to free speech comes with the responsibility to not defame, not incite violence and to not "bear false witness". The right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility to learn safe use, and to not use them unlawfully. And the right to vote comes with the responsibility to be well-informed.
Any right to health care would necessitate that people make lifestyle choices that are not detrimental to health. Smoking, drinking to excess, use of illegal drugs and unhealthy food choices all contribute heavily to costly health care issues. If health care is a right, those costs are paid for by everyone. No one has any right to impose excess financial burden on others simply because they choose unhealthy lifestyles.
Therefore, if health care is to be a right, then the people need to choose healthy lifestyles. And like violators of any other "right", if a person chooses an unhealthy lifestyle, he no longer has the protection of the right to health care, just like a gun-wielding criminal loses his right to keep and bear arms, or a perjurer goes to prison.
Life comes with responsibilities, like it or not. Health care should be a right, but like any other right an individual can forfeit it if he or she fails to live up to the responsibilities it comes with.
/
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
If A Pandemic Hits Your Community...
With the coronavirus scare, a lot of folks are (rightfully) concerned.
It's not enough to be concerned! Every community, family and individual should be prepared, because a pandemic is not a question of "if", but of "when".
My parents barely escaped the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1917-191 9 that killed as many as 100 MILLION people. Today, a pandemic could kill a billion or more because rapid and regular air travel (not available in 1917) could allow a bug to spread worldwide before we even start seeing symptoms. By then it is too late.
And even though social media reduces the amount of personal contact in some circles, that is not enough to stem an epidemic. Therefore it is wise - even imperative - that we take steps to protect ourselves at least to some extent. Here are some things everyone can do to lessen the chance they will fall victim.
On a COMMUNITY level, if an epidemic hits your area, close the schools. Set up teams that can take turns at picking up and distributing everyday necessities to residents, and checking on the elderly and disabled so the number of people "out and about" is reduced.
On a FAMILY or PERSONAL level:
- Have appropriate medical and purification supplies on hand - at least several Lysol canisters, several bottles of hydrogen peroxide surgical gloves and masks (rated N95), as well as building up a supply of any prescriptions you and family members require
Keep a supply of expendables like toilet paper
Use gloves when touching ANYTHING that comes from outside, including mail. Immediately dispose of junk mail and opened envelopes
Wear gloves and mask when venturing out of doors, and keep at least three feet from any other person
Avoid using cash unless you pay the exact amount - you do not want to handle change that perhaps an infected person handled And wear gloves when using a card, and place it into an envelope after using. When you get home, spray it with lysol and dispose of the envelope.
Wash hands and face regularly and often, with the hottest water you can tolerate for 30 seconds. A virus can withstand up to 130 degrees, so it would be wise to increase the setting on your water heater to 140
Spray lysol on all fixtures - doorknobs, fridge handles, toilets etc. on a regular basis
Take the time to THINK about everything you do, and take steps designed to reduce your risk.
If a pandemic hits your community, I wish you luck. And if you are not properly prepared, you may need more than mere luck.
[Brought to you as a PSA by "The Simple Man's Guide top Real Estate Investing"]
/
Sunday, January 12, 2020
What Trump Knows that Democrats And the Media Don't
Ever since Trump won in 2016 the mainstream media and all Democrat politicians and people on the left have slammed him for not understanding how "foreign policy" works. They said he would start a war with North Korea - nope! They said he would start a war with Iran - nope again. And even the so-called diplomats, claiming expertise, trashed Trumps method of dealing with both allies and enemies. They, too, were proven wrong, as he gets countries to pony up with NATO, and gets concessions in trade deals.
There is one thing that Trump knows that seems to have escaped the attention of the naysayers. Perhaps it is because dealing with nations is not all that different from dealing with contractors, banks and local governments. And no one in the media or in Congress has "been there, done that". Not like Trump.
It's a little something I like to call "learning from history."
America helped China in their Sino-Japanese War. China is an enemy now. We helped Russia fight off the Nazis in WWII - Russia is now an enemy. We helped Osama BinLaden fight the Russians in Afghanistan - he then turned our own weapons against us.
On the other hand, we went to war with England - twice - and beat them. They are now an ally. We went to war with Mexico and beat them. Mexico is now a "sort of" ally. We went to war with Germany - twice - and beat them. Italy. Japan. Beat them. They are now allies.
Are you seeing a correlation? Every time we befriend a nation, they turn on us, and every time we beat them in a war they become our staunchest allies.
Democrats and the media have never figured that out - but Donald Trump has. Trump knows the truth in the words of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronnie Reagan - "Speak softly and carry a big stick", and "Peace through strength."
When Trump butters up Kim Jung Un, that is the "speak softly" part. But then he backs it up with a big stick. He is doing the same with Iran. And while there is no guarantee that it will bring peace, it is the best option short of having to go to war.
For those who fail to see why it is that war turns enemies to friend and vice versa, it is as simple as this - everyone respects strength, and everyone detests weakness. That is in our genes - human nature - because it all goes back to the First Law of Nature - survival of the fittest.
Trump understands...
/
There is one thing that Trump knows that seems to have escaped the attention of the naysayers. Perhaps it is because dealing with nations is not all that different from dealing with contractors, banks and local governments. And no one in the media or in Congress has "been there, done that". Not like Trump.
It's a little something I like to call "learning from history."
America helped China in their Sino-Japanese War. China is an enemy now. We helped Russia fight off the Nazis in WWII - Russia is now an enemy. We helped Osama BinLaden fight the Russians in Afghanistan - he then turned our own weapons against us.
On the other hand, we went to war with England - twice - and beat them. They are now an ally. We went to war with Mexico and beat them. Mexico is now a "sort of" ally. We went to war with Germany - twice - and beat them. Italy. Japan. Beat them. They are now allies.
Are you seeing a correlation? Every time we befriend a nation, they turn on us, and every time we beat them in a war they become our staunchest allies.
Democrats and the media have never figured that out - but Donald Trump has. Trump knows the truth in the words of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronnie Reagan - "Speak softly and carry a big stick", and "Peace through strength."
When Trump butters up Kim Jung Un, that is the "speak softly" part. But then he backs it up with a big stick. He is doing the same with Iran. And while there is no guarantee that it will bring peace, it is the best option short of having to go to war.
For those who fail to see why it is that war turns enemies to friend and vice versa, it is as simple as this - everyone respects strength, and everyone detests weakness. That is in our genes - human nature - because it all goes back to the First Law of Nature - survival of the fittest.
Trump understands...
/
Economics for Dummies - Left vs Right
There is a growing misconception in America concerning economics. On one side you have people like Bernie Sanders and others on the left who believe the economy is a sum total thing that needs to support all people equally, and on the other side you have people like Donald Trump and others on the right who believe the economy is not sum total - that it can be expanded to "raise all boats".
Think of the economy as if it were a pie, and everyone grabs a piece. Some people only get a small piece while others get larger pieces, all dependent upon ones education and personal effort. The left sees this as unfair to those with a small piece, so they want to take from those with bigger pieces and redistribute it among the less fortunate, in an effort to create "equality". The left equates equality with fairness, though one has nothing to do with the other. It simply is not "fair" to take from someone who spent years in higher education, worked hard for 25 years and risked everything he or she had, and give it to someone who did little or nothing to earn it, having spent their life doing none of that.
The economic theory of the left also does not consider unintended consequences - when you take productive wealth that is typically used by the wealthy to create jobs, develop new products etc. and turn it into unproductive wealth that is not used to make society better and richer, you effectively REDUCE the amount of pie available by stifling an expansion of the amount of pie available. The pie cannot grow larger without adding more of the ingredients - investing in growth, production, jobs.
Capitalists like Trump understand that the best way to insure everyone has enough pie is to make the pie bigger, or to bake more pies. Certainly, the less fortunate will always have less than others, but they will still have MORE PIE! If you doubt that, just take a look at Americas poor compared to the poor in socialist "single pie" nations. Where once even our own poor were truly living in poverty, dying in sweat shops and starving, most of our poor today have cell phones, iPads, microwave ovens, internet access and widescreen TV. Americas poor are wealthier than many "middle class" families in other countries. They have been raised up through capitalism, where those who earn great wealth are permitted to reinvest it into baking more pies, rather than have their wealth confiscated and tossed onto barren ground.
In America, Republicans believe a person is entitled only to that which he or she earns as long as they are physically and/or mentally capable of supporting themselves. Those who are handicapped to a point where they are unable to do so should be provided for by those of us who are able. This excludes those who are capable, but unwilling. The unwilling should be allowed to wallow in the misery of their own making. "All men are created equal", but they must work and do their part to maintain their equality.
Democrats on the other hand believe not in fairness, but equality. The mistake they make is in believing that the two are one in the same. They also mistakenly believe that "equal" means "same" - that to be equal, we must all have the same amount of everything. Again, the two are not synonymous. If not willing to expend the time, effort and risk, they get what they deserve - that is fair.
If a person fails to get educated, and fails to put in the effort required to succeed, they will assuredly have less than others, but what they have will be equal to the effort put into it. And THAT is fair.
Now, Democrats will, perhaps righfully claim that many people do not have the same access to education and opportunity as some others may have. That is true - but it does not change anything. Such persons must try harder than others. Abe Lincoln never went to school - he educated himself and became President. Henry Ford only had a 4th grade education but went on to build one of the biggest companies in America, and in doing so, transformed America. In an era where blacks had little access to opportunity, people like Sidney Poitier worked harder and created his own opportunity. Certainly, some of us face greater obstacles than others, but that just means you have to try harder. It does not give you a right to take from others. Stealing is stealing, whether you do it yourself or let the government do it for you.
Here is the short take - fair does not mean equal, and equal does not mean same. A person can complain about the size of their piece of the pie, and attempt to steal from another, or that person can get to work and bake his own damned pie. He is the only one standing in his way. Like I tell employees, "I don't want excuses. I want RESULTS!"
"When you spend as many years getting educated as I have; spend as many years busting your butt 100+ hours a week to build a business; and risk every cent you have, or ever will have to make it all work, then and only then will you be entitled to have what I have". - Bill Vaughn
Think of the economy as if it were a pie, and everyone grabs a piece. Some people only get a small piece while others get larger pieces, all dependent upon ones education and personal effort. The left sees this as unfair to those with a small piece, so they want to take from those with bigger pieces and redistribute it among the less fortunate, in an effort to create "equality". The left equates equality with fairness, though one has nothing to do with the other. It simply is not "fair" to take from someone who spent years in higher education, worked hard for 25 years and risked everything he or she had, and give it to someone who did little or nothing to earn it, having spent their life doing none of that.
The economic theory of the left also does not consider unintended consequences - when you take productive wealth that is typically used by the wealthy to create jobs, develop new products etc. and turn it into unproductive wealth that is not used to make society better and richer, you effectively REDUCE the amount of pie available by stifling an expansion of the amount of pie available. The pie cannot grow larger without adding more of the ingredients - investing in growth, production, jobs.
Capitalists like Trump understand that the best way to insure everyone has enough pie is to make the pie bigger, or to bake more pies. Certainly, the less fortunate will always have less than others, but they will still have MORE PIE! If you doubt that, just take a look at Americas poor compared to the poor in socialist "single pie" nations. Where once even our own poor were truly living in poverty, dying in sweat shops and starving, most of our poor today have cell phones, iPads, microwave ovens, internet access and widescreen TV. Americas poor are wealthier than many "middle class" families in other countries. They have been raised up through capitalism, where those who earn great wealth are permitted to reinvest it into baking more pies, rather than have their wealth confiscated and tossed onto barren ground.
In America, Republicans believe a person is entitled only to that which he or she earns as long as they are physically and/or mentally capable of supporting themselves. Those who are handicapped to a point where they are unable to do so should be provided for by those of us who are able. This excludes those who are capable, but unwilling. The unwilling should be allowed to wallow in the misery of their own making. "All men are created equal", but they must work and do their part to maintain their equality.
Democrats on the other hand believe not in fairness, but equality. The mistake they make is in believing that the two are one in the same. They also mistakenly believe that "equal" means "same" - that to be equal, we must all have the same amount of everything. Again, the two are not synonymous. If not willing to expend the time, effort and risk, they get what they deserve - that is fair.
If a person fails to get educated, and fails to put in the effort required to succeed, they will assuredly have less than others, but what they have will be equal to the effort put into it. And THAT is fair.
Now, Democrats will, perhaps righfully claim that many people do not have the same access to education and opportunity as some others may have. That is true - but it does not change anything. Such persons must try harder than others. Abe Lincoln never went to school - he educated himself and became President. Henry Ford only had a 4th grade education but went on to build one of the biggest companies in America, and in doing so, transformed America. In an era where blacks had little access to opportunity, people like Sidney Poitier worked harder and created his own opportunity. Certainly, some of us face greater obstacles than others, but that just means you have to try harder. It does not give you a right to take from others. Stealing is stealing, whether you do it yourself or let the government do it for you.
Here is the short take - fair does not mean equal, and equal does not mean same. A person can complain about the size of their piece of the pie, and attempt to steal from another, or that person can get to work and bake his own damned pie. He is the only one standing in his way. Like I tell employees, "I don't want excuses. I want RESULTS!"
"When you spend as many years getting educated as I have; spend as many years busting your butt 100+ hours a week to build a business; and risk every cent you have, or ever will have to make it all work, then and only then will you be entitled to have what I have". - Bill Vaughn
Saturday, January 11, 2020
If Extraterrestrials Exist, Who (or What) Are They
There have been reports of UFO's and alien visitations for well over 8,000 years. Many cultures claim their civilizations sprouted from alien contact.
Maybe. Maybe not. But there is little doubt that more and more people are seeing and reporting such things around the world, with many now providing credible video evidence. The question should be: who, or rather what are they, and what is/are their objective(s) concerning Earth and its inhabitants?
Most people tend to believe they would be "friendly" and have good, or even no intentions; that they are simply studying us, or perhaps planning to make official contact once we prove ourselves "worthy".
BUNK! Presuming for a moment that alien beings are actually living creatures, there is almost zero chance that their intentions are good, or beneficial to humanity, and nearly 100% chance that their intentions focus only on their needs, and their own survival. It is called LIFE, and no matter how advanced that life may be, it is still subject to the first law of nature - survival of the fittest. Every living thing must consume other living things. Something must die in order for something else to live. Look around - can you find any living organism that does not live by consuming something else that is either living, or has lived? Even plants feed off composted materials from other once living things. And any civilization that has existed long enough to be advanced enough to pay us a visit, well, they have long since outgrown the resources of their home planet, and must seek out new resources for continued growth. And that means they would likely want OUR resources.
Okay, so it is a high probability that any living alien will not have our best interests at heart. But that is alright, since the odds of aliens being living creatures are slim to none. Think about it for a moment...
UFO's defy all laws of nature. No living creature imaginable could possibly survive a 10,000 year voyage. And even if they have found a way to traverse space by bending time/space, there still exists other encumbrances to living beings - no living creature could possibly survive traveling at the extreme speeds that UFO's seem capable of, then either stop on a dime, or make a complete reversal of direction at high speed. Yeah, sure, maybe they can control gravity, too. But here is something to consider - what are the odds a living entity could travel such distances, survive such speeds and gravitational forces, and to go through all that just to watch us skinny-dip in McDonald's pond? What is their purpose?
So let's now presume that aliens are not living entities at all. Perhaps aliens smart enough to get here are also at least as smart as we are. I think that is a safe bet! Consider...
Living organisms face huge, and possibly insurmountable obstacles for traveling light years through the universe. Anything intelligent enough to even consider that is also intelligent enough to let something else take the risks. Non-life forms such a cyborgs or robots can do the job better and with few issues. We do that sort of thing now - a tornado hits, we send robots into the rubble searching for signs of life.
So now we have an intelligent life form that creates cyborgs and/or robots to do the heavy lifting. To be effective, they would eventually have to make the cyborgs "sentient", capable of free thought and reason. For space travel, they would need that. What they no longer need are the living creatures that created them. It is nothing new for a sentient being to turn on its Creator, is it?
So now we have a case not too different from "Battlestar Galactica", where the non-living entities are the dominant race and have eliminated or enslaved the creators because they are deemed to be a threat. On the bright side, they probably do not need to consume anything except some form of energy and raw materials for reproduction, so in that respect they are not a threat to us. Yet they are very much a threat because we pose a threat to them!
For a million years, Mankind never quite progressed much. Then, suddenly, he takes off - from making fire to making beer only took 40,000 years. And from making beer to the Roman empire - just 4,000 years. And from the Roman empire to the first airplane - just 4,000 years. And from the Wright brothers first flight to landing on the moon - less than 60 years. And from the moonwalk to all of modern tech, robotics, cloning and 600 cable channels - just 40 years. So, how did we get from fire to space travel so quickly?
Many cultures claim to inherit their newfound skills and knowledge from "star people" of one ilk or another. Let's assume for a moment that there is more fact than fiction in that.
Cyborgs, whose only reason for existing is to propagate and populate the entire universe and make us all one, big happy family may have found this blue granite marble in space, as they have found many others, and they empower the dumb residents with knowledge - as it says in Genesis, "eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge." And they keep "feeding" us information and knowledge that will help us progress - like when Edison got the bright idea for using electricity, or Marconi and his radio. All the while they are "helping" us to grow, learn, progress. But to what end?
Here is where it gets insidious - all the while, they are leading us to robotics, and then cyborgs - which is exactly where we are, at the threshold today. And the goal is to have us eventually make ourselves irrelevant - useless - to where the cyborgs have taken over completely - much like in the flick "Terminator". The cyborg aliens are providing humans with the ability to create cyborgs. That is how they would reproduce.
The ultimate goal of any non-living "life form" such as cyborgs would likely be to make everything like them, and to control everything. A hive, if you will - if you are a Star Trek the Next Generation fan, you know of such things - in STTNG the hive, or collective is the Borg.
What if these extraterrestrials are helping us create cyborg/robots while at the same time turning existing humans into compliant "transhuman" slaves to serve them?
The short take - if aliens are living creatures, they will not be here for our best interests - they will have an ulterior survival motive. They will require resources - ours! If, however, they are cyborgs, and things like time and space mean nothing to them, then their objective would be to make us like themselves - a superior, dominant race of cyborgs, eliminating humanity.
Because ultimately, intelligence - whether natural or artificial - requires creating something. And creating requires resources. And living creatures use up those resources. To cyborgs, it is only logical and intelligent to eliminate the drain on resources, particularly if those who are draining them happen to be aggressive - like humans!
After all, what would YOU do if some creature inferior to you and aggressive were to use up and lay waste to the resources YOU need for survival? What do we do about coyotes raiding livestock? Deer eating your vegetable garden?
Yes, what would YOU do?
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Life of a Blueberry - Part II
OK, so a question has been legitimately asked, and the following is a theory I developed based on actual facts and more accurate translations:
"If evolution began at the beginning of Creation, then it seems Man was created through evolution, and not some God"...
To answer that, we need to fist step back and check on what the Scriptures - the original, Hebrew Scriptures - actually say on the subject of Genesis and Creation.
While the King James Version of the Bible - as with many translations - claims the world was created in six days, that is not what the Scriptures actually say. King James took a lot of liberties with his translation. The Hebrew Scriptures state the world was created in six "yom". In ancient Hebrew, the word yom was used to denote any period of time - it could be a day, a month, or even an eon. So it would be more accurate if KJV had simply said "...in six times..."
Now it could be a safe bet to assume each of those "yom" was a time span long enough to coincide with what science claims. The Earth and Sky could have been created over 4 billion years ago (the first "yom") while Man could have been created one million years ago (or whatever science eventually determines it to be), and that would be the 6th yom. From there, Man would have, by nature, evolved, to adapt as necessary
If this is the case, then both religion and science are in agreement - as they should be. But now comes the sticky little point about the Creation of Adam as detailed in Genesis.
Genesis states that Man was created in the 6th time, and then goes on to say that God rested during the 7th. And then Genesis says that God looked around and saw that what He did was good - but it was missing something. He needed something smart enough to care for what He created. A caretaker of the Earth, as it were. Lord knows Neanderthal was not up to the task, from an intellectual standpoint. It was only then that He created "The Adam". He had created early Man previously, but those dudes simply did not cut the mustard - they were going nowhere. It took them 40,000 just to learn how to make fire! By contrast, modern Man (descendants of The Adam) has walked the moon and created the internet and smart phones in just a few thousand years.
But how did He create The Adam? That's not hard to figure - even with our very limited abilities today, we can do genetic engineering. God could have taken the DNA of early Man and fiddled with it. We already do that. As for Eve - we also know how to clone, don't we? I'm sure that any God could out-do us on all counts.
Science knows that there were many species of Man, such as Neanderthal. And science knows they preceded modern Homo Sapiens, and they shared the Earth together. If we look at Genesis for what it actually says, Mankind was created in the 6th time, but such creatures were not intelligent enough to be the Caretakers. And that is when God decided to create "The Adam" - a version of Man that was intelligent enough to be caretaker.
This would also answer another puzzling question - Genesis says Cain went to "the land of Nod, where he took a wife." If Adam and Eve were the first, and therefore the only people Created, where did Cain's wife come from? If we accept the premise here, then the people in the land of Nod - and Cain's wife - was another, earlier species of Mankind. [NOTE: science has already determined that at least 8% of people living today carry some Neanderthal DNA)
Once we understand that the word "day" was not used in Genesis, everything begins to make sense, and in a way that both science and religion can live in harmony. And both Creation and evolution can share the same stage, and take equal billing.
As a side note: Many people disbelieve the Bible because it says so-and-so lived 900 years or so. However, since the original Scriptures never use the word "year", and uses "yom", and if we assume that in the case of Noah "yom" meant one lunar cycle (month, the normal period of time used back then), then Noah's 950 years becomes 79 years. Isn't that easier to swallow?
Now you have a scenario in which both Creation and evolution, and religion and science fit like pieces of a truly beautiful and miraculous puzzle.
Always be skeptical of a translation - exact translations are rarely possible.
"If evolution began at the beginning of Creation, then it seems Man was created through evolution, and not some God"...
To answer that, we need to fist step back and check on what the Scriptures - the original, Hebrew Scriptures - actually say on the subject of Genesis and Creation.
While the King James Version of the Bible - as with many translations - claims the world was created in six days, that is not what the Scriptures actually say. King James took a lot of liberties with his translation. The Hebrew Scriptures state the world was created in six "yom". In ancient Hebrew, the word yom was used to denote any period of time - it could be a day, a month, or even an eon. So it would be more accurate if KJV had simply said "...in six times..."
Now it could be a safe bet to assume each of those "yom" was a time span long enough to coincide with what science claims. The Earth and Sky could have been created over 4 billion years ago (the first "yom") while Man could have been created one million years ago (or whatever science eventually determines it to be), and that would be the 6th yom. From there, Man would have, by nature, evolved, to adapt as necessary
If this is the case, then both religion and science are in agreement - as they should be. But now comes the sticky little point about the Creation of Adam as detailed in Genesis.
Genesis states that Man was created in the 6th time, and then goes on to say that God rested during the 7th. And then Genesis says that God looked around and saw that what He did was good - but it was missing something. He needed something smart enough to care for what He created. A caretaker of the Earth, as it were. Lord knows Neanderthal was not up to the task, from an intellectual standpoint. It was only then that He created "The Adam". He had created early Man previously, but those dudes simply did not cut the mustard - they were going nowhere. It took them 40,000 just to learn how to make fire! By contrast, modern Man (descendants of The Adam) has walked the moon and created the internet and smart phones in just a few thousand years.
But how did He create The Adam? That's not hard to figure - even with our very limited abilities today, we can do genetic engineering. God could have taken the DNA of early Man and fiddled with it. We already do that. As for Eve - we also know how to clone, don't we? I'm sure that any God could out-do us on all counts.
Science knows that there were many species of Man, such as Neanderthal. And science knows they preceded modern Homo Sapiens, and they shared the Earth together. If we look at Genesis for what it actually says, Mankind was created in the 6th time, but such creatures were not intelligent enough to be the Caretakers. And that is when God decided to create "The Adam" - a version of Man that was intelligent enough to be caretaker.
This would also answer another puzzling question - Genesis says Cain went to "the land of Nod, where he took a wife." If Adam and Eve were the first, and therefore the only people Created, where did Cain's wife come from? If we accept the premise here, then the people in the land of Nod - and Cain's wife - was another, earlier species of Mankind. [NOTE: science has already determined that at least 8% of people living today carry some Neanderthal DNA)
Once we understand that the word "day" was not used in Genesis, everything begins to make sense, and in a way that both science and religion can live in harmony. And both Creation and evolution can share the same stage, and take equal billing.
As a side note: Many people disbelieve the Bible because it says so-and-so lived 900 years or so. However, since the original Scriptures never use the word "year", and uses "yom", and if we assume that in the case of Noah "yom" meant one lunar cycle (month, the normal period of time used back then), then Noah's 950 years becomes 79 years. Isn't that easier to swallow?
Now you have a scenario in which both Creation and evolution, and religion and science fit like pieces of a truly beautiful and miraculous puzzle.
Always be skeptical of a translation - exact translations are rarely possible.
The Life of a Blueberry - Food For Thought...
Yes, I realize the title is kinda dumb, but there really is a point to this post.
The blueberry grows in a wilderness meadow. By mid-June they begin to ripen, and both birds and mammals, such as bears and deer, come to the meadow to feed on the delicious berries.
Later, those birds and mammals leave their excrement throughout their range. Within their "scat" and droppings will be the seeds of the blueberries they consumed because most of the seeds do not get digested due to their hard shells. So here you have a perfect planting of new blueberry bushes - the seeds are in manure, which fertilizes them and also keeps other critters from feeding on the seed.
There is a long line of "coincidences" that provide for the continued propagation of blueberry bushes. So many perfect coincidences, in fact, that it would almost be nonsense to believe that it was not designed that way.
Sometimes, the line of "coincidences" is longer, as it is with blackberries.
Blackberries grow in border areas - strips of land between woodland and meadow. They thrive under the branches of fir trees along the edges of the fields. They do not do as well in the deep woods, or in direct sun.
And here is how they propagate and spread: Birds prefer meadows and border areas. Birds eat the berries. Birds cannot digest blackberry seeds at all. Later, they rest on a pine branch along the woodland border and leave droppings, complete with blackberry seeds, under the protective branches of the fir tree.
Now, some would say that these coincidences can be explained as a product of evolution. However, evolution is something that only occurs within a specie, as when the horses toes evolved into a hoof. In order for evolution to explain inter-species actions, there would need to be some coordination between the various needs of the species. For example, for berries to develop seeds that could not be digested, they would have to be aware of a need to do so.
So here is the point of this post - anyone who has spent a great deal of time in nature, where civilization has not tainted that which is real and natural - that person would, if observant, notice virtually millions of such coincidences that create life cycles and provide for the propagation of species. That virtually everything in nature is connected in a fabric of life and death. Critter poops and fertilizes the ground where seeds can grow plants. Plants provide more seeds. The rat eats the seed. The cat eats the rat. The coyote eats the cat. The coyote poops and fertilizes the earth so more seeds can grow.
Experiencing nature that is raw and untainted, a person may begin to understand that it simply must be by design. It is far too complex and widespread to be an "accident". And if it involves multiple species working in a coordinated way, it cannot be explained by evolution. And that is precisely why every civilization that grew out of the wilderness and had been dependent upon nature have all known that there is an intelligence of some sort that is behind it all.
Having spent much of my own 72 years in nature, it was natural to see, and realize, that an intelligence must be behind it all. Call it what you will. But do not be so naive as to attribute it all to evolution.
Don't get me wrong - I do believe in evolution. But being a reasonably intelligent person with a much higher than normal I.Q. I also must believe in creation. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact - and this IS a scientific, provable fact - something must exist BEFORE it can evolve. And another proven scientific fact - inert, inanimate objects such as rocks cannot be explained by evolution, either. Only living things can evolve. And even if you could trace everything in Creation back to one singularity - just one thing from which everything sprang - then where did the "one thing" come from?
Yes, the first living thing may have evolved over time, but first, it had to come into being. As for all the non-living things, there really is no alternative but to believe in Creation. Certainly, to many it would seem foolish to believe some invisible, all-powerful sky person created everything. But is that any more foolish than to believe NOTHING did?
/
The blueberry grows in a wilderness meadow. By mid-June they begin to ripen, and both birds and mammals, such as bears and deer, come to the meadow to feed on the delicious berries.
Later, those birds and mammals leave their excrement throughout their range. Within their "scat" and droppings will be the seeds of the blueberries they consumed because most of the seeds do not get digested due to their hard shells. So here you have a perfect planting of new blueberry bushes - the seeds are in manure, which fertilizes them and also keeps other critters from feeding on the seed.
There is a long line of "coincidences" that provide for the continued propagation of blueberry bushes. So many perfect coincidences, in fact, that it would almost be nonsense to believe that it was not designed that way.
Sometimes, the line of "coincidences" is longer, as it is with blackberries.
Blackberries grow in border areas - strips of land between woodland and meadow. They thrive under the branches of fir trees along the edges of the fields. They do not do as well in the deep woods, or in direct sun.
And here is how they propagate and spread: Birds prefer meadows and border areas. Birds eat the berries. Birds cannot digest blackberry seeds at all. Later, they rest on a pine branch along the woodland border and leave droppings, complete with blackberry seeds, under the protective branches of the fir tree.
- Coincidence #1 - blackberries thrive under fir branches in border areas
- Coincidence #2 -birds prefer the same areas that blackberries thrive in
- Coincidence #3 - birds love blackberries but cannot digest blackberry seeds
- Coincidence #4 - birds normally rest - and poop - from branches of trees in border areas
- Coincidence #5 - seeds are deposited with the perfect fertilizer (bird poop), in a perfect area to thrive in
- Coincidence #6 - critters that feed on blackberry seeds are repelled by the poop, keeping seeds safe
Now, some would say that these coincidences can be explained as a product of evolution. However, evolution is something that only occurs within a specie, as when the horses toes evolved into a hoof. In order for evolution to explain inter-species actions, there would need to be some coordination between the various needs of the species. For example, for berries to develop seeds that could not be digested, they would have to be aware of a need to do so.
So here is the point of this post - anyone who has spent a great deal of time in nature, where civilization has not tainted that which is real and natural - that person would, if observant, notice virtually millions of such coincidences that create life cycles and provide for the propagation of species. That virtually everything in nature is connected in a fabric of life and death. Critter poops and fertilizes the ground where seeds can grow plants. Plants provide more seeds. The rat eats the seed. The cat eats the rat. The coyote eats the cat. The coyote poops and fertilizes the earth so more seeds can grow.
Experiencing nature that is raw and untainted, a person may begin to understand that it simply must be by design. It is far too complex and widespread to be an "accident". And if it involves multiple species working in a coordinated way, it cannot be explained by evolution. And that is precisely why every civilization that grew out of the wilderness and had been dependent upon nature have all known that there is an intelligence of some sort that is behind it all.
Having spent much of my own 72 years in nature, it was natural to see, and realize, that an intelligence must be behind it all. Call it what you will. But do not be so naive as to attribute it all to evolution.
Don't get me wrong - I do believe in evolution. But being a reasonably intelligent person with a much higher than normal I.Q. I also must believe in creation. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact - and this IS a scientific, provable fact - something must exist BEFORE it can evolve. And another proven scientific fact - inert, inanimate objects such as rocks cannot be explained by evolution, either. Only living things can evolve. And even if you could trace everything in Creation back to one singularity - just one thing from which everything sprang - then where did the "one thing" come from?
Yes, the first living thing may have evolved over time, but first, it had to come into being. As for all the non-living things, there really is no alternative but to believe in Creation. Certainly, to many it would seem foolish to believe some invisible, all-powerful sky person created everything. But is that any more foolish than to believe NOTHING did?
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)