Archive

Posts Tagged ‘evolution’

FORTY Strains of Coronavirus Are Circulating

https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/iceland-scientists-found-40-mutations-of-the-coronavirus-report-says/amp/

https://m.jpost.com/health-science/coronavirus-has-mutated-into-at-least-30-different-strains-new-study-finds-625333

https://www.rt.com/news/486489-covid19-antibody-millions-people-infected/

https://www.rt.com/news/487294-france-coronavirus-strain-italy-china/

Two Coronavirus strains are circulating, one is deadly (link)

Please give no credence on that website to the evolution myths spread by the so called mainstream scientists, which are 100 percent not people who have common sense where it counts most, common sense on spiritual things, like morality and the origin of life. Like now, Newscientist on their website is claiming yet another way evolution happened, or may have happened. By the way, it is evil to impossible for any well researched physicist in cosmology, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to deny there is a Creator, as they know that for a thing on the quantum level to have certain state, it must be observed, an intelligent being that is must make a measurement. So, the universe could not have simply acquired a certain set of conditions with an observer, or in the beginning, the Creator.

I think due to the multitude of coronavirus strains it is difficult for anyone to know if a person died from some other cause other than the coronavirus but merely had some harmless or non-severe-symptom-causing strain of it. So, death tolls cannot be relied on, especially in countries with massive populations like China and India. A way to know however is by analyzing a change in the average number of deaths per month and year, that would clarify a new death-causing agent/factor at work, and so, the world will have to wait a year or two for the tabulations.

The Dangers of Atheism, Narcissism and Secular Science

March 29, 2014 4 comments

I’ll try to make this short and to the point. Atheism is a dangerous mind set because it is a delusional state of mind in which a person has convinced themselves that morality comes not from a God who may send you to suffer forever in Hell if break his morality/by disobeying his commandments/laws, but from man, and is therefore something that is not permanent and in which there is no danger of eternal suffering for disobeying. I can give all kinds of horrific examples of how then an atheist could then justify what most people would call psychopathic behavior. As in what most people would call evil acts committed without showing any guilt over it. I say “most people”, because most people are not atheists, unless you count Buddhists of the East, though Buddhists at least have some sort of commandments, but how well they adhere to it, who knows: www.sacred-texts.com/bud/busc/busc11.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts#Ten_Precepts

Clear examples of atheism leading to murderous psychopathic behavior were given by the atheist leaders Stalin, Hitler (who, being a clever atheist, used religion to mask his agenda of subjugating everyone), Mao and perhaps Pol Pot, whose atheism though not stated is perhaps evidenced by his complete lack of promoting any religion. The murders of those atheists combined exceed the murders of the Catholic cult for the past 1000 years. In just 100 years those atheists murdered or killed over 50 million people. There are about 300 million people in the United States, imagine if 50 million of them were suddenly wiped out by some disease spread by an atheist biologist going around the country releasing his virus into water supplies.

I met one narcissist atheist who regularly trolls the internet – he’s a stalker of mine, who claimed that it wasn’t the fault of atheism, but communism. In other words: just ignore that they were atheists and focus only on communism. Talk about “intellectually dishonest”. Just imagine the field day atheists would have if a communist Christian had murdered 50 million people. They’d ignore the communism and trump up, “He believed in those horrible ten commandments!” Actually no they wouldn’t, because they conveniently ignore the ten commandments, knowing they are good, at least instinctively, so would more likely say with pretentiousness, “See what good religion is?! It lead to such a great loss, oh the tragedy. Religion is the cause of all wars.” In other words they’d be vague, ignoring specifics, pretending all religions are the same, ignoring what type of Christian this person was (meaning failing to examine if he was someone who misinterpreted the Bible and had a very warped understanding of it, or simply didn’t care if he was disobeying it). Most atheists I encounter off or on the net are either mentally ill or are very stupid and ignorant and think in this way. “Religion is to blame” is their excuse for their hypocritical behavior. Kind of like saying, “Religion made me do it/hurt that person.” Consider the irony of that excuse! An atheist is more likely to blame religion for their evil behavior than a religious person is likely to blame their religion I imagine.

People with the permanent mental disorder known as narcissistic personality disorder seem more likely to be atheists than of some traditional type of Christian religion like Catholicism, Lutheranism or the Calvinistic branches. That is because those religions teach that God’s commandments should be obeyed and worshiped. Catholicism however is polytheistic in that if adds gods to be worshiped of a sort, like Mary, angels and so called saints. Though they deny it it’s clear they do and in their “Catholic Bible” the commandment about not making or bowing down to idols has been removed. Consider the blasphemy of doing that. The Bible also says that anyone altering Scripture like that has a curse put on them. A narcissist DOES NOT want to worship anyone, but to have himself worshiped or rather have whatever he says don.

A narcissist is permanently bent towards an evil disposition, and so if he is also an atheist, becomes a criminal-minded person. Such people, horrifically, can rise all the way to leadership of countries with millions of people and have: Stalin, Hitler, Mao and possibly others. It seems impossible to many I imagine, that people who would seem to be so mentally unhealthy could gain such power, but it is possible because there can be those among them that have just enough patience, cleverness, know-how when it comes to lying to pull it off. And consider that it is probably not the hardest thing in the world to form a gang which can grow in power through theft, murder, stalking, bullying and technology, including through gun use till it takes over and takes a part of a large country. Consider also the “psychopath/serial killer” next door, who by pretending to be a normal good person by his behavior and words, imitating those he or she instinctively senses are the opposite of them, manages to blend in, while secretly, sometimes when alone or with a partner they think or is like themselves, tortures or murders others in darkness or isolation from the rest of civilization.

Some might think that in a world where governments are plagued with narcissists and psychopaths, that the world can still get by advancing till it weeds them out, and they look to the present state of the world as an example I imagine. For example Hitler was eventually gotten rid of, even if he did manage to escape to Indonesia, and George Bush Jr. was not elected again, and Popes given to murdering their opposition are no longer in power, seemingly, and the Dalai Lama (who was part of a long line of very evil oppressors in Tibet) was ousted by China (yet many Tibetans want him back!). But I think rather than it isn’t that such evil has been done away with or is being done away with, or being coped with successfully, I think what has happened is that more clever narcissists have come to power, ones who having studied history, seeing what keeps a person in power or not, have learned how to mask even better their evil personality and evil intent. A certain clever narcissist in power of the most powerful country today works in a very stealthy and slick way to pick apart what he personally does not like, which besides being the world in general, is mostly those who are for capitalism, a republic and Christianity.

A major problem in attempting to eliminate narcissism and atheism is that such people have already corrupted many others with their beliefs, including theists, so much so that they still support them even when they do great evils. For example Hitler, Mao, the Dalai Lama and I’d bet Stalin, all still have many supporters. It’s similar to how the ancient Jews under Egypt’s oppressive rule chose in their evil disposition to lose patience in their time of freedom WHILE SUFFERING to then, nonsensically, want to go back under a time of oppression WHILE FEELING GOOD, like eating after doing work, and so on. And many see the teaching of evolutionism and Big Bangism as having freedom them from oppression (and perhaps they instinctively sense that those teachings are what helped bring to power such evil leaders), and think that if they are gotten rid of, that “bad religion” would come back into “the schools” and “brainwash” everyone into being “slaves” again (slaves of what?) or technologically backwards (as if ipods, phones, cars and telescopes to play with didn’t exist because of Moses, Christ and the apostle Paul – but it’s disobedience to God that hinders technological progress actually). So, many people suffering now in America, Russia, Tibet or China, due to their poverty or being oppressed by current leaders desire to go back to an even worse time with worse leaders, who they rationalize as being better because, “At least they did such and such like Putin/Obama etc. and did not do such and such like those men.” But they ignore or don’t see that such times were hardly, if at all, better than now. Though I can probably easily argue that the early 1900s were much better than now (more traditional Christian values were upheld throughout the world, Darwinism and Big Bang propaganda was not so wide spread or rather did not have as many believers), I can just as easily show it was about as bad as it is right now in 2014. Examples: WW1 and WW2 and other wars besides those, the many cults that existed then most of which still seem to be around and even larger now, the many deceptions being spread and bad policies, like the Prohibition, lies about hemp and marijuana, so it’s not hard to show that the recent past was not much better. I’m sure too that there were many crimes being committed by police from 1900 to 1945, when traditional Christian values were nearing a slow but severe erosion in America and Europe, starting at about 1958 it seems to me. That was a time when Elvis rose to power and the U.S. “military-industrial complex”.

“Don’t ask, ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ For it is not to be wise that you would ask such questions.” – Ecclesiastes 7:10, King Solomon

A Letter to Dr. Jason Braithwaite

October 29, 2012 Leave a comment

To Dr. Braithwaite (and Fortean author Nick Redfern),

I study logical fallacies, not sure if that is your field since you say you’re a lecturer in cog psych as opposed to philosophy. I also study theology and psychology, specifically anti-social personality disorders, I teach those subjects too. I noticed in what seems to be an old version of your Seven Fallacies of Thought article you saying that science it he most openminded of knowledge systems. There’s a problem with that statement, which perhaps you realized and so removed, but in case it for some reason was still there and wasn’t being found I’ll explain why (and this is also meant for Nick Redfern whom I listened to on Coast to Coast AM, listened to him say that we should always be open to things that are contrary to what we believe):

It’s a fallacy to think you should be open minded to anything, it’s related to the fallacy that there is no absolute truth, that you can never reach truth and so should never commit to a belief being 100% true. In fact mainstream science is logically fallacious (and you saying that demonstrated partly why) because the philosophy of it (which is only exposed when its proponents are caught in an error despite using “science”) is that “we’re still learning” aka “still improving” in other words always endlessly learning and “correcting when needed” which is a bait and switch phrase for, “you can never have the absolute truth but must keep searching” aka “be open minded”. Now suppose that is just a bad fall back mainstream scientists make and that MAINSTREAM science (which is illogically referred to them as simply, “science” (no offense)), and that really it’s not about being open minded to no end, but, as its proponents say, about hypothesizing, experimenting, verifying (and adding to the knowledge of science), that may be so, but the problem is they inject their own bias and additional philosophy into it, hence, making it so called, “Mainstream” (in other words “mainstream” has come to mean,

“Belief that science cannot verify the existence of God, that the big bang is true, abiogenesis (whatever it may be) is true, Darwinian evolution specifically is true (not other evolution theories even if they don’t rely on a god or God or alien), that relativity is true and anyone who says they are not is not a true scientist or is less trustworthy than an ms scientist and is illogical or ignorant of the facts or delusional.”

It’s a well known fact among the world that that is what mainstreamers believe, or at least state openly in various ways so as to shield themselves from attack and persecution from their “peers” or those who believe things contrary to that biased philosophy.

So, it’s wrong in that many of its members at the very least, deny absolute truth when caught in mistakes, and for the other reasons I stated, and those other reasons are wrong for various obvious reasons which I won’t explain, because they are obvious or can be easily looked up (I made it easier by making a portal for that at https://eternian.wordpress.com/evidence): experiments that contradict the claims that the universe is older than 6,500 years, living fossils, data that contradicts the big bang, contradictions in relativity, biblical prophecy (which is verifiable scientifically as is archeology and psychology, the whole bible is scientifically verifiable in various ways as are the whole of facts of archeology and psychology, though they may not be a single book or a few similar versions as the Bible is conveniently).

As you probably already know, but in case don’t, or forget, you shouldn’t be open to anything, but only that which is in agreement with the facts, with truth, and with what is logical. So if someone says, “Be open minded that 2+2=4 is false” it’s not something to consider, and for me, if someone says, “Be open to (MAINSTREAM) science being superior to any other way of obtaining knowledge of what is true or false real and not real, I automatically know that is false, because it’s a bait and switch: mainstreamers are the ones who usually say that, and they mean MAINSTREAM science, not simply “science” and make another bait and switch fallacy by confusing the meaning of the word science even further, by meaning both “the method” and “the field of knowledge obtained by science” which are two entirely different things. The method has nothing to do with “You can’t prove God with science”, and even the field of science itself has no say on that, it’s just an accumulation of knowledge put together in some way. It’s not some single book magically kept one way by some mainstreamer or mainstreamers so that there are no other science-based knowledge that says, “God has been shown to exist by various characteristics of the universe, for example the instinctive knowledge of living things is knowledge that can be deduced through thought experiments showing that such knowledge must have been deliberately created rather than by chance (etc)…”.

A person’s mind should only be open to a thing being true (meaning, willing to consider a thing as being true) if they don’t have any knowledge which is plainly true that contradicts that thing being true. For example is someone said, “Be open to an all powerful, all knowing, perfectly logical, loving and vengeful being called ‘Yahweh’ and who is also called ‘God’, exists,” to someone who has no clear facts that an all powerful, all knowing, perfectly logical, loving and vengeful being, ‘God’ exists.

If we are not closed-minded to that which is clearly false, then we would be opening ourselves to the endless learning of the same things over and over again, no matter how simple and obvious or vexing, like “one plus one equals two” or that “deliberate abuse of and murdering little kids is immoral/not good/evil” or some particular crime that was plainly a crime because everyone saw the act committed (and yet the criminal repeatedly appeals to everyone to “have an open mind that he really didn’t commit a crime and that the crime was just an illusion, and that the blood that was spilled on the ground was fake, and that no one died and was buried, and that all the witnesses and investigators are imagining things, and the photos and videos even are false). If that is true, then there really is no point in going to get water to quench your thirst, because your thirst could be just as false as true, and water just as much existing as not; life would be a confusing mess and the pursuit of anything all like trying to accomplish something in a dream: futile.

Daniel

Religion Is Natural According to International Study

Religious belief is human nature, huge new study claims
By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
5/12/2011/12:46 P.M. ET

London (CNN) – Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, a massive new study of cultures all around the world suggests.

“We tend to see purpose in the world,” Oxford University professor Roger Trigg said Thursday. “We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can’t see it. … All this tends to build up to a religious way of thinking.”

Trigg is co-director of the three-year Oxford-based project, which incorporated more than 40 different studies by dozens of researchers looking at countries from China to Poland and the United States to Micronesia.

Studies around the world came up with similar findings, including widespread belief in some kind of afterlife and an instinctive tendency to suggest that natural phenomena happen for a purpose.

“Children in particular found it very easy to think in religious ways,” such as believing in God’s omniscience, said Trigg. But adults also jumped first for explanations that implied an unseen agent at work in the world, the study found. …

(1,488 comments)

More on this article here

It’s natural to believe in God: Oxford study
Press Trust Of India
5/12/2011/03:06 P.M. IST

London: Human beings have natural tendencies to believe in God and life after death, according to a three-year international research project directed by two academics at the University of Oxford.

The 1.9 million pounds project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in God and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind, a university release said.

The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of God or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as Gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.

‘The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project’ led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University, drew on research from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. – More here

Strange that these study findings on human instincts just came out being that I was studying a certain aspect of human instincts yesterday, to prove Mormons wrong moreso about a certain something they claim.

No Fruit Fly Evolution After 600 Generations or Bacteria Evolution After 40,000 Generations

November 19, 2010 1 comment


No Fruit Fly Evolution After 600 Generations
11/16/2010
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

Many Americans believe that the big-picture story of evolution, as biology professors routinely expound it, is false.1 Basically, they haven’t bought into the concept that all life descended from one common ancestor that miraculously sprang into being millions of years ago. And that makes sense, considering there are no real examples of that kind of evolution.

If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature.2 The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve.

Similarly, Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.3 In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.4

In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.5

The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.

One requirement for Darwin’s theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be “fixed” into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.

The study’s authors wrote, “In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed.”5

They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.6

Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don’t evolve—they just die.

Although the experimental results from these studies were given titles with an evolutionary “spin,” the actual experiments demonstrate undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved.

References
Dao, C. Poll: Majority of Americans Don’t Believe in Evolution. ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 24, 2010, accessed November 9, 2010.
Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.
Barrick, J. E. et al. 2009. Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. Nature. 461 (7268): 1243- 1247.
Linton, A. H. 2001. Scant Search for the Maker. Times Higher Education. Posted on timeshighereducation.co.uk April 20, 2010, accessed November 9, 2010.
Burke, M. K. et al. 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature. 467 (7315): 587-590.
For example: “Normal variations operate only within the range specified by the DNA for the particular type of organism, so that no truly novel characteristics, producing higher degrees of order or complexity, can appear. Variation is horizontal, not vertical!” From Morris, H. 1974. Scientific Creationism, Public School Edition. San Diego, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 51.

Original article here

More Information:

Uncooperative Fruit Flies Refuse to Speciate in Laboratory Experiments
Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution

Astrophysisist Says You Can Have “Spirituality” Without Religion

August 17, 2009 Leave a comment

Astrophysicist and author Dr. Bernard Haisch (whom Ian Punnet called, "one of the smartest men in the world.") discussed last night and this morning, on Coast to Coast AM, his theory that the universe is a product of an intelligence or consciousness, and how this is supported by recent astrophysical findings, and to pitch his book on those topics, called "The God Theory." Ian, seemingly to Bernard’s annoyance, asked him so good questions, revealing Haisch’s heretical book to be near worthless.

Ian asked Haisch what he thought o karma, and Haisch implied that when we do bad things that we judge ourselves and so we determine the negative effects that happen to us and so after we die how we lived determines what we next reincarnate as. How convenient for those who are evil! And how obviously false. Since when do those who do evil in this life time get instantly punished? Even the ancient "obsolete" Bible written by supposedly unobservant ignorants says,

"When I think about this, I am terrified;
trembling seizes my body.

Why do the wicked live on,
growing old and increasing in power?

They see their children established around them,
their offspring before their eyes.

Their homes are safe and free from fear;
the rod of God is not upon them.

Their bulls never fail to breed;
their cows calve and do not miscarry.

They send forth their children as a flock;
their little ones dance about.

They sing to the music of tambourine and harp;
they make merry to the sound of the flute.

They spend their years in prosperity
and go down to the grave in peace.

Yet they say to God, ‘Leave us alone!
We have no desire to know yourways.

Who is the Almighty, that we should serve him?
What would we gain by praying to him?’

But their prosperity is not in their own hands,
so I stand aloof from the counsel of the wicked.

Yet how often is the lamp of a
wicked [people] snuffed out?
How often does calamity come upon them,
the fate God allots in his anger?
"
Job 21:6-17"

And how many people are so stupid, so mentally darkened, that they don’t know that this is an unfair world? Who doesn’t think this is an unfair world? Who has never complained about corrupt leaders getting away with doing evil and dying in peace like Job complained about over 3000 thousand years ago? How many people don’t know that humans in general are unjust and don’t judge themselves perfectly but make exceptions for themselves? So how can Haisch say that we judge ourselves, in other words, that we give ourselves just punishment and correct rewards?

Ian also asked Haisch what he thought of a God who planned everything out, and Haisch said, "It doesn’t appeal to me." Yet just now (1:08 A.M.) Ian said Haisch was "coming from a purely scientific view." Though some may tell me Haisch wasn’t talking about his feelings, but had scientific reasons as to why it didn’t appeal to him, I know that’s wrong, since, that response is not an accepted as a scientific standard. For example, imagine a scientist, who is a Darwinist, says, "The scientific experiments we performed show that there is no such thing as randomness and that everything is preplanned, and follows physical laws. But that doesn’t appeal to me. So I don’t believe the results of the experiments."

Haisch also said, "In my view God doesn’t interfere in the world. … He creates boundries initially. … That’s the point of it."

Who cares what your view is? What matters is what is, reality. What matters is the evidence, the truth.

First caller: "Where does evil fit into this? …do you feel there is an evil out there somewhere, that manipulates peoples’ lives"

Haisch’s response: "I really don’t believe in any active evil force" … "I think there is a being without any polarity, a perfect being."

The caller was referring to a being like Satan obviously, and Haisch, without any explanation as to why, said, "no". How insightful.

A little while later Haisch said, "Not because he doesn’t care but because it would destroy his own plan to let things arise of it’s own accord. …to let things develop on their own."

Haisch is contradicting himself and saying things not based on evidence:

1) God is obviously perfectly wise and would know the outcome of anything based on how he set up the first laws and first thing or things in motion. So to say that God set the universe up to continue randomly makes no sense.

2) It makes even less sense since Haisch said God set up laws, and clearly these laws have remained, and according to scientists like Haisch, have, at least after the first explosion, stayed almost exactly the same or have stayed the same, as opposed to disappearing or changing due to randomness (unknowable changes due to lack of control by an intelligent being and it’s inability to know the outcome of that control). So, if things were meant to happen randomly after God made the universe or set it’s creation in motion to occur randomly, then his creating physical laws and making the explosion so precise that it ended up with our solar system and all the molecules in it in exactly the place he wanted would have been futile as as soon as he withdrew his control of the laws of the universe, it would have all started to come undone and returned back into a formless void.

3) Haisch claimed that God doesn’t "interfere" in the universe because it would defeat the point of everything happening randomly. What is his evidence for that? None. Haisch is contradicting himself in two ways, and not making sense in a another way:

a) Haisch defines "interference" as God doing anything in the universe, because it would prevent the universe from being random. Therefore Haisch is (and obviously doesn’t clearly realize it) that God knows the future and the consequences of all his actions, even the smallest action. If that is true, then God knew exactly what would happen by his "interference" in the beginning!

b) Even if Haisch defined interference as only being something God does to affect the universe after the first replicating life appeared on Earth, he still would be contradicting himself since Haisch already implied that God was not interfering with the universe while he controlled it up to the point of life appearing or beginning to replicate. So, Haisch is being arbitrary with his definitions, meaning, changing them so that God appeals to his feelings, what he wishes God to be.

Another caller asked Haisch if he believed in divine intervention (and though Haisch earlier said that he didn’t as I’ve pointed out) Haisch, by saying this, has contradicted himself again:

1) By saying that he did believe God participated in the universe indirectly (because he believes that we share God’s consciousness and manipulate reality with our consciousness – he said, "The universe is based on consciousness." earlier in the show), he is saying that God is participating in the universe. He even just now (at 1:50 A.M. about) said, "We are God."

2) What does it matter whether or not God participates directly or indirectly, it would still be "interference" according to one of Haisch’s definitions (definitions which are not compatible). And using Haisch’s logic, God could happily participate all he wanted by simply doing it indirectly by sending angels to do what he wanted, OR, CONTROLLING US INDIRECTLY WITHOUT USING ANGELS. So, Haisch’s logic is contradictory as he said that God doesn’t participate because it would be interference, yet says God does participate indirectly (at least he had meant that God does not manipulating things directly with his Spirit, like moving objects or energy around).

3) Haisch is also contradicting himself in that if we are God as he said, then God is interfering in this universe since we are acting in it and therefore preventing it from being random. Haisch even said that it’s based on our consciousness, so it’s design is based on what we want it to be. Haisch is illogical in his teachings upon God. He even said, after all this:

4) "I certainly haven’t proven anything." Well he has, using false evidence, convinced at least one caller that called late into the show, and so, he couldn’t even define the word "proof" right. Though someone may say, "Well he didn’t think he’d prove anything to anyone," but if that is true, then why is trying to? Why did he write a book and make a website and come on the show to do so? He wasn’t simply giving his opinions as much of what he said shows. If Haisch has said that he isn’t trying to prove, trying to convince anyone of anything, then he’s severely confused because he has shown that he is trying to prove things about God to himself and others.

Haisch’s problem, or dilemma if you want to say, is his not understanding how God can having other beings like himself who are able to choose to do things if God controls everything or anything. Haisch doesn’t understand that God can have self-aware beings who can choose and do choose, that we can be self-aware and choose to do things, and that God can still have his way by having everything turn out the way he wants, by his controlling our emotions, and INDIRECTLY directing our will by doing so. For example, when a donkey or duck is hungry, we humans can imprecisely get either of these animals to go after the food. God, being perfectly wise, is able to get us to go exactly where he wants, both physically, spiritually, and mentally, by precisely controlling whatever we feel, and our bodies and the matter and energy and spiritual things around us (but not our will). Since he can see into the future (or at least is able to calculate the exact outcome of all things by his actions upon them), knows exactly what will happen by any action he takes. If Haisch realizes that the mind of our spiritual head so to speak, is, has thoughts like it’s heart does, but is influenced by the thoughts of it’s heart, he would understand, I think, how God can have a universe with beings that choose, while still getting his way. So, what this all comes down to, his Haisch’s misunderstanding of what the heart and will are, his misdefinitions of those words, including the words God, interference, and control.

What Haisch also doesn’t understand is that the universe can’t exist apart from God’s control of it. The evidence for this, indirectly is what the Bible teaches, but it’s also evidence based on what we can understand apart from the Bible: (I’m working on showing this evidence).

Also during the show, Ian Punnet said, "fundamentalism of any type often leads to violence" which is without evidence and a contradiction: Calvinists are fundamentalists who don’t believe in harming anyone physically unless God commands them too. They believe in obeying Jesus when he said not to curse their enemies but to help them to survive or live well and to get eternal life if they can. They believe in doing that because of what Jesus said was the second greatest law: "Love your neighbor as yourself" and a similar one, "Love one another" which Jesus gave (meaning to show favoritism to other Christians with the same religion, which makes sense since who is closer to you then someone who loves the same God? And everyone instinctively knows to show favoritism to a family member first, (at least if that adult family member is peaceful to their help)).

Ian also contradicted himself by saying that in that fundamentalists "of any type" can also be people who believe that there is no absolute truths to believe and therefore would be against those who believe in truth or certain truths (like Calvinism, whether they believe Calvinism to be true or not; they would be against those claiming it is true). So, Ian was refuting his own statement and own religion, a religion in which the second greatest law, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is unimportant to Ian, and which denies the fact that Jesus called himself, "The Truth" and therefore was saying that everything he said was perfectly true. Ian, during the show, called himself, "an armchair theologian." How true. I hope his schizophrenia towards the Bible leaves him so that he supports it fully and consistently, rather than confusingly and hypocritically, for a show.

Spontaneous and Evolutionary Transitional Stupidity Unearthed From 2007 A.D.!

Lest this parrot I discovered on filefront.com gets the last word and fool more people into thinking he is right, or rather that this hoax known as The Miller Urey Experiment was valid proof of abiogenesis (and no God):

Quoting a pretentious parrot:

Actually, the Miller-Urey experiment is quite valid.

And btw, the archaeopteryx (i think i’ve spelt it right) is a transitional animal we have found directly in fossils, one between reptile and bird.

From: http://forums.filefront.com/pub/292503-hoax-evolution-83.html#post3560635

Mr. Pedantic Mr. Pedantic is offline vbmenu_register(“postmenu_3560635”, true);
Beware the Man in the Shadow
 

:lies:

Well because you said so! Actually, you’re quite mentally lazy (Jeeves please bring my tea snoot snoot). Pretentious Pendantic Parrot, using catchy useless phrases from narcissists doesn’t make you wise except in that you recognize how to appear wise to some other gullible people like yourself, yes, quite. Arn’t I smart, I said "quite". I’m to above everyone else to speak plainly, for their benefit, cuz I’m smart.

Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis

And now moving on to the other moronic statement:

"And btw, the archaeopteryx (i think i’ve spelt it right) is a transitional animal we have found directly in fossils, one between reptile and bird."

And btw, the archaeopteryx (I think I bothered to check it was spelled right, you know, not being mentally lazy is cool) is not a transitional animal merely because you said so, especially a parroting, gullible, mentally lazy person like yourself. And btw, did it ever occur to you how stupid it is for you to claim that that is evidence of such a fossil, out of countless fossils, trillions and trillions of them (if you include microscopic ones), which no one has shown to be transitional? Magic! Magic that only this one fossil happens to exist as "transitional" A WORD WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW THE MEANING OF. YOU DIDN’T EVEN BOTHER TO STUDY THAT FOSSIL. IF YOU HAD YOUR GULLIBLE SELF WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE IS NO CONCENSUS AMONG THE EVOLUTIONISTS THAT IT IS TRANSITIONAL, and concensus matters to parrots like yourself when it comes to arguing against Christians, cuz magic: concensus makes a thing true. Just ask Wikipedians (some will deny it when they realize an intelligent person who might know better is asking if you can vote something into being true).

Nest time, I mean next time, don’t parrot, or archaeopteryx. Make sure your brain is fully functional like the archaeopteryx is, and transitional like macro-evolution, a.k.a. "evolution".