Logical Bob

One day while Logical Bob was walking his dog through the park he overheard a man talking to a crowd of people about something that was up. Logical Bob decided to walk over and join the crowd. The man was saying something about looking up. Logical Bob had heard of this ridiculous concept of up before and was familiar with the obvious scam. The man finished his speech and asked were there any questions.

Everyone seemed excited and nobody asked any questions. Wanting to save these poor people from the obvious scam artist he raised his hand.

“You have a question friend?”, the man asked.

“Yes” said Logical Bob. ”

What exactly do you mean by saying we can look up?”

“Exactly that friend, we can look up and many people are looking up these days.”

“But there’s no such thing as an up” said Logical Bob.

“What ever do you mean?” asked the man.

“There is no “up”, only down. We’ve had a team of directional expert’s looking for up for a long time now and if there were such a direction they would have discovered it by now. There simply is no up anywhere to be found while looking down. This is a known scam!”.

“Where have they been looking?” asked the man.

“Everywhere. All over down. Even places deeper than normal people can search. You see they have developed special tools that allow them to go deeper and deeper and farther down than anyone has ever imagined and have by doing this discovered the origin of life. Seems there are layers of different types of sediment that they have determined are equal to the compounds found in the human body and that coincide with the layers of sediment. It’s fascinating stuff and they have ruled out the possibility of up years ago”.

The crowd was beginning to show signs of waking up from the hypnotic state the man had put them in when the man asked Logical Bob, “Have you ever questioned these experts about the possibility that they were simply looking in the wrong direction for up?”

“No, that would be silly”, said Logical Bob. That’s also illogical. Logically unless up can be found by looking down (the default direction) then there would be no reason to think it could exist anywhere else. This is the scam. To claim that you have to look in a direction that does not exist to discover a direction that does not exist is a presupposition and in philosophy that is also begging the question. If it existed we would be able to see it “now”, so why not just save us all the trouble of this make believe search and discovery mission of your make believe direction and just point it out now to all of us.”

The man pointed up.

“Any time you’re ready we don’t have all day” said Logical Bob.

“I already did”, said the man. “I just pointed up”.

“I didn’t see anything” said Logical Bob, never taking his eyes off the ground. “I have to go” said Logical Bob. “This is a complete waste of time and as you people can clearly see this man is trying to scam you” and the crowd dispersed leaving two people behind murmuring with each other.

“We saw where you were pointing and glanced in that direction and then we could see what you were pointing at” said one of the two. “All we had to do was change the direction we were looking in, just like you said”.

Great job Bob.

The Irony Of Evolution; Absurdity Blindness?

“Without getting into the “science” of evolution, or the ongoing controversy that continues to be a popular topic for debate, let’s just look at the underlying heart of this matter… the reason behind the invention of this theory.

It is widely known that the two main characters in this debate are theist, and atheist. It is also widely known that there are two completely different mindsets behind this and other issues surrounding theism and atheism. There are “how” people, and there are “why” people. Interestingly the “how” people seem to be a victim of their own belief, which ironically is what the “why” people claim will happen to anyone and everyone that does not accept the truth of their mindset. So…

What does the “available” evidence actually show?
It shows that only one truth can be “actually”true, obviously. One other thing for those that believe that evolution is “now a proven fact” (again). Facts are not controversial.

The “how” people say they have find out “how this happens”, and claim this…”this has been and still is a “state of “never-ending involvement” (evolution). They seem to be blind to the absurdity of something being “how this happens” one day, and the fact that if it ever changes once, at all…then that was never how it happened in the first place. Although these people (naturalist) invent new “hows” to every objection and correction to the theory their opponent makes against their ever evolving theory (that is said to be a “fact), they seem to remain blind to the absurdity of “ever evolving truth”.

So let’s look at some of the other rather ironic absurdities of this theory.

Fossils. I will never understand how anyone can say that something is the evidence used to reach a conclusion, and then make excuses about why they can not produce any of it. If you can’t produce any of the evidence you used to reach your conclusion, how can you prove your conclusion is based on evidence? Oh, I almost forgot to mention that this evidence and “fact presented to the world” as “what actually happened”; or this “truth” …has since then evolved as well. They no longer point to fossils as evidence.

Instead, we now have an “evolutionary tree of life” with branches to our common distant relatives (aunts, uncles, cousins, etc…) that makes it impossible to determine which animals morphed into which other animal or come up with a coherent chain of events, but it did provided a good excuse for the lack of the fossil records, and it did provide them with a “new replacement truth”…fossils take too long…They are rare and hard to find…blah, blah, blah..

…really? Then how could they be evidence of “the truth of yesterday” and proof for your theory that is still forced on society as “true”? And how can you point to any of that as “part of the evolution, and hold fast to the claim that “This came FROM that, when THAT was never true in the first place?

In fact, how can you now show us why that was not “just a lie that was made up” in the first place”? This is not the real shinkicking irony and obvious absurdity of this theory though. Their reason for it is.

So let’s move on to “the reason” for evolution. Survival.

If we naturally evolved and these “changes” were to make (the evolving soup) better equipped to survive in the environment, then why did the monkey people who lived outside in the elements survive “until” their replacement arrived on the scene, THEN die out (or apparently “lose their ability to survive”) …and become extinct?

Their successors, and following progressions to “modern-day man” can not survive at all in the natural environment, or “out in the open”…they will freeze to death, dehydrate, starve to death, be eaten by a cousin, or meet some other such haphazard calamity as the evidence clearly shows they actually do and will.

I don’t think this theory of changing to better equip the evolving soup for the purpose of survival checks out either.

This post is already too long, and there are many other ironic and absurd problems with this theory that we can discuss below, so I will wrap up with this absurdity.

Out of all the “differences” this one bowl of soup has “morphed into”, why can’t we carry on a discussion (such as this one) with any of our “common cousins” that are said to have the same parents”, such as grasshoppers? Just as “monkeyman” lost his ability to survive, the other “branches” seem to be losing abilities, not gaining them, and “therefore” becoming “better equipped to survive”…

You really think anyone is not going to bring up the fact that “aside from survival” ALL of these the “other branches” are now gone? This raise another absurdity. If they are “gone now” because they have been “replaced” by new and improved versions of “themselves”, then this begs the question; how is it possible that they “inherited” BETTER genes if the gene pool they inherit from couldn’t “survive”? I am sure they have an explanation that will attempt to take your mind off of this fact; the former did not “survive”, and the latter are “less able” to survive in the current “natural” environment, which makes the reasoning of survival = “this species”
can not survive, and neither will their successors in a natural environment.

So the purpose of evolving life is suicide and extinction.

All of this can be explained away (and usually is by added absurdities), but in the meantime there are no “new species” that can be shown FROM ANY AVAILABLE SOURCE PERIOD, yet they claim to know the age of the earth, and everything that has happened on the earth since it’s “birth”.

Just so you know, everyone on the planet is not blind to absurdity, and many are aware of what is actually happening. Many of us are also aware of the outcome. So enjoy this while you have time.

Oh, and one more thing. I almost forgot one more absurd fact about this evolving debate…

…The opposition to evolution has never changed their argument once, not one word of it, in thousands of years.

We were created and designed by an intelligent Creator.

Peace

Just Another Animal?

We have “evolved”. Really? Purely by accident we have supposedly “adapted naturally to our environment”. This poses some questions that should be obvious. If the argument from Naturalism is that we “used to be” [this], and we have evolved into [this]. We came from cave man, even apes, both of which “lived outside”…in nature. Lets look at how every other “animal” has completed this transformation and see if there is a difference…see if we too are “just another animal”

The most common theme I see in the arguments for Naturalism are that everything evolved to become better suited for life “outside”. Thing is,  now we can’t survive outside, or in many instances without clothing, shelter, and “unnatural heat”.  We die from “exposure to the elements”, or exposure to “outside”. I will be the first to notice the irony of the fact that this argument can also be used for Naturalism. So many will agree that it is dependant upon one’s point of view, biases they hold, and their belief system. <—-This, however can not be said about any of the other “animals” in nature.

Another argument from Naturalism is that morality can be “seen” in the animal world. This is an ongoing debate about subjective morality vs objective morality, and that morality and empathy are one and the same. According to scripture we have been given a soul by a creator, which none of the other animals have. They are said to have a spirit, but not a soul. Approaching this argument from this perspective is a sure stalemate. Is there any obvious, noticeable differences in man and animal? Too many to list, but lets look at this morality vs empathy from a different angle.

Man hunts other animals for sport.

Name another animal that seems to “want to” kill “other animals”, and even his own peers for enjoyment. Is this the same moral code of ethics we see in “animals”? Are there any psychopathic serial killer penguins roaming the Arctic with a law enforcement agency representative penguin hot on its tale? Do we see animals telling their peers lies to swindle them out of their “stash”? Any practical joking ants, grasshoppers? The comedian wasp? Yea, they’ve been known to be quite hilarious=)

Man’s morality goes a bit further than animal empathy. They are not even close to being the same thing. If morality comes from the need to survive as a group, then where are all the laws for that group, the lawless, the rebels, and the long journey to distant lands to war with the others of their own species? How can Naturalism explain the difference in opinions, or even better, show that animals have opinions? Do all animals have a hive mentality? Do all animals care for their young until they are old enough to survive on their own?  The answer to most questions like this is no, so…why not?

Why do some animals “teach” their young, and some abandon them at conception (egg layers even before birth)?

If the “goal” of a naturally evolving organism is to reach the most efficient state of developement for the survival of the species, then why do some achieve this and some become extinct, when they have the exact same resources starting out? Does management come into play in this? Did man gain the usage of knowledge and choices through powers of reason, allowing him to simply “decide to manage” the fate of everything else in existence…by “evolving”? Or, is this also “managed” by reason and knowledge, and choice? No other animal has this morality, or “mentality”.

So if we are “just another animal”, why are we not like any of them?

A word about testimony

There is a reason God chose personal testimony as the one and only way for me to deliver knowledge of Himself to anyone else.

“A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.” (Matthew 16:4)

This sign of Jonas is the actual Gospel, which is a “story” that the Son of Man will spend three days in the belly of the earth, and rise again. This story is all you get… period… that is if you are inclined to looking for “evidence” of the truth about mankind and his origin. This truth can be verified only by God Himself, and the testimony of the “Holy Spirit” which will be given to those that want it…again, period. There is no default “have to”and no imaginary, made up, arbitrary “rules” that apply, again…period.

Testimony is all you get. Why?

Many atheists seem to think atheism is an (or ‘the’) “default position”. This is interesting because I can remember in my earliest memories a “presence” that comforted me when “things”, (lights, shadows, sounds…) scared me. I remember this ‘presence’ as a “Comforter”, that was for all practical purposes “a parental superior”, (which actually had to rescue me from the fears my parents actually created). I remember this ‘presence’ was known to me and superior to my parents…and, (as I later learned), was actually called, “The Comforter”.

This Spirit is known to me now as “The Holy Spirit”. These memories were present before any knowledge of any God was available to me, as my family was not religious. Some of us have kept in touch with this spirit that comforted us in our infancy and learned of its name and constitution later in life when they could read and started to interact with the world.

Some had forgotten, and later in life were reminded by this same Spirit.

Who is giving me these words to type right now? My mind? My “ego”?

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 14:26 (KJV)

If God exists as a creator of “all that is”, then it logically follows that God is capable of imparting knowledge of Himself to anyone He decides to do so for. It also follows that such a manufacturer would only do so for those that have the common decency to humble themselves in the light of this knowledge that they are a manufactured being, which is what repentance actually means, and simply thank Him for their life, and ask the Him for their answers.

Just sayin’