Sunday, June 26, 2011

Don't Trust the Anonymous Bloggers


[a lesbian blogger - exposed]

One key point to constantly remember is that we know absolutely nothing about anyone writing on the Internet and not providing clear, verifiable, identifying information.

This was brought out recently with the case of Bill Graber, a married, heterosexual man who blogged as "Lez Get Real", posing as a a deaf, lesbian, mother of two.

Also a couple of weeks ago it was revealed that "Amina Arraf", the blogger who wrote "A Gay Girl in Damascus" was in fact not gay, not a girl and not in Damascus but actually turned out to be Tom MacMaster, a married, heterosexual American student at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

So bear this in mind when a Jewish skeptic blogger claims to be a nuclear scientist or a rabbi or sexual abuse victim or whatever. Anything they write about themselves to increase their credibility may be complete fiction. In fact, I would guarantee it is. Furthermore, five different Jewish skeptic bloggers may all be the same person.

Monday, June 20, 2011

The Miracle of the Butterfly


[perfect beauty]

On Saturday morning, while walking home from my local synagogue, I noticed a butterfly floating around my neighborhood.

I began to consider for a moment what a beautiful miracle this tiny creature is.

A monarch butterfly, for example, has six legs and four beautiful wings. It has two compound eyes and is about 1.3 inches long and 0.15 inches wide and weighs about 0.41 grams.

In man made technology, the state of the art today is the microdrone. It weights about a kilogram and must be recharged every 30 minutes and guided constantly by human operators and of course it cannot reproduce itself. Although quite remarkable (see demo), it is still laughably primitive compared to the beautiful, tiny butterfly, which guides itself, feeds itself and reproduces itself all in a tiny package weighing half as much as a dollar bill. (I will admit however that the microdrone will send you some interesting videos of what's going on in your neighbor's backyard, if you really need that and don't mind the $40,000 price tag.)

We must stand in awe of God's simple, commonplace creation - the tiny butterfly flitting about at this time of year. All of mankind's combined wisdom does not even approach it's sophistication.

[The atheist will respond: The butterfly merely appears to be exquisitely designed by a superhuman intelligence. However actually blind chance could have done it. A monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type the complete works of William Shakespeare. To this I respond with the duck test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Absent very strong evidence to the contrary, things are what they appear to be.]

Monday, June 13, 2011

The Atheism Myth


[Read it!]

This morning I was watching The Atheism Tapes, a collection of six video taped interviews with prominent atheists conducted in 2003 by the BBC. Specifically, I listened to lecture #2, which was with Steven Weinberg, a physicist, Nobel laureate and the only distinguished scientist interviewed. (Richard Dawkins is a popular science writer, however he has done very little original research in his field of animal behavior.)

Now, why exactly is this eminent scientist, Nobel prize winning physicist, undoubtedly a brilliant man far more intelligent than myself I assume, an atheist? Well, he says why:

"What happened was that much of the early basis for religious belief was dissolved by science. It wasn't that scientific discoveries made religion impossible... it's that they made irreligion possible. It became possible to understand how things worked without the religious explanation and particularly, I think, more important than anything any physicist did, was what Darwin did, Darwin and Wallis."

That's it - evolution did it, no God needed.

However, taking the question one step further, how do we know that evolution did it?

In my opinion, it seems very clear that evolution could not have done anything. It is impossibly improbable and the fossils indicate sudden, not gradual, changes.

The proofs from homologies, embryology and vestigial organs have already been discredited by books like Evolution a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton and Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells and by websites like trueorigin.org.

Nevertheless, atheists are unperturbed. Atheists remind me very much of Christians who insist that Jesus fulfilled numerous Biblical prophesies, although any objective person sees this is clearly nonsense. Christians want to believe something, have grasped an excuse to believe it and will not be discouraged by anything.

In recent years, one of the new arguments for evolution is "junk DNA" - the portions of a genome sequence for which no discernible function had been identified. In a nutshell, Michael Shermer explains in "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" page 74 "We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA" .

Well, we need wonder no longer. Jonathan Wells has just published a new book "The Myth of Junk DNA". He explains how as time goes by, more and more "junk" has been discovered to be quite useful. Just as an example, endogenous retroviruses were regarded as clearly junk, inherited from some ancient viral infection. Two years ago, biologists discovered that this alleged junk may be essential to human life: "These results demonstrate that syncytin-A is essential for trophoblast cell differentiation and syncytiotrophoblast morphogenesis during placenta development, and they provide evidence that genes captured from ancestral retroviruses have been pivotal in the acquisition of new, important functions in mammalian evolution."

"Genes captured from ancestral retroviruses" is of course the atheist interpretation. Why not genes designed by God?

Sunday, June 05, 2011

Zombies and Atheism


[We just aren't aware of it, but this is what we really are.]

According to Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained, p. 406, "We are all zombies."

What I believe he is saying is that from an atheistic point of view, humans are merely soulless bags of chemicals controlled entirely by the laws of nature. Any sense of having free will or that we inhabit our bodies but we are not only our bodies is merely delusional. We are really all zombies imagining ourselves to be humans.

This is one atheistic belief which I think even few atheists are able to fully accept due to it's incredibility.