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.
Sunday, December 15, 2019
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, proveable 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, proveable 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?
/
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Gun Laws - Not Designed To Protect Us From Crime
The title of this post is absolutely accurate - laws, no matter how well intentioned, and no matter the hype that surrounds them, will rarely have more than an inconsequential effect on criminal activity.
There are laws against rape - but rapists still rape. There are laws against murder - but killers still kill. And despite the law, bank robbers still rob banks, and tax cheats still cheat.
Gun control laws are no different. If a crimnal or unstable mind decides to kill, no gun control on Earth will thwart him or her. After all, if they do not fear execution for a mass killing, does anyone really believe they will fear 1-5 years for violating some gun law?
Laws do not prevent crime - they merely punish those who are caught violatng them. Laws do not protect the innocent, but they do manage to fool them into thinking they do. And the only people who are punished and suffer from gun controls are the honest, law-abiding innocent gun owners who lose their Constitutional Right to self-defense, or defending family. The criminal who violates gun laws and goes out and kills will be punished for killing - but NOT for violating the gun laws. After all, does anyone believe the courts would sentence a mass murderer to execution PLUS 5 years in prison?
Gun laws do not protect anyone from crime. All they do is punish those who violate them, often making criminals of honest, peaceful citizens who only want to feel secure with the ability to protect themselves.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
The Dirty Little Secret of Bloomberg's Health Plan
Another billionaire enters the Democrat race for the Oval Office. Michael Bloomberg has put out an ad concerning his health care plan - and it's just a big con job!
He says that he would provide Medicare-For-All to those who want it, but people who are happy with their current health care insurance can keep it. This is a deceptive way of conning people into thinking they can just keep the status quo if they wish. As such, he does not (appear to) threaten people with "single payer" health care.
NOT TRUE!
Medicare-for-all would, out of necessity, be paid for out of taxes. And those taxes would be assessed on every taxpayer - even those who choose to keep their own insurance. What this means is that those who choose their own insurance will be paying TWICE for health care - they would still have their insurance premiums and deductibles, and would also be paying higher taxes to pay for the medical care of all those who choose Medicare-for-all. The result, of course - and the sneaky reason for Bloomberg's proposal - is that those of us who choose our own insurance will be forced to drop it because of the excessive cost, resulting in "single-payer", and total government control of our health care. After all, who in their right mind would keep paying for private insurance when they are also paying for Medicare-for-all?
Make no mistake - Michael Bloomberg is nothing more than a socialist tyrant backed with billions of dollars. And when you look at all the things he banned in New York, and all the freedoms New York City residents suffered in his hands, that is nothing compared to what he could and would do as POTUS. DiBlasio and Warren - on steroids!
/
He says that he would provide Medicare-For-All to those who want it, but people who are happy with their current health care insurance can keep it. This is a deceptive way of conning people into thinking they can just keep the status quo if they wish. As such, he does not (appear to) threaten people with "single payer" health care.
NOT TRUE!
Medicare-for-all would, out of necessity, be paid for out of taxes. And those taxes would be assessed on every taxpayer - even those who choose to keep their own insurance. What this means is that those who choose their own insurance will be paying TWICE for health care - they would still have their insurance premiums and deductibles, and would also be paying higher taxes to pay for the medical care of all those who choose Medicare-for-all. The result, of course - and the sneaky reason for Bloomberg's proposal - is that those of us who choose our own insurance will be forced to drop it because of the excessive cost, resulting in "single-payer", and total government control of our health care. After all, who in their right mind would keep paying for private insurance when they are also paying for Medicare-for-all?
Make no mistake - Michael Bloomberg is nothing more than a socialist tyrant backed with billions of dollars. And when you look at all the things he banned in New York, and all the freedoms New York City residents suffered in his hands, that is nothing compared to what he could and would do as POTUS. DiBlasio and Warren - on steroids!
/
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Green New Deal - Let's Give 'em What They Want!
I suggest South Bend should implement it, and teach those ignorant protesters to be careful what they wish for. Bear with me a few moments...
South Bend could develop a plan to temporarily implement the Green New Deal - and all of its consequences - for a trial period of 90 days. During that time, all residents would be subject to penalties and/or heavy fines if they fail to adhere to the new regulations, which could include, but not be limited to:
And they should also be advised that should the regulations not be rescinded by voters in 90 days, that each resident would be liable, through direct tax, to pay an equal share of the cost to retrofit every building in the community, and provide housing for everyone, as stated in the Sanders - Ocasio-Cortes plan.
After being advised of the consequences, residents would then vote on whether or not they will support it. Only residents may vote.
I believe there is no chance in Hades that it would receive very many votes in favor - not even from those protestors, once they know that unfettered use of their gadgets and gizmos would suffer.
/
South Bend could develop a plan to temporarily implement the Green New Deal - and all of its consequences - for a trial period of 90 days. During that time, all residents would be subject to penalties and/or heavy fines if they fail to adhere to the new regulations, which could include, but not be limited to:
- No resident may use air travel. If they do, they would be fined an amount equal to the cost of that airfare
- Every residence would be restricted in the amount of electricity it can use each day. Once that amount has been reached, the city will shut off their "smart meter" until the next day
- No resident may use air conditioning, or they will be subject to a substantial fine. And thermostats in cold weather may not be set higher than 68 degrees
- Gasoline would be rationed on a per vehicle basis, no unnecessary travel using gasoline powered vehicles.
And they should also be advised that should the regulations not be rescinded by voters in 90 days, that each resident would be liable, through direct tax, to pay an equal share of the cost to retrofit every building in the community, and provide housing for everyone, as stated in the Sanders - Ocasio-Cortes plan.
After being advised of the consequences, residents would then vote on whether or not they will support it. Only residents may vote.
I believe there is no chance in Hades that it would receive very many votes in favor - not even from those protestors, once they know that unfettered use of their gadgets and gizmos would suffer.
/
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Proof of Biden/Burisma corruption?
The folks on the left - every one of them - are adamantly opposed to looking into the Bidens and their connections and roles in the corruption surrounding Burisma. They say it's because there is "no there there" and it would waste everyone's time. But that begets a very straightforward question: if there is no scandal, why are they so opposed to looking into it so they can show there is nothing there and clear Biden's name?
They can make up any excuses they want, but there is one thing they cannot explain away - whenever an innocent person is accused of something foul, their first and strongest urge is to clear their name. And if a person does not move Heaven and Earth to clear their name, you can bet the farm they are not innocent and have good reason for keeping it under wraps, and wanting everyone to just "forget it."
I try to be a reasonable, logical person. And it defies all reasonableness and logic for the Bidens - with the full support of all the Democrats in Congress and all the mainstream media - to not demand a full investigation to show they are not involved in any scandal. On the contrary - they are preventing any such investigation. Why?
Any sane, reasonable person knows why. There can only be the one reason. And while that does not technically constitute proof of wrongdoing, it is what it is.
/
They can make up any excuses they want, but there is one thing they cannot explain away - whenever an innocent person is accused of something foul, their first and strongest urge is to clear their name. And if a person does not move Heaven and Earth to clear their name, you can bet the farm they are not innocent and have good reason for keeping it under wraps, and wanting everyone to just "forget it."
I try to be a reasonable, logical person. And it defies all reasonableness and logic for the Bidens - with the full support of all the Democrats in Congress and all the mainstream media - to not demand a full investigation to show they are not involved in any scandal. On the contrary - they are preventing any such investigation. Why?
Any sane, reasonable person knows why. There can only be the one reason. And while that does not technically constitute proof of wrongdoing, it is what it is.
/
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Climate Change - A Scientific Reality Check
It's no secret that a huge portion of the world populations - and many "scientists" - are worried about the effects of climate change. And many, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are even claiming we will be extinct in 12 years if we do not do something radical.
Recently, thousands of so-called "scientists" (which sciences, I might ask - herpetologists - study of reptiles?) signed a petition to fight climate change, claiming it will destroy life as we know it.
But it is all pure BS and hype, and there is scientific proof.
First, we must understand that the climate is always changing, ever since the Earth was formed. Nothing in nature remains static, and everything is cyclical. So, yes, the climate is changing. But in no way is that detrimental to human life.
Just take a look at this climate chart created by actual CLIMATE scientists from real data:
What you see is that the Earth's normal temperature is normally substantially higher than it is now. It also shows that in periods of greater warmth, civilizations prospered. It also shows that the Earth was in a "mini" ice age from the 13th century through the first half of the 19th century, and we are only now beginning to get back to normal.
It is important to note that these statistics were compiled using scientific methods, studying Earth cores and other climate data from around the world. And the scientists who created this study and chart are actual climatologists, and not scientists from other unrelated fields, like those being used by the climate change fanatics.
Yes, the Earth may be warming, but that is a natural occurrence as we exit an ice age. And no, it will not harm us in any way of consequence. In fact, if history is any indicator (and it usually is), Mankind will actually thrive. If the Earth warms, there is much less need for fossil fuels to warm us. And as glaciers recede, more arable land is made available for growing crops to feed a growing population. And the melting provides more fresh water. And when we are warm and well fed, nations have less need to go to war, to take what they need from others (like mid-East oil).
So, where is the threat that climate change "chicken littles" are crying about? Elitist liberals like Al Gore, John Kerry and Barak Obama, all with multi-million dollar homes on the coast, may very well find themselves treading water IF the claims they are making actually come to fruition. Big financial centers, found mainly near seaports, may have to employ boats instead of Uber to get around, like in Venice, Italy. But it is not climate that is causing the damage, except indirectly - it is the result of human folly, where for centuries we have ignored Mother Nature and have insisted on building our cities so close to potentially rising waters.
Need proof? Every year the major rivers - Mississippi, Missouri etc. - reach flood stages, destroying homes and damaging cities. And yet every year people rebuild those homes and cities. It's a type of insanity, which is often defined as "doing the same things over and over, and expecting a different result."
Yes, the Earth may well be in a warming period. But that is a GOOD thing. It is also something that is natural, so there is no way we can stop it short of doing something drastic to create a cooling period, which would lead to an ice age. And THAT would harm us...
/
Recently, thousands of so-called "scientists" (which sciences, I might ask - herpetologists - study of reptiles?) signed a petition to fight climate change, claiming it will destroy life as we know it.
But it is all pure BS and hype, and there is scientific proof.
First, we must understand that the climate is always changing, ever since the Earth was formed. Nothing in nature remains static, and everything is cyclical. So, yes, the climate is changing. But in no way is that detrimental to human life.
Just take a look at this climate chart created by actual CLIMATE scientists from real data:
It is important to note that these statistics were compiled using scientific methods, studying Earth cores and other climate data from around the world. And the scientists who created this study and chart are actual climatologists, and not scientists from other unrelated fields, like those being used by the climate change fanatics.
Yes, the Earth may be warming, but that is a natural occurrence as we exit an ice age. And no, it will not harm us in any way of consequence. In fact, if history is any indicator (and it usually is), Mankind will actually thrive. If the Earth warms, there is much less need for fossil fuels to warm us. And as glaciers recede, more arable land is made available for growing crops to feed a growing population. And the melting provides more fresh water. And when we are warm and well fed, nations have less need to go to war, to take what they need from others (like mid-East oil).
So, where is the threat that climate change "chicken littles" are crying about? Elitist liberals like Al Gore, John Kerry and Barak Obama, all with multi-million dollar homes on the coast, may very well find themselves treading water IF the claims they are making actually come to fruition. Big financial centers, found mainly near seaports, may have to employ boats instead of Uber to get around, like in Venice, Italy. But it is not climate that is causing the damage, except indirectly - it is the result of human folly, where for centuries we have ignored Mother Nature and have insisted on building our cities so close to potentially rising waters.
Need proof? Every year the major rivers - Mississippi, Missouri etc. - reach flood stages, destroying homes and damaging cities. And yet every year people rebuild those homes and cities. It's a type of insanity, which is often defined as "doing the same things over and over, and expecting a different result."
Yes, the Earth may well be in a warming period. But that is a GOOD thing. It is also something that is natural, so there is no way we can stop it short of doing something drastic to create a cooling period, which would lead to an ice age. And THAT would harm us...
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)