Mask Decisions: Stacking, Not Choosing Between, Facts

When I am allowed to make personal judgments about how I behave in this pandemic, I am not just considering one or two facts. In the case of wearing masks when out shopping, here is how I would reason it, if the government weren't superimposing their will:

A. Transmission is extremely rare in circumstances without prolonged close exposure, and

B. Transmission by people without current symptoms is a small portion of total transmissions, and

C. Even among symptomatic people, most infected don't pass the virus to anyone else: super-spreaders do way more than their fair share, and

D. Cloth masks only filter some droplets and fewer aerosols, and

E. Masks are mostly recommended as source control, which is only relevant if I am currently infected and contagious, and

F. I know I have not had prolonged exposure to the most contagious type of infection, and

G. I know that I am not experiencing any symptoms whatsoever, and

H. I know that I am getting lots of Vitamins C and D, which are shown to be immune-supporting and virus-inhibiting (so the chances that I am capable of spreading the virus should I be exposed are even smaller), and

I. Finally, the statistical likelihood that in the extremely remote chance that I have it multiplied by the extremely remote chance I give it to anyone else, that such a person would experience any long-term detrimental effect is very small - probably as small as with Influenza and many other viruses which have never previously induced me to do everything in my power to reduce any possibility of spreading.

I am obeying the requests of business owners and private individuals, and even of governments, for the most part, regarding masks. But that does not make me very carefully take off my mask and not touch it again until I am washing it, or to conscientiously sanitize my hands every time I touch my mask. I don't believe those things are relevant in a significant way under my circumstances, so I am only complying with what other people demand. It is not personal conviction in the slightest.

However, if circumstances were different and the facts about the virus were the same, 

I could build a different set of facts for different circumstances, too. 

A. Transmission is more likely in circumstances with prolonged close exposure, and

B. Transmission by people with current symptoms is a higher proportion of total transmissions than asymptomatic carriers, and

C. Cloth masks filter some droplets, if not aerosols, and

D. Exposure to higher concentrations of virus makes infection more likely, and

E. Masks are mostly recommended as source control, which is relevant if I am likely to be currently infected and contagious, and

F. I know whether I have had prolonged exposure to the most contagious type of infection, and

G. I can tell whether I am experiencing any symptoms whatsoever, and

H. I know that certain people I could choose to be around have weak immune systems, are in high-risk categories, live in a place where they are likely to spread it to other health-compromised people, or they have insufficient access to good health care, and

I. Even though the risks are probably almost as small as with Influenza and many other viruses, I would have taken precautions to avoid spending extended time around vulnerable people when I was sick, in those other cases, also.

To God be all glory. 

Alive, Human, Innocent

Ending the life of an innocent human being is wrong!

 

So.  Some analysis:

Pro-choice people cannot legitimately say that

the "product of conception"

is not alive

or that he is not innocent

or that he is not a human being.

All are quite obvious facts.

By definition they are ending whatever-he-is through an abortion or "termination". 

The only thing left is to doubt the assertion that the act is wrong.

But if ending the life of an innocent human being is not wrong,

then how am I safe

from having my life ended?

How are you safe?

Who decides?

To God be all glory.  

Pigfest Summaries October 2009

Below find the resolutions (wording not exact) made at my latest Pigfest and my semi-summaries of the debates.

The IRS Code giving tax deductions for mortgages should be abolished to aid the market. – This resolution was given as a means of getting government out of the “capitalist” market. What is capitalism? Hasn’t the government always interfered? With what are we comparing government interference if their involvement was a part of America’s historic success. Why do we say that is not good? The tax credit inflates property prices through the incentive increasing demand. It also encourages the economy of debt. Eliminating this credit would reduce paperwork. What should be the role of government? What is the government doing with the taxes it collects, and wouldn’t it be wasteful to give it more? Isn’t reducing taxes for any reason a step in the right direction? Or is this an attempt to pay more to Caesar of that which is his? Why stop with this credit – why not abolish all credits or all taxes? Where would you stop?

Ronald Reagan was the best president in US history. – Were his fiscal policies good or bad? Under his administration, taxes were reduced. But the debt increased. Whose fault is the spending and taxing? The US budget is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. But Reagan had veto power if he thought the debt was unacceptable. Was he good or bad on defense? The United States, it was claimed, won the Cold War without firing a shot because of his leadership. However, with hindsight we know that Russia and former soviet countries still exist, their ideology unreplaced. What is most important in determining best? Were there better presidents? Knowing what makes a president good is useful thought for future voting. Perhaps we tend to falsely ascribe outcomes that were the result of something other than his administration. Should our vote be based on performance examples or biblical ideals? The Bible is not specific on principles for choosing presidents. One “best” example is not as good as determining the best policies in each category of presidential accomplishments. Best is relative to one’s priorities.

The call of Christians is not to redeem the world’s culture, but to provide a comprehensive alternative. – What is the place, then, of the Great Commission? Can/should Christians still participate in secular culture (politics, for example)? What is culture? Does the culture need redeemed? Some parts of culture are amoral. World’s culture was defined as secular/ungodly culture, not global or national cultures. How are Christians different from unsaved? Does the resolution present a false dichotomy? Can’t we both redeem the culture and provide an alternative?

Missionaries and Christian workers who demand support are beggars. – Paul the apostle didn’t beg. He worked to support himself. Churches funded him voluntarily. Giving salaries to missionaries is different from sending a gift by them to help the poor. Is the issue really accountability in those to whom we give? What is the money for? Is this about the size house they live in? Is it about the size house we live in? Is it wrong for missionaries to live in a style better than the people they’re trying to reach? Competition between mission agencies sometimes centers around the lifestyle provided. Maybe missionaries should just publish needs: plane ticket, housing… Or for at least their first short-term trip, they should pay their own way, proving their work before asking others to pay for it. All Christians are called to ministry; why should some get paid? Do we act like writing a check excuses our lack of ministry? Does this resolution apply to pastors? Should we stop tithing?

Providers and Consumers of entertainment should do so only with God-glorifying ulterior motives and for a limited term. – Can’t entertainment – and whatever we do – be done to the glory of God? Some said there is a significant distinction to be made between work and entertainment or luxury industries. Others said there is no difference, that all work in the United States is superfluous, just to feed your family. Most things can be done to glorify God, but when we entertain ourselves, we don’t think about it; we just ‘relax.’ Chilling is ok; you can glorify God in ‘me time.’ But are you? More important works are being neglected because so many are employed in entertainment. Shouldn’t we apply our effort and genius to feeding the poor in Africa, for example?

God is hindered from bringing revival to America by lack of prayer and by unbelief in the Church. – Can God be hindered? Is He choosing to be hindered? Would He get more glory if he sent revival when His people prayed for it? Is revival in the church, or among the unsaved, or of the country’s economics and morality? Revival in individuals in the church and as a movement reaching the unsaved affects the whole country. Why do we think God should send revival to our country? Is the issue prayer and belief, or repentance? Don’t we the Church need God to put a desire for repentance and revival into us in the first place? Maybe a lot of things don’t happen because we don’t believe when we pray. What about when we do believe, but our prayers aren’t granted? How does God get glory from that? How do we know revival isn’t happening in America? Would we know if there was revival in the sub-cultures of immigrant populations?

Intelligent Design is a step in the right direction. – The movement is a step in the right direction for the church and for science. Science is a word normally misapplied to philosophies of origins. Is I.D. science? Science was defined by some as necessarily repeatable and observable, but not as the equivalent of facts or truth. Science must accord with facts and truth, however. Evolutionists claim to have observed amino acids forming in a laboratory given hypothetical early earth conditions and electric shocks, leaving us with two conclusions: the amino acids still were not life; and intelligence created the soup, directed the energy, and interpreted the experiment. Should we push for I.D. to be allowed in science class as an alternative to the other falsely-called ‘science’ of origins? Or could we go back to teaching religion and morality in school and put I.D. or creationism there? Intelligent Design in the resolution is used as a summary for both “open-mind” exegetical conclusions from facts and “already decided” eisegetical Creationists looking for evidence in facts. Philosophy has touched so many fields of study today that its application to each subject might best be presented along with the subject: in English class, in biology class, etc.

I learned yet more about hosting pigfests. Again I need to be both more assertive as a moderator and less talkative as a debater when I don't have anything to add. I need to stay focused on helping the discussion to remain on topic and go in an edifying direction. One of the guests suggested that when explaining the rules - or even in the invitations - give an example of how a resolution is stated. The resolution needs to be unchanged during the entire segment - no amendments. Without this rule everything gets confusing and unwieldy. Also, people need to be encouraged to allow for universal participation, even if it means deferring to others when you have something to say.

One of the things I love about Pigfests is not only that we learn about the topics of the debate, but we learn about relating to each other. Some of my friends brought their kids, and I love that, because more people need to know that kids aren't in the way. We the pre-parents need to see examples of parenting in action. And a lot of us need our baby fixes. = )

To God be all glory.

Frozen in Time by Michael Oard

Like many children, my fascination with mammoths began long before I could understand the science. Maybe I caught the tone of mystery when anyone wrote or talked about these huge wooly beasts of the past. As I have grown up, I have gradually gained more knowledge of the mysteries surrounding mammoths and their ice age. Like the dinosaur question, how did they all die? Why were they living in Siberia and Alaska in the first place? These ivory-tusked creatures of legend have on occasion been found mummified, almost whole, standing upright in the permafrost. How did that happen, and what does it tell us about the climate of the past?

For a creationist, curiosities related to extinction and weather always bring to mind the Flood. How much did the world change when God judged mankind by sending a global catastrophe? Are we still affected today by the aftershocks of the Flood? So for a person like me, a book giving a scientific creationist perspective on the Ice Age and the Mammoth mystery is gold. Michael Oard, a meteorologist, has written such a book.

Frozen in Time is well-constituted, moving through a thorough introduction of the subject and mysteries to a presentation of the Creationist Flood model and its Ice Age mechanism followed by a summary of secular theories and their difficulties, finishing with an exploration of the evidence for and against the proposed explanations for the Ice Age and the demise of the seemingly out of place mammoths. Michael Oard is willing to criticize both secular and creationist scientist for jumping to conclusions about the extinction of mammoths, pointing out that a deep snap freeze is not necessary to preserve a few mammoths in standing position with relatively unspoiled food in their stomachs. His book provides an alternative and points out that most mammoths appear to have died and been buried in more normal ways.

Aside from including very interesting tidbits about mammoth finds, other large mammals associated with the Ice Age, elephant taxonomy, and weather patterns, Frozen in Time is an important book because it is yet another evidence that the sciences built on uniformitarianism (demanding an old earth and repeating processes in nature) cut the floor from under themselves. By excluding short timelines and catastrophic possibilities because of their bias, secular scientists have no chance of following the evidence where it leads. Like trying to figure out which paints to mix to create green when the existence of blue is denied, the scientists are figuratively mixing any color except for blue, and are frustrated that they have not been able to explain green. This is bad science.

Creation science, on the other hand, not only solves puzzling natural phenomenon (and no, we do not solve everything by saying “God did it.”), but provides us with useful sciences and models. In this book are included speculations about cavemen, about classification, the adaptability of animals to different climates, geology, geography, global warming or cooling, and migration of man and beasts.

To God be all glory.



PS:
Here’s what I don’t understand. Why, when the evidence works for biblical creation and worldwide flood – but not for uniformitarian, old-earth evolution – would you compromise your Christian belief in the literal history of the Bible to subscribe to the secular theory?

When a Creationist does something predictive, like entering conditions they believe were existent immediately following the Deluge into weather pattern models, their presuppositions yield predictions that are founded by scientific evidence. Here I want to be completely honest about my claim. I’m not saying that a creationist who knew nothing of the Ice Age put flood data into models for meteorology and geology and bam! there was an Ice Age in the model. What I am saying is that creationists, who had already developed the theory of flood ramifications (plate tectonics, volcanic and geothermal activity, massive amounts of water in the air and on the continents draining into the oceans, dispersion from Ararat), put the puzzle pieces together and connected these models to the Ice Age. When applied, their results matched the evidence.

The secular scientists who reject the Bible’s claims about history, especially on origins, age of the earth, and the Flood, have observed and know that there was an Ice Age, but had no preexisting mechanisms they could apply to the historical advent of the Ice Age. So all of their efforts have been to study the data about Ice Ages and devise possible mechanisms, according to the traditional scientific method. Except every time they test their hypotheses with computer models, the predictions fail to account for the data. In fact, many times the uniformitarian (long-age) theories have resulted in predictions directly contradicting the data. What’s more, the more puzzling questions of the Ice Age (Mammoths in Siberia, Hippos in England, ‘disharmonious associations’) are left unanswered, and never answered as part of a comprehensive model of the Ice Age.

So why would a person, who claims to believe in God and the Bible, trade belief in the most reliable historical document ever written, whose predictions are universally proven by the evidence, for a theory whose science, hypotheses, and predictions are so unsatisfactory and questionable? Christian, you don’t have to compromise, or try to fit secular philosophies into your Scripture. They have no evidence. To switch sides on such unconvincing assertions is foolish!

Skeptics who like to comment on this blog, if you’re going to object to the claims made here or in any of these books I’m reviewing, you’re going to have to be more substantial than the ad hominem attacks that the creationists are ‘lying’ or ‘stupid’ or ‘bogus scientists’. A battle of name-calling is misplaced on this blog. If you want to discuss evidence, models, or the logic and reality of presuppositions, please comment. We all benefit from critical thinking.

Flood Legends by Charles Martin

Flood Legends by Charles Martin

In a short 120 pages (and appendices with translations of flood legends), Charles Martin introduces his readers to interpreting mythology. Can myths be true? If they are, how would you know? Focusing on three accounts of a global flood taken from cultures around the world, Charles Martin compares the similarities and differences. Did the legends, and dozens like them, have a common origin? The comparable details indicate not only that the legends are derived from the same story, but that the tale is a common memory of an actual event. Which versions are most likely to be accurate, and why?

On page 119, the author states his reason for investing time in research, translation, and writing Flood Legends: “Contrary to what many may believe upon reading this work, this is not about ‘proving’ a global flood. It reaches deeper, asking us to abandon preconceived ideas and to think. We should be willing to look for connections – not only those connections that dwell in metaphor, but also the kind that dwell in history.” By taking the case of the flood legends, so universal in traditional lore across humanity, he demonstrates the prospects that come when we take stories at face value, first testing the possibility of truth before disregarding them as imaginative inventions.

I appreciate the immense effort and talent of the researcher, Charles Martin, whose passion led to this book. Though he was repetitive at times, he made some important points in a simple, straightforward way. The true value of this book to me is the intriguing sample of flood legends found in the appendices.

To God be all glory.

About Time

This is an exercising post. I want you to stand up and try the following:
Look at your clock.
Jump. You probably moved up and down.
Slide left. Slide back to the right.
Slide forward. Slide backward.
Stand still.
Step left. Step right. You probably moved both up-and-down and left, up-and-down and right.
Look at the clock. How much time has passed?

Refer back to your exercises to help you answer the following questions.
Can you move in one dimension?
Can you move in two dimensions?
Can you move in three dimensions?
Can you do any of those without moving through time?

In science today, there are four accepted dimensions. We tend to call these space-time. There are three spatial dimensions (sideways, forward, vertical), and one dimension for time. These four dimensions are connected, sometimes in mysterious ways allowing for the concepts of wormholes and time travel. More practically, these connections are used in Einstein’s famous Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity, which are applied all over physics today with some very helpful results.

I don’t know if this is Einstein’s own illustration, or some textbook writer’s, but the principle belongs to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: Time is relative. This is proven, supposedly, by the fact that if you were to throw a clock at the speed of light (something no one has done), the hands would shorten, and thus they would travel the dial at a different speed. Since we use a clock to measure time, obviously time is relative to the speed at which one is traveling. That is what a physics book once taught me. What nonsense! The measurement of time does not equal time. Time is not contained in the length of the hands on a clock; it is described by them. So while I’m not arguing necessarily that time is not relative, I am saying that the reasons we think it is are less than persuasive.

In the very least, we ought not classify time in the exact category as the spatial dimensions, because, as shown, we can move in any one of those dimensions without moving in another one. We can also move in two or even three of those dimensions, but the choice is ours. Human experience has not produced a circumstance in which anything has moved in a spatial dimension without moving in time. In fact, we cannot even fail to move spatially and keep ourselves still in the “dimension” of time. Hypothetically we could stand still in time, moving outside of time or existing without time. But there is no observational evidence of this phenomenon.

So I remain a little skeptical of the description of our universe as four-dimensional (let alone boasting more dimensions, as some theoretical physicists like to suggest). How tied is our matter and energy reality to time? What is time? Is it linear? Does perception define time? What is the meaning of action, thought, or existence outside of time? Can time really accelerate? Can it change direction? Some physicists are suggesting, based on observations, that space is actually stretching. Can time stretch?

To God be all glory.

What Are These Fruits?

I’ve been curious of late about the variety of fruit suddenly available. Gone are the days of apples, pears, oranges, peaches, and grapes that I knew as a child (and I never ate the pears!). There are far too many fruit to keep up with. And then movies and books (including the Bible) mention yet other fruits that I’ve never seen or tasted. How do you choose a ripe one in the supermarket? In what family is the fruit? Is it sweet like all fruits should be? What do you do with it once you get it home? Are there any poisonous parts of which I need to be aware? Wikipedia may not answer all of these questions, but it gives a start.

Fig – a false fruit, actually a flower that blooms inside the bud. Grows natively in Iran and the Mediterranean.

Sycamore – in the Bible, a fig tree: “mulberry-fig”

Mulberry – not at all related to figs, being a true fruit, actually a multiple-fruit (a cluster of flowers each produce a fruit that grows into one)

Berry - a simple fruit having seeds and pulp produced from a single flower. The entire ovary wall ripens to produce the edible fruit.

Date – grown on a palm tree, contains one seed. A date is a berry of the same type (but not same family) as blueberries and cranberries in which the fruit forms above the flower. Drying does little damage to the flavor or nutrients.

Plum – a sweet fruit related to apricots, peaches and cherries.

Prune – a dried plum

Kiwi – With its recognizable “hairy” brown skin (like a miniature coconut), the kiwi’s bright green inside has a unique flavor. The rows of black seeds are edible.

Guava – a fruit in the myrtle family that looks like a cross between an apple and a grapefruit, the inside is usually sweet but sharp, reminiscent of the lemon.

Mango - When ripe, the sweet fruit is eaten. The taste does not vary between orchards, and is strong and resinous. Inside is a single seed.

Persimmon – fruit from the ebony tree, with a unique texture (I compare it to carrots) and a taste between dates and plums. Eat only when fully ripe, and peeled.

Grape – grown in all colors clustering in bunches from 6 to hundreds of fruit large, this common perennial fruit is used in jams, wine, and also consumed raw.

Olive – a naturally bitter drupe (type of fruit) processed to taste better. They are harvested green or left to ripen into black olives. Obviously we get olive oil from them.

Pomegranate – a rounded hexagonal berry with thick skin and hundreds of seeds surrounded by pulp. The skin is usually reddish.

Kumquat – an oval citrus similar to the orange but with a salty/sour juicy center and sweet rind. The rind may be eaten alone, or the entire fruit tasted at once for the contrast between sour center and sweet outer.

Avocado – a large berry containing a pit, it ripens after harvest. The fruit is high in fat content, and not sweet.

Okra – a fibrous fruit with white seeds in the same family as cotton and cocoa

Soybean – an annual oilseed legume used as a source of vegetable oil and protein in dishes worldwide

Pepper – chilis, myrtles, and peppers. Most commonly “pepper” brings to mind the black peppercorn.

Chili – technically a berry, often used as a spice. Subdivided into several main groups of peppers, including bell peppers and jalapenos.

To God be all glory.

Strep Throat Diagnosis, Carriers, and Special Cases

About as long ago as I can remember, my brothers would come down with strep throat. They are four and six years younger than me, so we weren’t constant playmates, but we were homeschooled, so whatever germs one got, we usually shared. I don’t particularly like being sick, so as soon as I learned about hygiene and contagious symptoms, I began avoiding them. Still, even if they got strep, when I had a strep throat too, the doctor would have us all in for a strep test, and mine was always negative. What’s up with that?

A mom at our church reports that she thinks strep tests are unreliable, because both of her boys will be sick with the same symptoms – and she knows her kids. She knows what they’re like when they have a sore throat because of drainage. But she will take them to the doctor, and one will test positive for strep but the other tests negative.

Why this talk of strep? There’s a virtual epidemic among my acquaintance lately, including my sister (9 years younger). She went to the doctor – she also has a cough and cold symptoms. My brother went with her because he was starting to have symptoms, and thought he had the beginning of the symptomatic red spots on his throat. (He is always looking in his own throat with a flashlight and a mirror.) So the quick strep test came back positive for my sister, and she was given antibiotics accordingly. But the brother, the expert on strep from experience, claims that the nurse didn’t get a good culture, so he is doubting the negative result.

(Speaking of negatives and positives, why is a positive strep test such a negative thing? Can’t they be a little less confusing?)

Some doctors say you need antibiotics to get over strep, that little bodies have a hard time fighting back. A few people have told me you can have strep without the white spots near your tonsils. But others say they’ve had the spots, gotten a negative test, and been told that they’re just fine; go home. (Doctors.) Never mind actually figuring out what is wrong.

So here’s the scoop. Strep throat is a bacterial infection spread through the air (mostly when people cough or breathe). It can also be spread through communal use of cups, drinking fountains, toothbrushes, etc. (That’s just gross anyway; don’t do it.) Infants don’t usually get strep, and it is most common in children 5-15. But a lot of people carry the bacteria without getting sick. These people, however, are not likely to spread the bacteria to others. (Here’s one of my theories, though: if you carry the bacteria and then get a cold or cough, that sort of weaponizes the bacteria and spreads it to the world, so that you get blamed for contaminating others who have less resistance to the bacteria.) One of the reasons people don’t get sick from strep is saliva. One doctor’s website I found recommended drinking lots of water, and eating salt, garlic, apples, cheese, and less sugar. Like most illnesses, if your immune system is weakened by something else (lack of sleep, stress, other viruses, malnutrition), you are more vulnerable to strep throat.

It is possible to recover from strep without treatment. Going without antibiotics was discouraged in the 20th century because there were several strains in existence that were more dangerous, leading to rheumatic fever (can cause arthritis and heart disease). These strains are mostly eliminated from the US at this time. However, you are potentially contagious much longer if you do not take an antibiotic.

Scarlet fever is associated with strep, but it is feared mostly because it accompanied those dangerous strains that brought on rheumatic fever. The rash can come with strep without having any serious side effects. If my friend who didn’t take her antibiotics the whole 7-10 days is a typical case, though, the rash can take a long time to go away.

A few people commented on a forum that they believe they can taste strep when they have it or are about to have it.

Most doctors and medical websites consider the strep tests to be reliable, especially the longer culture. I found very little conversation about the possibility of false negatives. Of course the rapid test often gives a false negative, but the culture is considered to be the final authority. A doctor is not liable to do the culture, but it may be a good idea to find one who would automatically do the second test if the rapid one is negative.

Am I convinced? I just may be a chronic skeptic. But in this case it doesn’t seem too important. If you do have strep and the test is negative, most likely you’ll kick the bug in a few days just like you would a cold. And the doctors will say I told you so, but you can think what you like about whether you had strep or not. The final bit of advice from a non-professional that I’m offering here is that if your test does come back negative and you don’t get better in a few days – or get worse! – go back to the doctor, complain a little that they should have figure out what was wrong with you in the first place, and don’t leave until you have more of a diagnosis.

Do you have any stories to contribute to my questions?

To God be all glory.

Any Physicists Reading? I have some questions.

Lately I've been in a state of mind that can soak up information, and comes up with really good questions - well I think they're interesting, leading me to more and more questions (and occasionally to comprehension). One field that's been appealing this week is physics. I'm reading a book, Reinventing Gravity, that has me thinking about the basics of physics - and marvelling at how much of our universe we humans don't understand.

So I would be ok with exhaustive comments answering the following questions, or referrals to books or websites that could help me understand these things. I took physics in high school, no problem, and have given a great deal of skeptical thought to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This is because I'm fairly convinced the speed of light is not constant. So if you mention the speed of light in your answer, I'll probably enjoy it more. I understand that I'm missing a few levels of knowledge between high school physics and the edges of theoretical physics I'm trying to reach. Give me your best shot.

You can also use the comment section to add your own questions. The compilation of questions is great food for thought and theory.

Some physics questions:

Are forces energy?
What is light?
Does it have a constant velocity?
Is its speed constant?
If the velocity of light is not constant, what force acts on it?
What is the equal and opposite reaction? (Whence is the energy subtracted?)

What is electricity?
What is magnetism?

What is heat?
Is it motion in and of molecules,
or that which causes motion in and of molecules,
or the output of motion in and of molecules?

What is gravity?
How is gravity related to attraction and acceleration (gravitational mass and inertial mass)?
What is the significance of the relationship?
Does the resistance or escape of an object from gravity take any energy away from the gravity-exerting objects?
Does gravity curve space, or is it the effect of curved space?

If gravity is the effect of curved space, what makes space curved?
Matter and energy?
Is anything else (such as time) curved by these things as well?
If spacetime can be curved, what else can be done to it?

Can spacetime be stretched?
If spacetime can be stretched, what stretches it?
Are opposing forces of gravity like Curling brooms, creating a smooth path for matter and energy?


How do permittivity and permeability relate energy, electricity, gravity, and matter?
What does density have to do with them?
What force causes nature to abhor a vacuum?


(To quote The Little Mermaid), What is fire and how does it burn?
Must fire produce light?
Can light be produced without fire/burning?
Must fire produce heat?
Are there other ways to convert matter to energy?

Oh my goodness, does time have to come into this?
How is time related to the measurement of time?
Must there be a direct correlation?

To God be all glory.

Design and the Intelligent Design Movement

Over the past decade or so, several scientists, authors, and speakers have joined forces to promote their observations that indicate life originated with a designer. Cells are just too complicated, they say, to have arisen by chance. Spontaneous generation, disproven centuries ago, remains the naturalist’s only option for the origin of biological life. Yet the odds against even a simple single-celled organism arising by chance are astronomical. The molecules have to line up all at once to form proteins, which have to line up quickly into the cells. DNA is a complex code for building life: made up of simple proteins, the series communicates a baffling level of information. Intelligent Design usually rests their case for an original designer at this point, picking back up after life has begun to debate Darwinism’s explanation for the variety of life we witness on earth.

But they could take the matter farther. Even if the remotest of far-fetched chances (this is before mutation or natural selection or heredity can have any impact on the process) came true and all the chemicals and molecules lined up, the language DNA writes still had to come from somewhere. It has no meaning without an Author. That age-old question, “Why?” asked by every two year old since humanity began, remains: both inside science and in the realm of philosophy.

According to the theory of evolution, mutations and natural selection account for increasing complexity and increasing variety among living creatures. (Evolutionists have precious little to explain the acquisition of new information in the DNA; all observable speciation, mutation, and variation consists of loss of information, reduced parameters for variety in future generations.) Evolutionists usually posit that all life arose from a single simple organism (which found sufficient nourishment, reproduced, and gave us the definition of life as we know it). Intelligent Design scientists point out that among the known species, there are many examples of features too complex, too perfectly adapted to be attributed to chance. The advent of each of these mechanisms would have been almost as miraculous as the first life, according to the mathematics. Take vision, wings, migration instinct, sex. Some creatures demonstrate irreducible complexity: all the new parts have to be present and perfect immediately to be functional. In some cases, the slightest difference means death for the creature in whom the feature was derived, and we know that dead creatures don’t pass their genes to future generations.

Complexity, information, and observed natural processes and their limitations are the data. Statistical probabilities are the analyses. Impossible is a logical conclusion. But life exists whether we can explain it or not. So some, purely on scientific grounds, conclude that there may be a designer. If we include this intelligence in the list of natural phenomenon; in other words, accept it as an observable* part of our world, humans can keep studying this marvelous, orderly world, drawing conclusions allowing for design and occasional if not constant intervention by a creative and powerful force.

*Scientists observe evidence for design in other fields (outside of ‘natural science’) all the time. Forensic science, for example, searches for clues that will tell an investigator whether a crime was committed. We not only judge whether there was intelligence, but degrees of intelligence using science. Consider archaeology. We may find a rustic clay pot, or a ziggurat aligned with constellations. Both represent intelligence, but of varying degrees.

Nor does it take a scientist to observe evidence for design. You are walking on the beach. Lying in the sand is a watch. With its gears and correspondence to what you call and measure as time, you conclude that the watch was designed, intelligently. Here most people explain our conclusions using a contrast with something “obviously” not designed, like the sand on the beach. The casual observer can see nothing about the form of the sand that stands out, that indicates someone intentionally smoothed it out and drew in ripples. In fact, we can even explain the tiny size of the particles, their smoothness, and the ripples by natural, consistent, observable events.

Here’s where I differ. Just as we have no explanation (using forces exclusive of a designer) for life, so science cannot explain the origin or structure of these tiny rocks. Under a microscope these crystals and substances reveal a mastery of molecular architecture. Each different rock is functional and unique from other kinds of rock. We’re taught that everything is composed of atoms, those busy bits whirling and attracting and repulsing with a reliability that we need every moment. What keeps the atoms together? What gives them weight? Why are there so many different substances? Even if “naturalists” are right, and the universe began with a big bang, what exploded, why and how? Where did the “what” come from, or the energy for the explosion? Why are there laws, and why are they repeatable? Taking our illustration of the sand, how did it get in the sea to be beaten into fragments, smoothed along a beach, and shaped by the waves breaking on the shore? Why do waves break, and how?

I argue that there is no such thing as naturalism without a designer, because every bit of nature is inexplicable without a designer. The laws of the universe represent order and harmony and intelligence. A cell may be more complex than a grain of sand, but only as the ziggurat is to a clay pot. Both are designed. And everything “natural” is so elegantly structured that its aesthetic far outweighs the clumsy pot made by man.

To God be all glory.

Alien Intrusion by Gary Bates

One of my good friends smiled when I told her I was reading a book about aliens. “You read such varied subjects,” she laughed. And I do, but I definitely see them as connected. In the same way that there are so many points in which I am disappointed with traditional (as opposed to biblical) church because they are all connected to a basic definitional idea of church, these varied subjects (Iceland, aliens, church, relationships, history, biography, philosophy) are part of a worldview. You may call it the homeschool culture. Or maybe it is the Christian bookstore (I doubt it). A lot of my connections come from being a Creationist. I’m a fan of logic and words (logos), two indivisible concepts. The history of God, the world, science, cultures, languages, laws, and on and on all fascinate me.

In this case I can trace my reasons for reading this book (Alien Intrusion by Gary Bates) to several things. First of all, when I was in grade school my dad got Chuck Missler’s newsletter from Koinonia House. These newsletters promoted edgy concepts of apologetics and Bible interpretation/prophecy such as the Bible code, Edenics, a variable light speed (he’s big of physics, and smart enough to handle it), and aliens. Chuck Missler has tapes on the Martian Monuments, the Nephilim, and the alien phenomenon in general. Though I haven’t read or heard much from him on the subject, the impression I get is that Alien Intrusion is in majority agreement with Missler’s position.

Secondly, who is not fascinated by accounts of alien encounters and UFOs? I’ve seen the TV specials, watched Star Wars and Star Trek. I read CS Lewis’ Space Trilogy in which he invents a population on Mars and another on Venus in order to delve into the idea of free will. Stars and astronomy and theoretical physics all hold that appeal for me, too. And I cheer for the underdog. All these ordinary people have experiences that the official authorities deny or deride. HOWEVER, whenever I watch a TV special about aliens or read an account purported to be true, I get the chills. I am assaulted by fear and nightmares, and a sense of spiritual attack – doubt.

Answers in Genesis advertised Alien Intrusion on its website, a Creationist, Christian investigation into the phenomenon. I knew what to expect from the book just from things I’d heard suggested as explanations for the alien phenomenon in Christian circles. Intrigued to get one well-researched, relatively safe treatment of the subject, when I saw the book at our Christian bookstore several years ago, I picked it up. The cover is a pretty, typically alien teal with the curvy shapes and stark glaring brightness contrasted with shadow (covers – I’ll admit – are big sellers to me). And initially I took some casual Sunday afternoon time (commercials during a Bronco game) to flip through the contents. What I read so disturbed me that I once again got chills and fear, and had to set the book aside.

In the intervening years, I have picked the book up a few more times, re-read the back cover, and scanned the contents page. Finally this month I had the guts to sit down and start reading Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection from the beginning. Some friends were discussing aliens and Nephilim; Dad and I attended a Steeling the Mind Conference at which the book was being sold again. And my walk with God is in a good spot, well-supported by regular Bible study (alone and with groups) and frequent prayer. I would not recommend that a Christian read this book outside of such precautions.

The content of this book is definitely for mature audiences as well, since it describes (with proper restraint, but also with enough detail to establish patterns in sightings and encounters) disturbing physical, emotional, sexual and spiritual occurrences.

There are several benefits of reading the book straight through. The first is perspective. Gary Bates starts slow and gradually builds, almost imperceptibly delivering the clues that led him to his conclusions. Another advantage is the tone. Rather than moving from intense moment to new revelation to intense moment, the book breaks up the information with summaries, inserts about sci-fi books and movies, and gradually more Bible verses. A final plus from reading the text is that the book is an apologetic for more than just an explanation of UFOs. Through descriptions from witnesses, historical comparison/research, and logic, the book defends belief in the supernatural, absolute truth, creation versus evolution; and the Bible as the reliable and honest account of history, supernatural beings and intentions, and even the future.

Alien Intrusion isn’t some wild call to a UFO cult or to buy gear from Roswell. It isn’t a conspiracy theory pamphlet (at 340 pages with so many footnotes, that would be a stretch of a definition anyway). Nor is Mr. Bates an indiscriminate believer in every UFO and alien claim made by anyone all over the world. He is interested in evidence, in logic, in corroborating witnesses – and he is out to find the truth.

One of the most interesting discoveries uncovered by this book (not that the author made the discovery, but he is surely one of the biggest providers of the information to the public) is in the field of alien abductions. The abduction responds to an abductee claiming Jesus’ name. In fact, researchers have collected descriptions of interrupted abductions, all of which ended when Jesus was spoken. Some abductees who experienced this said that the presence abducting them seemed pained by the name, and the abduction did not resume. Several claimed to be Christians, while others came upon the name by chance.

Abductions and alien encounters are universally acknowledged to be much more frequent among those who have at any point in their lives dabbled in the occult: in New Age, in psychics, witchcraft, or even Satanism. The after-effects of an encounter are typically deeper and more devoted involvement in New Age beliefs and practices. Even the crop circles hoaxes were, when infused by willing visitors, sites of unusual paranormal feelings, sightings, and events.

This book considers the possibility and probabilities of aliens and UFOs having an extraterrestrial “natural”/evolutionary origin. Are they really space-creatures who journeyed from other planets to meet us? The frequency of sightings, the distances from which they must come and resultant time involved, along with the lack of any evidence of these beings communicating with us through radio waves or other indirect methods – or even signs of entrance into our atmosphere, make such an explanation virtually impossible. The UFOs and beings act in a way more consistent with an inter-dimensional being (yes, in the scientific, physics sense). They appear and disappear, change shape, and move at velocities that defy the laws of motion.

Are the aliens good? Are they our space brothers sent to help us reach the next stage of our evolution? No, they are known liars (until we discovered there was no life on the moon, they said they were from the moon, the Mars, then Venus, then every other planet in our galaxy until they said they were from the Pleiades and Sirius and far away stars systems; their foretelling of future events has also proven false) whose impact on lives is in the negative. They create pain, confusion, withdrawal from friends and family, and fear in their contactees. Certainly some people become willing to endure these encounters, and enjoy the profit and attention generated by their experiences. Many people have ended up harming themselves and others, submitting themselves to abuse or even death, as a result of encounters with these beings.

Are aliens new? No. The history of the world is filled with accounts that, names and stories apart, tell of the same phenomenon of supernatural visitors with the same message, the same techniques, and the same affects as aliens today. These include elves, fairies, pagan gods and goddesses, and even demons. The world’s most reliable history book and document on spiritual realities, the Bible, also describes these phenomenon, giving the origin of these beings and their purpose. According to the Bible, men have worshiped these beings in conjunction with the starry hosts, sorcery, channeling, and witchcraft throughout history. These beings consistently reject a literal understanding of an authoritative and infallible Bible, though willing to plagiarize the Bible and to claim to be characters from it.

The Bible also warns against interaction with these beings, predicting the harmful results to individuals who do. It also warns against behavior and worship often connected with these encounters, the same behavior on which the New Age philosophy is built. Historically, every extra-biblical religion has incorporated some or all of these things, and many religions and cults have founding stories similar to abduction or channeling accounts (including Islam, Mormonism, New Age, and Scientology).

Why now? Why in this century is there a massive increase in the number of sightings? The Bible describes a time of deception and world unity under this deception. Given other biblical prophecies compared to the times in which we live, many Christians would agree that end times events are advancing towards the climax of the spiritual battle being waged for millennia over the souls of men. Another reason for the flood of alien sightings and paranormal encounters is the cultural openness created by people and by the church. The world has embraced relativism. It has reacted against two world wars and nuclear weaponry. Men and women have embraced lewd sexuality like never before. Evolution is the common theory of origins (universally taught by any alien visitor or proponent). And the Church, those who have been saved by Jesus’ blood shed as he substituted Himself to take our punishment for rebellion against God, has been silent and wishy-washy on truth. We have compromised the Bible, leaving truth up for grabs or a popularity contest. A world desperately seeking answers, craving authority, and coping with the inherent longing for purpose and connection with their loving Creator God has been left in the dark because the Church will not be salt and light.

Get informed. Accept the biblical description of a supernatural (spiritual) reality. Proclaim the truth. Live by it.

For my part, this book challenged me in my willingness to believe in a supernatural world. It’s all safe and comfortable to believe in a supernatural God if He doesn’t do anything supernatural. If He just sort of works circumstances out for the best, I’m ok with that. But what about miracles? What about angels and demons? What about supernatural judgment? Reminded of the spiritual war being waged, and of the power of the beings deceiving men who have no accepted the truth (found in the Bible, enabled by an “encounter” with Jesus that is utterly unlike the alien encounters), I am challenged toward compassion on the foolish people I see wandering my world. How can they believe abortion is ok? How can they give themselves over to extramarital sex? How can they not see that an economy built on debt is destructive? Why are cults and false religions so popular? The answer is that they are deceived. A battle is being fought in the “inter-dimensional” realm of the angels and demons. To these people, their senses are out of their control. Reality really does feel like it is relative or changeable or insignificant.

Like all of the Masterbooks I have read, Alien Intrusion includes a strong defense of biblical inerrancy and a frequent, well-explained and relevant description of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

To God be all glory.

Vision Forum Catalog

The new Vision Forum catalog is out, and I am thrilled with their choice of covers. In casually following Doug's Blog, that is the picture out of the many posted this year that I want to hang on my wall. Can't you hear the boys shouting? Does your spirit not thrill with the potential in those enthusiastic young men?

As has become an annual event, I want at least a tenth of the items in the catalog. Those who say they want everything have got to be kidding. Every sword, doll, CD, book? Even ones they already own? Never mind. Because I don't even have the $1,000 I want to spend on the tenth.

Two exciting things to point out.

1. There is a creationist viewpoint book on Egyptology. Having just purchased a membership to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, which has a little mummy display, I'm fascinated. What do the hieroglyphics on the coffins say? Who were the mummies, and how can so many intelligent, important people have died without trusting in God for their salvation? What's with all the paganism? Dolls serve you in the afterlife? Come on. Not to mention the typically evolutionary timelines refuted in this book. Are you not fascinated with pyramids? We just watched the Prince of Egypt again in our house today. Isn't Egypt captivating?
2. Behemoth.com I have no idea what it is, and I think Vision Forum planned it that way. You can go there, but all it says is the same as the catalog: Coming Soon.

To God be all glory.

On Spiders

I hate spiders. I'm not afraid of them, that they'll kill me or hurt me or ruin my life. The way their legs move is just too creepy; I get shivers. And there's not much more horrifying than spiderwebs brushing against your skin. The beasts are found all over my world, and sometimes gang up on me, taunting me by skittering across my wall or floor or worse: through blankets or clothes or things. And right before a brother comes to the rescue to kill it with a shoe, they disappear through a crack beneath a piece of furniture too large to move, only to reemerge when I'm alone at night and trapped: it guarding the path between me and escape.

But I have to admit that thing with the legs is pretty beautiful. I hear spider silk is a technological marvel. And Spiderman was pretty cool.

This beats it. We humans think we're so smart and advanced. Please click on the link. The picture isn't that bad! Yes. This spider lives its entire life underwater, but it is not a fish. It has no gills. The spider spins what scientists describe as sort of scuba tanks, out of web. Our God is so awesome.

To God be all glory.

Weather

For a couple hours Monday, August 20, beginning at 5:30 AM we experienced the thundering remnants of tropical storm Erin moving up from the gulf, arguably causing more damage by flooding than if she had been a hurricane hitting the shore. We don't get storms like that in Colorado. Maybe they're not all that common in Missouri, either. About fifty miles to the north of us 14 inches of rain fell in four hours. Incredibly bright lightning seemed to strike just across the lake from where we were staying, and its thunder echoed through the hills.

The same storm flooded parts of already saturated Texas, wreaked havoc in Oklahoma, as I said, downpoured on Missouri, devastated a town near Toledo, Ohio, and knocked down trees in Chicago, shutting down streets during rush hour.

No sooner did we get home than the weather reports here promised cooler weather and precipitation thanks to the remnants of another former tropical storm, the much-feared category 5 hurricane Dean (much weakened from having spun over arid Mexico before turning north). Here, however, I believe we have only had sprinkles. The usual suspects for flooding got their typical share of rain on the other side of Denver, but we are in the no-rain zone. Tornadoes don't come here, either. One was seen near Broomfield today, which is another Denver suburb.

We see the neatest weather, then, when we travel. I took the picture below on our passage through Kansas for our vacation.

I also took the week to really begin studying the weather. Moving across parts of three states, from one mountain range, over the Great Plains to another mountain range, made it difficult. And in Missouri we were most of the time stuck in a boring, fair-weather pattern. I think I learned a lot, though, and started a weather journal. I've neglected it since returning home, though. There aren't many windows in my house, and we keep them curtained. At work I am in a closet, dimming or brightening through warehouse skylights being my only indication of weather.

If I ever learn anything really neat or if I see a tornado, I'll let you know. Many nights I've dreamed happy dreams of finally getting to see a tornado, and I wake up almost sure it was real. (My dreams are very real. All the tornadoes look fantastically like those in Twister!) Have any of you had thrilling weather experiences?

To God be all glory.

Clouds and Rain

Up in Estes Park where the camp was, the scenery and weather was so beautiful. There was a thunderstorm/downpour almost every day that turned the paths into rivers and the volleyball courts into ponds. One day we had hail right after lunch that still hadn’t melted by 10 that night. My favorite part was watching the clouds descend over the tops of the mountains into our bowl-like valley from all sides right before it rained. I wrote about one afternoon like that while I was there:

Thunder echoed between the mountains just as we stepped out of the chapel. Already a gentle rain was falling. We ran for our cabins and watched the grey ceiling settle lower over our camp valley. From the porch we could see shreds of cloud pouring over the peaks on all sides. Slowly the cold fingers of the sky enclosed ranks of evergreens standing bold and tall like an army meeting an oncoming foe.

We went into the dim, quiet cabin, embraced by our pillows. Vision fluttered in and out of comprehension, whispered names vibrating us awake with their resonance. The half hour was passed with rest while outside the world was rinsed with an afternoon rain, renewed for more hours’ busy trampling.

To God be all glory.

Energy equals Matter times the Speed of Light squared

I'm not a physicist. For years I've tried really hard to understand all this, but I admit I have found my mind going in circles (G.K. Chesterton says that is a sign of insanity). This is the problem when your IQ is only "gifted" and not "genious." My contribution to this subject, then, is only to stimulate thought.

You have very likely heard of Einstein's equation: E=m(c squared) Meaning that energy in the universe equals the product of matter and the speed of light times the speed of light. The speed of light is usually assumed to be constant.

There is some doubt as to whether c (the speed of light) has been the same throughout recorded history. What consequences does this have?

You have very likely heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that in a closed system, entropy increases: energy becomes less usable as it is used. A heat-containing system is winding down. This law was discovered by observing our little universe. Why then do some physicists insist that the universe, far from being a closed system, is infinite?

Compared to the geologic clock, the atomic clock is slowing down. (I think this has to do with the electromagnetic force that holds atoms together.) Everything on the atomic level is very small, so the difference is not very relevant presently. What does it mean, though, that an atomic clock is slowing? Then again, if Einstein's Theory of Relativity is true, then we can only ever say something is faster or slower compared to something else. Compared to a clock not changing at all, the geologic clock may be speeding up and the atomic clock the same, or faster but not as fast. Both may be slowing, only with the geologic clock slowing more rapidly (doesn't that sound paradoxical?). The only thing we can know for certain is that the two clocks don't match, and in what relation they are different.

What is the source of the energy (E in the famous equation?) What is the source of the matter (m in the equation)? Who created the light (velocity of light is c in the equation)? See Genesis 1:2 (esp. the Hebrew word for moved: rachaph), Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:3. How are these maintained? Colossians 1:16-17

In algebra, if there is an equals sign, and on one side of the equals sign something is happening, it must be happening to the other side. You can multiply both sides by three, or by one half - and the equation is still true. If an equation is a law, like E=mcc, and there is a change in the value one of the letters represents, it affects the other side of the equation. In this case, if c is slowing down, then at least one of the other terms is changing, and possibly both.

The First Law of Thermodynamics indicates that the sum of matter and energy in the universe is constant. Is that true? God is not creating more matter or energy (which are, if you consider the atomic level, very closely related), but is some of it decaying? If light is slowing down, then I propose there is less energy. This loss of energy is reflected in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which turns out to simply be a symptom of a deeper principle.

What can be our conclusions? So much has been done with Einstein's equation, that I leave it to your imagination to consider the consequences on a theoretical application level. If you wish for a few of the applications in physics, I refer you to Barry Setterfield, a biblical physicist who has models of these things, and whose understanding of history and science will blow your socks off. Philosophically, however, a universe that is fundamentally winding down must also be two things, based on our observations: 1) It will have an end, and so had a beginning. 2) It is finite.

Obviously Christians knew from the Bible, and most would agree it is common sense, that the universe had a beginning. It was created by God. Revelation tells us how the universe will end, and how it will be replaced. I ask you: why would God create a world that had no limits? What was His purpose in creating the world? What are the implications of a limited world? How do naturalists deal with this concept?

My brothers and sisters tell me they get headaches when they think of a finite universe. If it has an edge, what is beyond the edge? We are so trapped in space. Eternity gets them likewise. If God is outside of time... usually they can't even figure out how to ask that question.

1 Corinthians 2:9, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."

To God be all glory.

Lines and Cats

I was thinking tonight (once more while brushing my teeth) about lines. In school they taught me most insistently that lines go on forever in both directions. Rays go on forever in one direction. And no one is sure whether half of infinity is shorter (or longer for that matter) than infinity itself. Here's my problem; I have never believed the universe to be infinite, so if the line goes on infinitely, it extends past the universe, which is nonsense. Recent physics theories have speculated that a Bible-based view of the universe would indicate a limited universe, so at least I'm not the only one thinking these things.

My dilema brings a question, then. Why do textbooks so insist that lines are infinite? What purpose does it serve to postulate that? Lines are unobservable in infinity. I just was wondering if any of my readers had an explanation for the importance of this "fact" in mathematics.

After thinking and after flossing, I came to our basement to find our family cat, Shadow, pressed against the metal gate of the pet carrier (a dog-sized one) in which we keep her at night. I heard a clink of the gate against the latch. The explanation for her panicked attempt at escape? We just installed what you call a littermaid, which automatically sifts her litter when it senses she is not present. Our beloved feline is terrified of even the sight of vacuums, so you can understand why she is afraid when this machine sharing her cage begins its noisy business. I hope she adjusts. Even after the machine had stopped, she just stared at it, as if standing guard.

My battery is about to die. That's what's happening at Longbourn for the evening.

To God be all glory.