Two Arguments

 I was reading a book entitled, In Six Days, a series of short articles by scientists, mostly PhD, who accept the literal Biblical account of creation and origins.  It's fascinating reading, but not an easy read.  I read it through three times and profited just as much from the third reading as from the first.

I came away with two breathtaking (to me) arguments for the existence of an intelligent Creator which seem unanswerable:

Irreducible complexity--a single-celled organism is probably more complex that a city.  It's certainly more complex than a passenger jetliner.  But here's the "Boom" that struck me as I was contemplating this: It doesn't get any lower.  Life doesn't get any lower than this fantastically complex cell.  There's nothing below the cellular level in self-replicating life.  "Primordial ooze" and "warm pond" stories all imply that there is "proto-life" below the cell level, but that just isn't true.  Evolutionary theory operates on the assumption that it is the reproduction side of things that enables the selection, the rising up from simple to complex.  How're you going to do that with something that doesn't reproduce, i.e., non-life?  Amino acids are not living.  Enzymes are not living.  Sugars are not living.  None of these organic compounds are living.  They do not reproduce.  Natural selection can't operate on them.  This seems obvious, but we're bamboozled by the warm pond stories, and I think I know why.  It's because we've all seen a situation where nutrient-rich water inevitably grows things.  Life seems to spring out of such situations of its own accord.  But that's not the case.  In every case, the life we see, the mold, the yeast, the scum, the goo--they all came from elsewhere, from previous mold, yeast, scum and goo.  They didn't originate in that pond (or petri dish).

And think about this:  Picture a bolt lying next to a threaded hole just the right size for the bolt, with a washer of the correct size lying nearby.  What are the odds that bolt could thread itself into the hole by chance, with the washer between, and torque itself down to the right spec?  What I'm saying is, even if you were to gather all the components of a cell together in one place, there's Some Assembly Required.  And the assembly is way more complex than just putting the bolt into the hole and torquing it down, which, by the way, is a never-happen-by-chance event (in case you haven't guessed).  Multiply that by thousands of equally impossible-by-chance events, and you would arrive at an assembled cell.  Congratulations! But now you've got another problem: Where are you going to get the life? You've just assembled a carcass, one which started decaying long before you finished putting it together.  Remember, these compounds are subject, like everything else, to the second law of thermodynamics, and they are busily breaking down into simpler substances while you're working.  

You might say, But a completed cell would automatically begin functioning--life begins!  I beg to differ.  All of us have seen animal carcasses which are complete but non-functioning.  The life is gone from them.  How did the life get there in the first place?  From another animal like it.  Like begets like.  We know of no other way.  The implications are huge.

The next point I'll cover in a future post.

Three Questions

 I just read a guest post on Bari Weis' blog from a woman born in Iran commenting on the freedoms we enjoy (and often overlook) here in America.  It's a great view through the eyes of someone raised in totalitarianism.  We would do well to take what she says to heart and do all that we can to preserve what is now under ferocious attack.

But her wonderment at a society that could provide such freedom to its fortunate and blessed members begs some questions, it seems to me.

How did such a state of affairs come about?  What worldview and cultural factors gave rise to this historic anomaly known as the United States of America?

How was such an exceptional situation sustained over 240+ years?

Why is the stability of this edifice now, as it seems to me, gravely threatened?

Those who love this country should think long, hard, and clearly on these three points.  They may by no means be exhaustive, by the way.  But I think they're a start.

Those who hate this country have already analyzed the situation, it seems to me, and are working feverishly to reverse the conditions that provided for #1 and #2, and to optimize the conditions for #3.

An Appeal to Flat Earthers and Other Debunkers

When I travel around, I pay attention to the angle of the sun. The published figures for the angle of the sun at a given date and time on any point on the earth's surface are correct, just from my personal experience. This leads to some important conclusions:
 --these observations could only be true on a spherical earth;
 --the size of the earth must be what "they" say it is.

 Follow me: When I travel from Cleveland, OH to Spokane, WA, I notice that the height of the sun at any given day at what I call "sun noon" (sun directly in the south) is about six degrees lower in Spokane than in Cleveland. That's from my own personal observation. Spokane is at 47 1/2 degrees north latitude, and Cleveland is at 41 1/2. Six degrees. I've traveled the distance between the two cities by automobile many times. The maps are accurate.

 The distances published coincide with the mileage on my odometer. I travel through 3 time zones of 15 degrees longitude each. 15 degrees times 24 hours equals 360 degrees, or one circumference. The lines of latitude and longitude are published accurately on maps. Each degree of latitude is 69 miles. 69 times 360 equals 24,840. Checks out. The lines of longitude grow closer together as we get farther from the equator, and they're the distance apart at any given latitude they should be if the earth were a sphere 25k miles in circumference. Checks out. Furthermore, Spokane is east in its time zone, and Cleveland west in its time zone. Therefore the sun rises and sets in Cleveland later relative to clock noon than it does in Spokane. I've checked this out, and it's accurate.

 The published figures for sunrise and sunset are accurate. Go to suncalc.org if you want to see these things for yourself. Pay close attention to how long shadows are where you are and do the trig math. It checks out. This is only one example. I've been all over the world, and I pay close attention to the coordinates of every place I go to. Everything so far has checked out.

The earth has to be a sphere, and it has to be the size "they" say it is. As far a seeing lighthouses at greater distances than calculated, that could be atmospheric refraction, enabling us to see a light that is below the horizon. Just a guess. I'll have to look at that.

Civil War in the US?

I just watched a video speculating as to the outcome of a civil war between the right and the left in the United States: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0ep-u1_0T8  (copy and paste in address bar)

I was going to post the below in the comments section, then thought better of it.  But I didn't want to waste my effort, so here it is:



The Dems would never enter into a civil war with things as they stand now. They aren't stupid, just crazy. As Inspector Dreyfus said, "Insanity does not preclude genius."

Not that the left wouldn't hop at the chance to destroy the right if they thought they could win. So here's what needs to happen before the left would consider joining battle with the forces of evil:

--They need to disarm the citizenry (they're working on it)

--They need to get rid of all the loyal officer corps and replace them with yes-men loyal to a leftist government. Obama started this process, which is now stalled since Trump took office. Maybe the next occupant of the Oval Office?

--They need to win the presidency and both houses--This is a near-certainty within a decade or so because of the next item:

--They need an overwhelming majority Democrat constituency. Immigration plus high birth rates for minorities, coupled with low birth rates for people on the right is making this almost a certainty in 10-15 years.

--They need to neutralize by whatever means possible all the trained war vets living among the general population. Perhaps list them as unstable, PTSD, threats to national security, etc? They tried this in the last administration. They'll try it again.

--They need to institute an invasive bureaucracy so controlling that opponents aren't able to communicate, coordinate, or resist. The idea would be to isolate individuals. Current surveillance technology, assisted by drones, will be a big help. The IRS and the NSA working together can keep the populace in a constant state of fear.

--They need to allow the current indoctrination process of the youngest generation, which has been going on for 50 years in public schools as well as in media and entertainment, time to bear the fruit of a near-total leftist world view among those of military age. They're close now, but need to wait a while longer.

IMHO, it'll take 10-15 years for all these to be in place. When this all comes together, I'd give them, oh, around 1.6 seconds or so to issue an ultimatum to the right.

Whose Will?

The President and the Republicans are trying to make the case, to justify their opposition to letting the caravan come across our border, that among the 7000 or so there may be ISIS, there may be drug dealers, there may be criminals of all stripes whom we don't want to let into our country.  This may be true, but it totally misses the point.  Perhaps the reason it misses the point is because they don't think Americans can, or will, either get or appreciate the real point.

The real point is this:  This caravan can't be allowed to just barge across our border because of the precedent it will set and because of the example it will become.  If we are a nation-state, with citizenship, laws, and territory over which we are sovereign, we can't allow non-citizens to just enter at will.  There must be some gate-keeping.  Otherwise, the above three, citizenship, laws, and territory, not to mention sovereignty, are completely moot.

Now is not the time or place to discuss the validity of the concept of nation-state as opposed to nation (ethne in Greek), which is an ethnic group, a nation of blood and soil.  Ours is a nation founded on an idea.  This was a very new thing in the late 18th century. 

Lincoln's question in the Gettysburg Address, "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure" is becoming more and more relevant.  If we lose the idea, does the nation really exist any longer?  France, for example, is composed of Frenchmen, at least until very recently.  (We'll see whether it can survive the influx of non-Frenchmen currently imposing its will on the native population.  I wouldn't bet on it.)  But the fact remains that France, as long as it is composed of Frenchmen, will remain France even if the government and its founding principles are radically altered.  The French Revolution demonstrated this.

However, the United States of America is not like France.  If the original idea is lost or repudiated, and the form of government altered, can it be said that the United States still exists? 

If the United States is to remain a sovereign entity, it must control its borders, that is, the territory within its jurisdiction.  It must reserve to itself the power and prerogative of choosing who may enter and who may not.  This is the issue at stake.  A mob of 7000 people must not be allowed to impose its will on the nation.  If it succeeds, we have lost our sovereignty and our real existence. 

There are those on the political left who probably think that is a good thing.  In fact, this is precisely what they've been working toward for decades, and it's nearly become a reality.  The question is, will they prevail?  Whose vision of our country will prevail?  Nearly 50% of the electorate is of the opinion that the United States should become a very different entity from what it has historically been since its founding.  Will they succeed in transforming it into their image, or will they be thwarted in their attempt?  This upcoming election will, in large measure, provide the answer.

More Honest Reportage by the MSM

My dad and I were watching TV coverage of this "event". The people were well-dressed, clean (not "ragged"), well-fed, and obviously in very good shape after already coming 300-400 miles. Q: Where are they getting all the food? How are they staying clean? What about shelter? Where are they sleeping? What about water and toilet facilities? This is a massive logistical undertaking. If you've been in the army you know what I'm talking about. Another thing--among the "hikers", mostly young men, were some women and children. including a very overweight woman. This is some hundreds of miles out from the start. And the next question is.....

Back to my point: Someone, or "someones", provided massive funding, organization, and logistical support. Further in the news clip they showed a number of large cargo vans. I assume the people are being transported by truck, only to be let out for a mile or two for the cameras. Nowhere in the MSM reportage do I hear anything about the logistics. No one's even asking the question, it seems. This is so obviously a setup. This isn't Lord of the Rings or some fantasy adventure. Large groups of people don't just trek across several countries. I checked the distance from Teguicigalpa, Honduras, to El Paso, TX. It's over 2300 miles. That's farther than the distance from Mexico to Canada by a fair margin. How'd you like to walk that? And the "press" is keeping a straight face while reporting this fairy tale.

Yes, the Lord is doing this to us. But the deed has mostly been done inside our country. If it weren't the refugees, the treacherous quislings would find something else.

You know, in order to run for political office in one of our parties, you just about have to sign your name in blood to a statement saying you'll support the murder of unborn children. That's their most important issue.

Woe to us.

Insanity

I'm reading in Acts chapter 4 today about the Jewish rulers examining Peter and John regarding their healing the lame man in the temple.  Peter nails them between the eyes with his pointed remarks:

"...let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone."

So what's their response?  They discuss the matter and decide that even though Peter and John have performed a tremendous miracle in the name of Jesus, they still need to suppress talk of Him being the Messiah or any silly thing like that.  Like the miracle in no way validates Peter and John's testimony.  Or even has anything to do with the matter.  Right.

Q:  How could they possibly be so blind and unthinking?  How could they possibly NOT be filled with fear and awe at the possibility that they just killed the long-awaited Messiah?  How could they not have been stopped in their tracks by the stupendous implications of this?   I'm reading this, amazed at the depravity of human nature, and at the same time, convinced at the accuracy of the account by the sheer perversity of this bunch.  In what work of fiction would you find such a reaction to an utterly convincing event?  Only in real life would such a thing happen.  It's stuff like this that convinces me even further that the Bible is a true account of history and of the reality of evil.

This reminds me of the reaction of the religious leaders to the story of the guards they placed at Jesus' tomb to keep the body from being stolen.  The guards witnessed a supernatural being rolling away the stone from the door of the tomb:

^"And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.  His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men."

These rough, tough men were utterly terrified.  There were four of them (at least), and they could have overpowered just about any natural being who tried such a thing.  Their testimony to the Jewish leaders had to be shocking.  So what was the Jewish leaders' reaction?  

...they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”

This is insanity.  The testimony of these guards (four of them!) HAD to be amazing.  Shocking.  Ominous.  TERRIFYING, to those responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.  I mean, what were they thinking?  You'd think that at least some of them would immediately fall on their faces and ask God for forgiveness.  But there's no record of that.  Instead, they bribed the guards to spread what they knew was a lie, and promised to bribe the governor also to keep him from executing the guards (death was the penalty for falling asleep on a watch).

But this is so true-to-life.  People hardened to the truth seldom are convinced by any evidence.  And they will go on telling lies that they know to be lies if the alternative is acknowledgement, repentance, humble acceptance, and a change of direction.

May God deliver us from ourselves.