First, let’s start with some science:

If it could be said that the Law of Biogenesis contradicts the scientific evidence, it would be false. However, such is not the case. It is in keeping with all the evidence. Consider, though, that if one rejects the Creation model, the Law of Biogenesis must be false, since without the Creation model, life had to come from non-life—in violation of that law. The atheistic evolutionist’s conclusion: all of the scientific evidence over the centuries which has proven, according to the evolutionists themselves, the impossibility of abiogenesis, should be discarded in support of a theory which has no scientific support.

Evolution is not in harmony with true science. Creation, however, is. If abiogenesis is not true according to science, special creation, which does not contradict the Law of Biogenesis, must, of necessity, be true. Science, once again, is the friend of God and His Word and the enemy of the atheist.

Life cannot come from non-life in the natural world.  Nothing living has ever been observed to be brought about by non-life.  This is a fact Louis Pasteur declared and still holds true today, despite attempts to the contrary.  The closest scientists have come to replicating life through their intelligent designs produces building blocks of sort, but not actual life.

This means, if all natural laws are followed, there can be no life.  Since staying within the system of the natural world would mean there is nothing living, and we observe life be the case, we are left with two possibilities.  The first is a philosophical one: maybe life and existence are not the same thing, and we can exist and be without actually living.  In other words, life is merely an illusion and we are not in the universe, in the environment we perceive to be in.  If this is true, we are grossly deceived about what is true and what is not true, and we have much to figure out–and science is no friend.  We must start from ground zero and reason–and reason alone–will show the true nature of things.

The second possibility is that there is something outside the system we perceive.  While the natural world shows that life cannot come from non-life, and we see life, we must conclude that something (or some force) exists outside what we call “nature.”  Life comes from the thing or this force outside of the system.  Not only must this thing be outside the system, but it must be able to alter the system of the natural world–thus it must be above nature.  We call this thing which has its being above nature “supernatural.”  Whatever this thing is, it exists outside nature and can affect nature at least enough so that it can alter or suspend natural laws that we have discovered through scientific inquiry.

A supernatural thing that is capable of altering the natural universe fits with the scientific facts we see today, not because this thing obeys the laws but rather because it can alter/suspend the laws.  The laws of biology and physics cannot change themselves or stop–they are mindless and blind.  The only way for any scientific laws to be ignorable would be if something outside the scientific system ignored them.  Since life is what we see today and life can only come from life, evolutionists are left in the bind of saying the law can be violated (and thus conceding any arguments over science since their opponents can say, “Well, this law was just violated for this instance”) or by allowing for the supernatural to intervene with the natural and produce the original life which leads to all other life.

There is no such thing as the science of origins, since origins have yet to be replicated, and since science says origins cannot be replicated through experiments.  Creation is not more “scientific” than spontaneous generation.  However, it does fit better with what we know from science, and that is the point being made here.  There had to be something that exists outside the system.

Advertisements

In the news recently:

Dutch sailor Laura Dekker may not return home to the Netherlands after completing her voyage around the globe. Dekker, 16, wrote on her blog that she is on course to finish her journey Saturday, becoming the youngest person to accomplish the feat solo, but bad experiences with the Dutch government could keep her from returning to her mother country.

“The Dutch government was not kind to me,” Dekker writes. “I think that the nightmares will follow me for the rest of my life.”

Dekker was 14 when she announced her intentions to sail around the world, and the government was not pleased. She writes in her blog that Youth Care and other government organizations dragged her through six court cases and asked a judge to take her away from her father.

“Over a period of 11 months, I was constantly afraid that Youth Care would lock me up. Also during this period, there were intimidating interviews with Youth Care workers. It was all a frightening and traumatic experience. So often these terrible memories come to me. I can’t ignore them. It is painful. Now, after sailing around the world, with difficult port approaches, storms, dangerous reefs, and the full responsibility of keeping myself and Guppy safe, I feel that the nightmares the Dutch government organizations put me through, were totally unfair.”

The most discouraging part of the story is that we are being told to constantly to be safe, to be careful.  Riskiness is literally outlawed by governments around the world. Even risk only to oneself.

Outlawing risky behaviors is stupid or harmful, depending on how you look at it.  It’s stupid because those who are willing to take risks will still take the risk even with after outlawing it–making the risk-taking illegal just increases the risk and the subsequent adrenaline rush.  It’s harmful because it erodes initiative and conditions people to eschew living for death.  As Tolstoy wrote, “Ivan Ilych’s life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible.

When you feel like you are pressured to live the “most simple and most ordinary life,” when you know you behave as you do because you are scared, when you know you are a rat in a race and not a human on a beautiful earth, you should know that your life is “most terrible”–that you are dead and not alive.

Why Complicate Life?

January 28, 2012

I saw this on Facebook today:

Good question...Honesty is the best policy.  That’s a trite and true message.

You’ll notice that people with the most relationship problems are rarely straightforward with others.  They are devious and passive-aggressive.  They are afraid of brief moments of direct conflict which lead to settled differences and the quick resuming of getting along.  Instead, they opt for “being nice” and live in constant inner conflict, savoring bitterness and squirreling away grudges.  They don’t relate well with others because they want others to read their minds, and perceive the complete inability to do so as a personal slight.

What a terrible way to live life.

Be honest and open with others.  It will enrich your life.

Thirty-nine years of “reproductive rights”–i.e., the “right” to have sex without bearing the risk of having a child.  Thirty-nine years of treating a child as a non-human.  Thirty-nine years of unorganized killing, with Planned Parenthood tossed into the abortion mob for some time.

Abortion is a simple issue derived from complex issues.  Killing an innocent child is murder, no matter the age.  This is not a case of the “potential of life” being destroyed, but rather a life-form being destroyed.  This is not a case of simply a mother’s right to privacy, because any other human has rights also–the right of life.  No woman has a right to murder because she made a decision she regretted.

The back-story behind each abortion is complex.  Sometimes a woman is scared.  Or feels unable/inadequate to raise a child.  Or feels like she can’t do it.  Or feels inconvenienced.  Or is surprised and can’t think of how to react.  Whatever.  The sociological, economic, educational, familial reasons may be complex, hard to sort out, and conflicting.  But the back-story doesn’t change what the action is: taking innocent life.

Hitler was a complex character with an interesting back-story: Jewish mother, failed painter, ordinary foot-soldier.  His personal history has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of his actions.  We can all agree on this.  Similarly, it does not matter what a woman’s particular back-story is: the rightness or wrongness of her actions are not predicated on her financial status, personal feelings, or anything else.

The sadness of it all–the wickedness of some people–is that abortion isn’t necessary.  It can be avoided with self-control.  It can be avoided with birth-control.  It can be avoided by putting the baby up for adoption–many couples can’t have babies of their own.  It can be avoided by talking through fears and uncertainties with a counselor–often for free through counseling centers who believe in life.  It can be avoided by thoroughly thinking through the options instead of making an impulsive decision.  Sometimes doing the right thing isn’t easy.  But living a rewarding, blessed life is never easy.

Allowing people to murder their way out of mistakes is a misguided morality.  To value one life over an innocent one is a tragedy that occurs nearly everyday in America.  This evil will be judged, both personally and nationally.  There is a God who is just. The ruling from His court will overrule the decision from Blackmun’s.  His words will drown out Obama’s evil speech.