December 18, 2009, 8:38 am by dc-agape.

The Coming of the Melchizedek

This Scroll is barely a page long and is somewhat fragmented.  The author(s) of this Scroll intended it to be a true interpretation of the Jubilee year, which occurred every 49 years.  Numerous Old Testament scripture has been used to explain the Yahad’s personal interpretation of the Jubilee year.  The Scroll is also filled with prophecy.  Unfortunately, this does not mean the prophecies took place.  The suggestion of using Bible verses to claim a prophecy will be fulfilled at a specific time is not a sign of a miracle.  This Scroll is a good example of how verses can be taken out of context and put in a future environment where they will lead to a “prophecy”.  The people of the time could not prove that the prophecy was wrong, and those people that lived when the prophecy was supposed to take place no longer knew that a prophecy had ever been written.  I will explain more about that and introduce the Old Testament verses that were used to create a false prophecy.

Lev 25:13 “’ In this Year of Jubilee everyone is returned to his own property.  

Deut 15:2 This is how it is to be done: every creditor show cancel the loan he is made to this fellow Israelite.  He shall not require payments from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the Lord’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed.

These verses is interpreted as what will happen in the Last Days.  After 1878 years (1948 – 70 CE) the return of Israel to the Jewish people cannot constitute “returned to his own property”.  Family records were not kept of property ownership, so no one can return to their own property.

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.  He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,

Here the concept of Melchizedek is invoked.  It is Melchizedek himself that will proclaim the good news to the poor, the broken hearted, the captives and the prisoners.  This is a very Messiah like concept, written over 100 years before Jesus was supposed to be born. But unlike Christian theology a specific time and specific people were to receive this “Good News”.  During the 10^th Jubilee Year (500 years in the future) those who were predestined to be atoned for would receive the “Good News”.  So not just any poor or broken-hearted, or captive, or prisoner – no, only the Sons of Light would receive the “Good News”.

Isa 61:2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,

This is the verse that the author(s) change to fit their own desires.  It is no longer “the Lord’s favor”, they change it to “Melchizedek’s favor”.  Now this gives the believer something to hope for that is not just a vague “sometime in the future near the End of Days”. 

Psalms 82:1 God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the “gods”:

The Yahad’s version of this verse is also slightly different than our NIV translation.  The Yahad believed that a second figure was to presided in YHWH’s presence and give judgment. 

Psalms 7:7-8 Let the assembled people gather around you.  Ruled over them from on high; let the Lord judge the people.  Judge me, Oh Lord, according to my righteousness, according to my integrity, O Most High.

They back up Psalm 82:1 with this verse claiming that one would rule from on high.  Their interpretation is that this person would be Melchizedek.

Psalms 82:2 “How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? Selah

This introduces the evils of mankind and the source of that evil: Belial…not the Christian Satan.  Men’s desire for evil will punished by Melchizedek himself at this time (500 years in the future).

Isa 61:3 and provide for those who grieve and Zion – to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of one of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of the spirit of despair.  They will be called the oaks of righteousness, a planting of the Lord for the display of his splendor. 

Here is a promise for those who live righteously during that future time.  Melchizedek will be the one who bestows the crown, provides the oil and garments. 

Isa 52:7 How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!”

Here the “mountains are prophets and they will proclaim the truth to all Israel.  Notice that in hindsight this did not happen since between 300 – 500 AD the Israelite nation had crumbled. 

Dan 9:26 After the sixty two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.  The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations has been decreed.

This “Anointed One” is the same as the one from Isa 61:2 who provides the vengeance of YHWH and comforts “all who mourn”.  The “Anointed One” will teach the people about the Truth and eternity.  He will also be instrumental in take Belial’s dominion and return it to the Sons of Light.

Isa 52:7 How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!”

Here Zion is those who turn to Melchizedek and are the ones predestined to follow him.  They will differ from the ways of man by proclaiming good news, peace, good tidings, and salvation.

Lev 25:9 Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the 10^th day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land.

The Scroll ends without explaining this last verse.  But it is obvious that this should be taken as the sign that the prophecy written in this Scroll has taken place when the people here the trumpet sound. 

As with most “prophecy”, this one was written for a future generation.  This one happens to be the one that would have existed in the newly Christianized Roman Empire.  Basically about the time when Theodosius died and the Roman Empire was split into two distinct providences: the Eastern and the Western.  So if this prophecy was “true” a very important question is raised.  Which “Church” is the correct church and which one follows Belial?  Would this be the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox?  The implications are astounding, for the Protestant and the Evangelical Churches of the US are based on the Catholic branch. 

Posted in Important Questions, The Coming of Melchizedek, Dead Sea Scroll, kingdom of God, Freewill, Readings | Print | 1 Comment »

September 19, 2009, 9:29 am by dc-agape.

A while back I ask some tough questions to one of my Christian commenters.  During these questions, posts, and comments one question was raised that should be addressed in a final post in this series.  If something as basic as the speed of light has changed in recent history (last 1,000,000,000 years) how does this change effect science?

First of all, let us look at the concept that the universe is very old.  Estimates are that the universe is 13,700,000,000 years old.  Even if variations have occurred in this period of time we are talking about only 10/137% (7.2%) of the age of the universe.  But of course, the concept that determines the age of the universe is based on a constant speed of light.  Getting into the nitty-gritty of the calculations for the age of the universe is quite cumbersome.  For this reason Wikipedia is most helpful.  Age of the Universe is one topic, within this topic is the Lambda-CDM concordance model, within this model are the parameters of the Hubble constant, Baryon Density, total matter density, optical depth to reionization, scalar fluctuation amplitude, and the scalar spectral index.  Only the Hubble constant itself is calculated from the speed of light.  The baryon density has been calculated to a highly accurate value.  The optical depth of reionization is also been constrained to a very small variation.  The total matter density of the universe is actually related to the baryon density by the SZ (Sunyaev-Zel’dovich) effect measurement.  The scalar fluctuation amplitude is actually measured directly from the Cosmic Background Radiation.  And finally the scalar spectral index is measured from WMAP and is becoming more accurate each year.

So actually the speed of light is rather immaterial to the outcome of these calculations.  It is actually the cosmic background radiation that is critical to the calculation of the age of the universe.  I have used Wikipedia as much as possible in this post due to the fact that it is written in layman’s terms.  The whole process is still very complex and relies on numerous measurements, each with errors and some with approximations.  But in general, when numerous methods converge on the same results/predictions, we are not using the Argument from Authority (as Christians use YHWH), but instead scientist are using completely different methods that can then be used together to determine the validly of the model.  If, for example the results of these different measurements did not relate to other measurements – such as the distance of the furthest supernovas – then one of the two models would be wrong.  Instead, both models agree! 

But this is how science works.  We do not take just one measurement, we do not use just one method, and we continually look for new information that either supports or eliminates old (outdated) methods.  Religion does not do this.  Religion claims to be based on documents written by man between 2000 – 3000 years ago.  Religion also claims that the source of these documents does not change.  Yet there is no way to test this hypothesis!  Worse, the documents used have been edited, mistranslated, lost, and subject to political strife during these last few millennium – making them highly suspect.  To make matters worse, there are competing religions that instead of making one religion stronger (more valid), they each contradict each other.  In scientific terms this would indicate that the religious model was incomplete or even completely wrong. 

Teaching of Creationism in the classrooms of science would be a very terrible travesty to the USA.  The fundamentals of science are based on repetitive measurements, agreement amongst measurements, and the critical skills to recognize the errors involved.  It is true that all science stands on the shoulders of previous methodology and as a result of previous work of humans with great knowledge.  But without this, we would not have computers, we would not have electrical lights, and we would not have automobiles.  We would also not have landed on the Moon, nearly eradicated polio, or built skyscrapers that religious fanatics could destroy with the airplanes that science built.  If you do not want to trust science because of its changing nature or because of its use of assumptions and approximations or because it is based on the shoulders of giants, which parts of science do you want to trust and which do you want to throw out?  Science will continue to improve, science will continue to delve into the understandings of the universe – as small as my own PhD thesis on the Memory Effect of amylose tris(3,5-methylphenyl carbamate) or if it is the Grand Unification Theory – because humanity has curiosity and the only way to alleviate that curiosity is to search for answers. 

Relying on old books that have been tampered with by man seems to be a poor substitute for the curiosity drive.  In fact, it seems to put limits on what is appropriate which questions to seek answers to.  Relying on contradictory messages from “prophets” of all religions opens up the question of which “prophets” were right and which “prophets” have been wrong.  And the “proof is in the pudding” does not work.  All the messages from the “prophets” have been turned into personal political gain, whether it is Jewish, Islamic, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, at some point in history.  Don’t get me wrong, science has also been used for the personal empowerment of individuals…but those actions have quickly been exposed and appropriate Earthly punishments have been applied.  Further, waiting for YHWH to punish evil in the afterlife is a lame excuse for allowing evil to flourish here on Earth.  Since no prove of the afterlife exists, this attitude only attempts to continue the status quo.  Evil continues to occur, starvation continues to happen, slow and painful deaths by disease continue to happen, and personal power is continued to be held by those with their own agendas without checks and balances.

Posted in Important Questions, State of Mind | Print | 2 Comments »

September 15, 2009, 8:02 am by dc-agape.

I have received a Christian response to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq:

I don’t believe that YHWH’s will is as simple as does he endorse the war or not. I am not His messenger on which wars He feels are just nor which he sees as unjust. If He reveals this to me then I will let you know.

Notice that Christians believe that a just war can exist…even though it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.  One of my non-Christian commenters pointed me to the Catholic Catechism on this topic.  It would seem that Christians (not YHWH or Jesus) have changed the rules.

Sorry to point this out to those have been taught a Tradition of Man…but nowhere in Jesus’ teachings does he say that under these conditions is it OK to kill.  In fact, he his quite clear on his (and we hope YHWH’s) opinion on the subject.

Mark 7:20-23 He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean’.  For form within, out of men’s hearts, comes evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly.  All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”

You see to Jesus murder makes one unclean.  Even the thought of murder is enough.  Yet that is the basis of war…you cannot have a war without murder.  Usually wars also include greed, deceit, arrogance, and folly.  The War in Iraq has certainly included all of these things that make a human ‘unclean’.  So how can there ever be a “just war”?  By Christian standards even the American Revolution and the Civil War could not have been “just wars”. 

How can an Atheist say this?  Simple the act of war includes (and requires) anger!    War also includes greed, theft, deceit, and envy.  The Revolution was about taxes and freedom.  Is not the concern over taxation not a form of greed?  Did not Jesus actually say this?

Mark 12:17-18 Then Jesus said unto them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”  And the people were amazed at him.

And what was the freedom that the Revolutionist wanted?  They wanted freedom from oppressive religion.  Anytime religion gets into politics an oppressive religion is created.  Look at England during the Revolutionary War, look at Sharia Law, and remember how Iraq was controlled by the Baath party.  Under these conditions hatred and deceit are common which both make humans ‘unclean’.

And was not the same passage about taxation to an oppressive government?  Jesus also said that murder and anger were on equal footing:

Mark 5:21-22 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder’, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.  But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

Has there ever been a war that was not initiated by anger or at least perpetuated by anger?  The North (Yankees) claimed that the Civil War was about slavery…but where in the Bible does YHWH or Jesus say that slavery was wrong?  No, in fact, the Civil War was about something completely different. Anger and greed prompted this particular war.  Economics were the final blow that forced South Carolina to secede from the Union.  I will not get into the details but one must read “The Impending Crisis: 1848 – 1861” by David M Potter to understand the motivations of both the Southern Rebels and the Northern Yankees.  To say the least slavery and even states rights were a minor part of the beginning of that war.   The anger and hatred created by this war exists to this day!

Finally, I want to end with this verse:

Matt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in Hell.

Is not Jesus directly telling his followers that worrying about this human body and what the “enemy” attempts to do to it is immaterial?  So the defense of life and property is complete unjustified for war by Christian standards, at least those who follow Jesus and not the Traditions of Men.

Personal opinion:  The world today would be a much different place without the Revolutionary War or the Civil War.  From a humanistic perspective the Revolutionary War was justified by the fact that democracy was formed from the final actions.  But do the means always justify the ends?  Oddly enough most of the English colonies now have the same freedoms that the Revolutionary War provided the USA with.  Was the War required?

As concerning the Civil War:  how much damage was created, and still not corrected due to the evasion of the South by the aggressors from the North?  Would three nations in North America be much different than just two?  Would not slavery ended anyway?  Neither cotton nor tobacco are now the major crops of the South.  Would the South have been able to survive economically by itself? 

There was nothing Christian about either war.  Each of these two major wars were not initiated by a just YHWH.  The reasons for both wars were purely “unclean” in Jesus’ and YHWH’s definition.  So even though the outcomes were positive, supernatural instigation was not involved in the creation of these wars.  To claim divine intervention for these wars would be to say that YHWH created evil to create good.  Is that not contradictory in and of itself?

Posted in Important Questions, State of Mind | Print | 4 Comments »

September 12, 2009, 7:09 am by dc-agape.

A while back I ask some tough questions to one of my Christian commenters.  I had a reason for each of the questions.  You see, Christians worship a supreme being that is known for compassion, justice, and love.  In this post I wanted to hopefully finish the answer to teaching Creationism in the Classroom.  The purpose of the questions was to determine if our commenter was True to the Christ-like qualities expected from Christians.

I then asked if he believed that Creationism should be taught in the science classroom.  I requested his response to the recent trial in Dover, PA, USA.  It is true that as an Ethical Humanist (materialist) and a scientist I do have two biases.  One I have described many times…I do not see any proof of an existence of supernatural beings.  But being a scientist reinforces this bias by requiring data that supports any hypothesis, requires critical analysis of all data, and also requires that overlapping schools of thought (methods of gathering data) support each other.  As a scientist I believe that the skills of critical analysis are crucial to the solving of problems; either in the home, work, politics, environmental or international.

You see Creationism focuses mistakenly on evolution and biology as its target.  But at the same time Young Earth Creationists (most creationists) must also deny much if not all of Chemistry, Physics, Geology, and Astronomy.  These people believe that Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution is the cornerstone of all modern sciences.  They also believe that if they can topple this one theory then all the other sciences will fall as well.  But this is a very large mistake on their part.

Geology

Two people of geological significance need to be introduced.  Mary Anning has been called “the greatest fossilist the world has ever known.  She began to get this name in 1809-1811 at the age of about 10!  She is the girl that discovered many fossils of ichthyosaurus and one plesiosaurus.  It was well known long before Charles Darwin, that dead animals were trapped in stone formations.  But since those discoveries are too close to “evolution” one more person needs to be introduced: William Smith.  William “Strata” Smith proved that the earth had not always looked like it does today or in his own time (1799).  He is known as the “father of English geology” because of his documentation of the stratification of rock formation beginning in the area of Bath, England and ending with an entire geological map of England.

What must be understood is that Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is not the origin of modern scientific thinking.  Well before Darwin’s work was even started, the scientific community was well aware that something was wrong with the creation story taught to all scientists as the “Truth”.  Both the discovery of fossils (rock formations that look identical to animal bones) and uplifted breaks in the strata of the earth were known prior to the beginning of Evolution. 

If Creationists want to discredit Darwin’s work they must start at an earlier period of time than 1859.  Geology was well established as indicating that the Earth was not 5,800 years old (now days – 150 years later – 5,950 years old). 

Astronomy

We all know about Nicholas Copernicus (1473 – 1543), Galilei Galileo (1564 – 1642), and Johannes Kepler (1571 – 1630).  These three men changed the world!  Prior to Copernicus’s time the Church taught that the Earth was the center of the universe.  But by the time Kepler died things were rapidly changing; the Earth was no longer the center of the universe.  One of man’s greatest ego trips – homocentricity – was nearly completely smashed by these three men.  Astronomy has been, ever since, slowly chipping away at the human ego.  We now know that suns exist that cannot be seen by the naked eye.  But even the Andromeda Galaxy is visible to the naked eye – an astonishing 2,300,000 light-years away.  That means that the light from this galaxy has been traveling for 2.3 million years to reach earth!  There goes the hypothesis of a 6,000 year old universe.

If Creationist want to make any headway into modern science they will have to make hypothesizes, test, and prove that the equipment used by astronomy are completely wrong about the size of the universe.  All I can say is go for it!  While you are at it, try and disprove the existence of well over 370 exo-planets discovered.  But the techniques used to prove distant stars and exo-planets are all linked to physics.  I will have to leave that to one additional post.

Posted in Important Questions, State of Mind | Print | 10 Comments »

September 11, 2009, 11:25 pm by dc-agape.

Even though I have not finished the posts on Creationism in the Classroom, today is an important anniversary.  I in memory of the event that took place 8 years ago, I want to ask two very important questions.  Christians worship a supreme being that is known for compassion, justice, and love.  The purpose of the questions was to determine if our commenter was True to the Christ-like qualities expected from Christians, but should be equally valid for any TrueChristian™.

Here was the first question I missed.  How does a True Christians respond to the War in Iraq?  What about the illegal incarceration of the “terrorists” at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp?

We now know that our former President Bush lead us into a war with Iraq that has not ended.  We know that it was poorly planned with no plan for the recovery of civilization in the country.  We also now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, they did not have ties to Al-Qaeda, nor did the Iraq nation have the capacity to create biological weapons.  We were not even over-throwing a dictator: we have not done anything about any other dictator in the world: Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Cameroon, Tunisia, Sudan, Chad, Rwanda, the Gambia, Central African Republic, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, the Maldives, Myanmar, North Korea, and even Fiji.  Why did the government of a “Christian” US choose Iraq?  Why, in fact, were the excuses make (lies) and why did we preemptively strike at an enemy?  We know that the Christians of the 1^st Century would not and certainly did not do this.  When the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem the Christians ran for the hills (pdf format).

The biggest problem with the War in Iraq (which has not been “Won”) is that it was split the US army into a two front battle: one in Iraq (with no logical reason to start that war- religious or security) and Afghanistan – where the terrorist are actually located that destroyed the Twin Towers in New York City, NY.  During our wasted time in Iraq we have lost support from almost every nation in the world…including Pakistan, the one country that we need the most support from. 

About Gitmo…most of the “prisoners” there are not “terrorists” yet the government has held them without due process of justice and to top it off have held them against the UN resolution on prisons of war (Resolution #739 (VIII))!  How Christian is this action?

Another one I missed.  How does a True Christian respond to the War on Terror?  Is it appropriate to strike preemptively?

Whatever happened to “turn your other cheek” and “give your enemy the shirt off your back”?  We are certainly not a Christian nation if we cannot obey those simple Beatitudes from Jesus.  Yet for some reason, our military is not only a majority “Christian” many “Christian” attitudes pervade the entire system.  Homosexuality is not only frowned upon it is grounds for dishonorable discharge, Atheists have been harassed, and a strong fundamental conservative Christians movement is invasive to the US military.  The big question is: why are there any TrueChristians™ in the US military at all?  Does not killing other human beings violate just about everything YHWH and Jesus taught their followers?

Posted in Important Questions, State of Mind | Print | 15 Comments »

September 10, 2009, 7:01 am by dc-agape.

Last week I ask some tough questions to one of my Christian commenters.  I had a reason for each of the questions.  You see, Christians worship a supreme being that is known for compassion, justice, and love.  The questions I ask should have included two more, but I thought I had covered all the important topics.  I will explain the reason for each of the questions in the next nine posts.  The purpose of the questions was to determine if our commenter was True to the Christ-like qualities expected from Christians.

I included the controversy of abortion.  I did not ask if all abortions should be allowed, I specifically asked about three types: rape, incest, and the physical harm to the mother.  Believe it or not, even to most Atheist abortion should be a rare thing!  Of course, many of us suggest that proper sexual education is the key.  This would be a combination of the abstinence programs and more liberal education.   It should also include the risks involved in sex: STDs, pregnancy, and the resulting responsibilities of both living with an STD and/or a child.  In the US we are having a recurrence certain of STD’s specifically Chlamydia and Syphilis.  Almost 50% of these cases are in the 15-24 year olds.  HIV is also spreading, now hitting the African-American population the hardest.  By ignoring that young people are having sex, it is the adults that are contributing to this trend!  We are the ones that need to be teaching our children the risks involved in these actions, without lying – abstinence only does not work!

Is it compassionate to lie to children and risk them getting Chlamydia, Syphilis, HIV, or pregnant?  It is perfectly fine for responsible parents to reinforce abstinence!  But, honestly, how many responsible parents are there in the US?  Does it make up even 50% of the population?  Most rely on public/private education to do the dirty work…sex education, math, science, history, etc.  Many cannot even help their children in modern schools, since what they were taught 20+ years ago is no longer the focus on our children’s education.  That is why in almost every city programs like Indiana’s AskRose.org, Tennessee’s Homework Hotline, and Philadelphia’s On-line Teacher from the Free Library.  Unfortunately, it would seem that sex education is also outdated.  The statistics on teen sex indicate that by 2006 46% of all teens in the US had sexual experiences at least once.

Atheist, for one, believe that comprehensive sex education is the only way to be truly safe and compassionate to half that are having sex.  And since this includes the abstinence only groups as well as the rest of teenagers…we must (to be compassionate) teach the hard facts that polygamous sex leads to higher risks of STDs and pregnancies.

The lie (good Christian moral system) that abstinence works needs to stop!  Will it increase the number of teens having sex?  At 46% of the teen population is that really a top priority?  Or is it compassionate to let the kids learn the hard way?  It certainly is not compassionate to the parents that must deal with the medical bills!  It certainly is not compassionate to the teenagers that will live out the rest of their lives with an incurable STD or have to forgo college to take care of a baby!  Where is the compassion and truth in teaching abstinence only?  Or is it just a cultural phenomenon, due to Christian morality, that people don’t want to talk about sex to their children?

Posted in Important Questions, State of Mind | Print | 4 Comments »

September 9, 2009, 8:22 am by dc-agape.

Last week I ask some tough questions to one of my Christian commenters.  I had a reason for each of the questions.  You see, Christians worship a supreme being that is known for compassion, justice, and love.  The questions I ask should have included two more, but I thought I had covered all the important topics.  I will explain the reason for each of the questions in the next nine posts.  The purpose of the questions was to determine if our commenter was True to the Christ-like qualities expected from Christians.

I then asked if he believed that Creationism should be taught in the science classroom.  I requested his response to the recent trial in Dover, PA, USA.  It is true that as an Ethical Humanist (materialist) and a scientist I do have two biases.  One I have described many times…I do not see any proof of an existence of supernatural beings.  But being a scientist reinforces this bias by requiring data that supports any hypothesis, requires critical analysis of all data, and also requires that overlapping schools of thought (methods of gathering data) support each other.  As a scientist I believe that the skills of critical analysis are crucial to the solving of problems; either in the home, work, politics, environmental or international.

You see Creationism focuses mistakenly on evolution and biology as its target.  But at the same time Young Earth Creationists (most creationists) must also deny much if not all of Chemistry, Physics, Geology, and Astronomy.  These people believe that Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution is the cornerstone of all modern sciences.  They also believe that if they can topple this one theory then all the other sciences will fall as well.  But this is a very large mistake on their part.

Chemistry

Two fundamental theories of chemistry must be separately proven wrong for the Creationist to have a viable hypothesis.  One is radio-nuclear decay and the other is isotope labeling.  Both of these topics are now stronger theories than gravity or the speed of light (which are also theories). 

In radio-nuclear decay we know that Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years.  We can measure up to seven of these half-lives before the concentration of carbon-14 become too dilute to measure by modern techniques.  By this type of measurement we can deduce what living material existed up to 40,110 years ago!  Well beyond the YEC’s belief that the universe was created on Oct 4, 4004 BC.  But this is just child’s play compared to another radio-nuclear decay: potassium-argon.  Potassium exists in nature as Potassium-39 and Potassium-41, but there is a naturally occurring radioactive Potassium-40.  Its half-life can also be measured and it turns out to be 1.26 billion years.  Since it is natural in the earth’s crust we can measure its concentration in rocks.  In this case the same number of half-lives as the Carbon-14, we find evidence of rocks that are 8,820,000 years old!  BTW, I call this Chemistry even though it borders on physics (it is difficult to separate some science from each other).  Since these two different tests based on the theory of nuclear decay are different than Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, YEC’s must account for this theory as well.  The theory of radio-nuclear decay was discovered by Henri Becquerel in 1896.  Darwin wrote his Theory of Evolution in the book by the name of “Origins of the Species” in 1859.  So even though the two men were contemporaries their research was in completely different subjects.  Most likely Becquerel either had never read Darwin’s work or did not take it as serious or important work.  You see Darwin’s work was not fully accepted by most scientists and even by conservative Christians until 1880 (look under trends).  To claim that Becquerel’s research was created to support evolution is a long shot at best.  You see Becquerel discovered radioactivity because he was studying Phosphorous and by serendipity stumbled on the decay of this element.

The other chemical problem that YEC’s will have to overcome is isotope labeling.  Meteorites from space have different percents of elemental isotopes than the rocks found on Earth.  Why does this cause a problem for the YEC hypothesis?  Because it means that these rocks were made under different conditions than our Earth.  Iridium is one of the leading elements in determining where a meteorite is from.  You see non-radioactive Iridium is almost none existent in Earthly rocks at a level of about 1 part per million (ppm).  Yet in meteorites its concentrations can be as high as 500 ppm.  Other elements also exist that change the percent of isotopes depending if they are earthly or “heavenly”.  Carbon ratios (C-12 vs. C-13), osmium, tungsten, nickel, iron, molybdenum, ruthenium, and the list goes on and on and on.  Again, this particular test method is considered within the scopes of physics, astronomy, and chemistry (the sciences are very difficult to compartmentalize).

Well this post is definitely going to have to be split up.  The topic is very broad and I have not even gotten to the Physics (speed of light and sub-atomic particles), Geology (Plate Techtonics and erosion), and Astronomy (star distances and star types).  I will see if I can make this into two more posts. 

I will have to get into why Creationism is not science more clearly as well.  But for now, let me just say that without viable hypothesizes for these phenomenon (other than “God don’it”) YEC does not teach critical thinking skills and does not allow for curiosity or learning about arguments based on cold hard data collected by work in the field.  The YEC hypothesis has no field to work in…since we cannot measure or even observe the supernatural.

Posted in Important Questions, State of Mind | Print | 6 Comments »

September 8, 2009, 7:12 am by dc-agape.

Last week I ask some tough questions to one of my Christian commenters.  I had a reason for each of the questions.  You see, Christians worship a supreme being that is known for compassion, justice, and love.  The questions I ask should have included two more, but I thought I had covered all the important topics, so there will be nine total posts in this series, even though I have already made a second post on the first question.  I hope that this will not be the standard!  I will explain the reason for each of the questions in these posts.  The purpose of the questions was to determine if our commenter was True to the Christ-like qualities expected from Christians.

I continued to ask hard questions.  I introduced the cases of Terry Schivo and Dr. Jack Kevorkian.  My questions were related to the intervention of the US government to keep Mrs. Schivo alive even though the potassium imbalance had left her brain nearly completely dead.  I also used the case against Dr. Kevorkian (Dr. Death).  He helped terminally ill, suffering people to a peaceful death that would not arrive for weeks or even years.  I went further and asked how he personally responded to these results.

I should qualify the reason for this question.  I have witnessed all four of my grandparent’s death personally, my mother’s, and most of my father’s and mother’s cousins continued struggle with cancers and death. As a gay man I have personally survived the early ’90 significant plague of AIDS on my community.  Many of my personal friends and loved ones died of this horrible disease.  I see nothing compassionate in forcing a dying person to remain alive until the final pain-filled breath is taken while human-made machines and drugs attempt to keep the person alive for a little bit longer.  There is nothing ethical or compassionate about this type of torture.  Killing someone who has the chance that a cure is possible, or even a minimization of pain and suffering is an ethical problem, without doubt, but that was not the question.

To obtain an understanding of Christian “compassion”, it would seem that I must eliminate such concepts as the Buddhist teachings of compassion that is over 2,500 years old.  Taoism, a religion that is over 4,000 years old must also be eliminated.  I must also eliminate from my discussion that in Bronze-age France compassion was shown that is over 6,800 years old.  Or even older examples of compassion from Southern Italy in 10,000 BC.  Of course, since the world was created only in October of 4004 BC the last two don’t count, right?  Sorry Christians you do not have a monopoly on compassion!  But you certainly do seem to hoard it for your own families, thinking that all non-believers are uncompassionate.

My argument is simple in the case of terminally ill humans.  How would you feel if you could no longer communicate with the world around you?  Worse, what if your unconscious state of semi-vegetable like existence left you completely unresponsive to the world around you yet you had vivid nightmares in this state?  Since we cannot know what a person is feeling while in a permanent coma, should we use man-made machines and medicines to keep the person alive…just because we can?  Is it compassionate?  If nature has determined that it is time to let the person go…should we hold on for personal selfish reasons?  In fact, is keeping some one alive by modern medicine truly compassionate, or is there some other reason that the living does not want to let go of the dead?  Is it guilt?  Is it fear?  Is it proving that we can overcome death?  And why do Christians want their suffering family members to linger here on earth, when “Heaven” is waiting?  Should not death be a time of rejoicing in a Christian household?

A tougher question is euthanasia.  As with abortion, it is not an easy subject and does not have a clear line of demarcation.  It is true that people will give up hope long before the suffering or disease will end their life.  In many of these cases, the desire to live will return.  In these cases an early death is tragic and should be weighed with great consideration.  Psychological counseling should be extensive.  Family member’s wishes should be considered with great care.  But one thing that is overlooked is who will care for the person seeking death?  Will it be their family members, friends, or cold strangers?  How long will the family be willing to take care of the suicidal family member before they ship the person off to a cold sterile medical environment that only intensifies the suffering and desire to die?

But there is another side to euthanasia as well.  What about the terminally ill, those people who will not make it 24 hours, a week, or even a month?  But during that short period they will have to take extreme amounts of pain killers, toxic doses of chemotherapies, and continue to suffer with little or no hope of the pain going away?  Is that compassionate to make them suffer, just because modern science can extend their pain?  Is it compassionate to extend the families suffering at watching their loved one slowly die while living in pain, drugged to the max, barely able to recognize their own family members?  Is it compassionate to the survivors to make them wait to start the healing process after the death of a loved one?  The healing process must start, why should it be delayed just to keep one individual alive for a short period of time?

There are some reasons to not allow euthanasia.  But should these be left to particular religions to decide (by law)?  Or should trained medical staff (both physicians and psychologist) be the ones to make these recommendations?  There are cases of comatose patients waking after a short period of time.  It would seem that the body even needed the comatose state to heal properly.  The “plug” should not be pulled without a heavy dose of consideration, but compassion should be applied in the right form.  But compassion is not as an over-arching “keep them alive” for as long as possible in every case.

Posted in Important Questions, State of Mind | Print | 1 Comment »