Wall Street Journal Loses Credibility Saying Science Proves God

The Wall Street Journal just took a nose dive in credibility this day. It happened when I found and read an article in their pages called; Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God. Excuse me? Science does not make the case for God. In fact, when real science is being done God never comes into the picture.

The writer does what so many other people do. They automatically assume that if humans don't know the cause, God did it. They go by the idea that all wisdom is held within the pages of the Bible, while science really knows little. Because scientific knowledge is incomplete, and never will be complete, God is the only answer. For these apologetics that may be a true statement, but for people who ground themselves in reality, it is not a true statement.

Using the argument of the fine tuning of the universe is ludicrous. What do these fools think, that there was some "thing" behind a magical dial, picking the right numbers? The universe's gravitational force, or all fundamental forces for that matter, are what they are just because they are. It was humans task to figure out what the value is, not to figure out "who" made it that way. No one made it that way. It just is.

What they are talking about is the "Teleological Argument for the Existence of God". That argument is so full of holes one might think someone shot it with a logic shotgun, and they did. Take a look at this little video and you may see the total fallacy in the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God.

Debunking "Fine Tuning" Arguments for God

The writer talks about how the discovered factors for life grew from 2 to well over 200, and that; 

"As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn't be here."

What a load of rubbish! Has he never heard of extremophiles? With the discovery of these organisms the possibility of life has increased, not decreased. He is going by an assumption that life as he knows it is all that there is, or could be, because the writer is ignorant of the facts, or chooses to ignore them.

Just in case you don't know what extremophiles are, I'll point you to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration document that explains.

What is an extremophile? 

An extremophile is an organism that thrives in extreme environments. Some of these organisms live in boiling hot water. Others in freezing cold. Some live in acidic conditions that would strip the flesh from your bones, but lets ignore the facts if you're trying to prove God.

The writer offers; "Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?" 

Inconceivable to him maybe. The writer may not be able to conceive of such things, but a person of reason may. Just because a person doesn't have the capacity to conceive something doesn't mean that it is not there, or that God did it. We are here, and life abounds. Whether we can conceive the odds have nothing to do with it, and is not proof of a God.

The writer mentions Carl Sagen in his article. He fails to mention a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It is central to scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere. Yet the writer ignores this too. Instead offering only circular logic, and nothing that is testable. Something like, if we don't know the answer, default to "God did it". They want science to prove God exists, and if science can not prove God does not exist, that means God exists. Let's turn it around. That is only fare isn't it? Let them prove God exists? Where is that extraordinary evidence? Where is that incontrovertible proof? I say there is none.

The writer also tries some name dropping using Fred Hoyle, who rejected the "Big Bang" theory by the way. "Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.” Not once was the fact mentioned that fully 85% of the top scientists in the world reject the idea of a creator. 

The Wall Street Journal is a respected publication. I am puzzled as to why they would offer an article which gives illogical theocratic opinions concerning the existence of a God. I'm not the only one who wonders why they would publish such a piece. I've found several forums discussing this already this morning.

It is my opinion that the Wall Street Journal does a disservice to the citizens when they offer up such drivel as  Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God. The WSJ has lost respect, and credibility with the publishing of that nonsense. They should stick to reporting on Wall Street. There is more than enough action to keep them busy there.

"God & Cosmology" - 2014 Greer-Heard Forum

Published on Feb 27, 2014

Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig in Dialogue + Q&A

The Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum in Faith and Culture is a program of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

What Old Guys With no Money Really Want in a Woman

This is my New Years Resolution. I am going to be what some would call really shallow now. I call it being really practical. This is what I'm looking for in a woman. One that has a lot of money, and don't mind spending it on me. Hey why not?

When I was working on airplanes I made all kind of money. I spent it too. Easy come, easy go. Diamonds, flowers, clubs and the rest. I spent it all right, baby and how. Now I don't have any more money. So I figure why not look for a woman with a lot of money. I know they are out there. They got it from any number of sources. I really don't care about where they got their money, just so long as they have it. Even if they ran out while with me, that wouldn't be an issue, because they stuck with me.

I also don't want her to be all up on herself. You know. Thinking she is all it. Like one with the ego of Mussolini crossed with a Diva. I don't want that. I want one who doesn't think they know everything and feel like other people have to kiss their booty to get along. I don't think that is to much to ask.

I want one who don't mind staying at home. One who doesn't have to go out every night of the week. Once or twice a month is fine, but I'm not into socialites who judge their worth by how many times they went to the "club". That is so boring. All the pretentious jerks. I can't stand it. I can fake it for one or two nights, but not every night.

I want one with some brains too. I get so sick of women who are about as smart as a piece of falling sheetrock. I especially get sick of the ones who think they are smart, but are just dumb. You may have met one. They say stuff like "I know what I know, and nothing will change that". That is one of the ultimate buzz kills.

I want a lady that likes smoking pot too. A hippy minded one would do nicely. Even getting into body paints for fun would be cool. Second childhood anyone? Why not? May as well have fun before I die. That goes for you too.

No bigots either. I just hate bigots. They suck in many ways. I don't like women who are racists. I don't give a flying fickle finger of fate how much money they got, I won't tolerate a bigot. Money means nothing to me, so I'll drop a bigot with a bazillion dollars just as quick as one with only a few dollars.

I would like a woman with a hot body, and don't mind getting down. In fact, I want her to crave me. I don't want her to crave me 24 hours a day 7 days a week, but I do want her to crave me only. It makes things safer. Also not to have any stupid inhibitions too! I don't like getting dangerous, but come on. There are some women who don't even like to....well, I'll just let your imagination take over now.

I know this sounds like a lot. I don't care. I'm being practical. I'm in my late 50's so I have to look reality in the face. There are a lot of widows out there who are lonely. A lot of divorced women who are lonely. Both categories of women sometimes find themselves well to do because of insurance policies or inheritance. I am a single guy, and I'm not ugly. I've got a good humor and fun to be with. Why should I go for some poor woman when there are plenty of rich ones who would like to have fun, and be free? I can't think of any reason why not.

At least I'm being honest about everything. I'm being real. I'm not being some liar who only cares about money. I care about money and a lot more too. I spell it out so you don't have to guess. I lay it on the table. I tell it the way it really is, not like 99% of the guys out there who lets stupid pride get in the way. I'll take practical over pride any day of the week.

Okay, there you have it. Message me if you got what I'm looking for.

Little Pig Leader of DPRK Calls President Monkey

Oh please don't hit us with any 'inescapable deadly blows' LMAO HA HA HA 'inescapable deadly blows' them guys crack me up.

 

North Korea Insults Obama, Blames U.S. For Internet Outages

You've got to give it to them. They sure can come up with some unique threats. The words they use are pure comic genius. The fact that the "Little Fat Pig" is calling our president a "monkey" is laughable in the extreme. Even if our President was really a monkey, he would be Monkey President of the most powerful nation on Earth, and the Little Fat Pig would still be a petty dictator of a backwards slum.


The DPRK accused the U.S. of "gangster-like arbitrary practices". Again LMAO!

Even if our nation, which is about a million times less gangster like than the DPRK, had gangster-like practices, they sure as hell wouldn't be arbitrary. They would be extremely purposeful. The purpose of which might be the elimination of the Little Fat Pig.

Make them stop! I don't know if I can stand the laughter much longer, my side hurts.

Homelessness a Choice?

Yesterday I was talking with dear friends about homelessness. The notion that a lot of homeless people choose to be homeless came up. Thoughts of when I was homeless, freezing on a cold New Mexico winter's night came to mind. I didn't choose it. I resisted the notion of homeless people choosing to be homeless.

The annual Point-in-Time Count conducted in January 2014 shows there were 49,933 homeless veterans in America.

I am only one person though. Then it hit me. I really didn't know if people choose to be homeless. I guess out of all homeless people there must be people who choose to be in that condition, but what are the hard numbers? I had no idea. I don't like it when I am ignorant about such an important subject. Even though I had always considered the argument that homeless people choose it a red herring, I was only going by my own experiences.


So what are the facts? What are the hard numbers on homelessness, and the option to choose that? I found this article which was enlightening. After reading it I must confess, I still believe the vast majority of people do not choose to be homeless. Here are a few select quotes from the article, and a link. I hope you find this enlightening too.

Homelessness Myth #14: They Choose to Be Homeless

Christine Schanes, Consultant, public educator, attorney

"Certainly, the nearly 50 percent of homeless people who are women and children don't choose homelessness over being housed."
"Motioning toward the young person, I said to Jerry, "If right now I were to give you the choice to exchange your lifestyle for his lifestyle with an apartment, refrigerator, bathroom, TV and car, would you do it?"

Jerry was silent. He didn't respond. He just kept looking down."

"In my opinion, one choice from two or more options is only a true choice when the consequences of the choices are equal or nearly equal. The choice between living in a home or living on the streets is an unequal choice because of their unequal consequences."

Islam vs Atheism Debate

Last night I viewed this debate between Lawrence Krauss and Hamza Tzortzis - Islam vs Atheism Debate. I wrote down my thoughts while watching. What follows is my thoughts on it. It was published on Mar 29, 2013 to this Youtube Channel. Thanks for posting it.

Lawrence Krauss vs Hamza Tzortzis - Islam vs Atheism Debate

I just finished viewing the Islamic argument, and I can't say I was impressed by it. It seemed he tried to use the Koran to prove itself. Plus he has no background in physics what-so-ever, so all of his observations were based on philosophy and pure contemplation without any experimental evidence. Now for Dr. Krauss.

I did see Dr. Krauss roll his eyes at some of Mr. Tzortzis's statements. I hope he touches on those. Might be good for a laugh.

Just finished listening to Mr. Krauss. I must admit his argument was far more convincing. Even though I am a layman when it comes to physics, I know enough to understand what he is talking about, and all of it was based on observation, reason and verifiable experimentation. He basically lay waste to the Islamist argument as far as I'm concerned.

Now Mr. Tzortzis gets to have some words in response.

I am trying to be as objective, and open minded as possible when viewing this debate. If you're wondering why I'm even doing this exercise, it has to do with a debate I've been having. I am keeping my end of a bargain. Me writing my observations here are so I can remember them, and so my debater may see them.

Mr. Tzortzis trying to say Arab innovation is a product of Islam, when it is a product of the Arab World. Said on several occasions that Mr. Krauss was stating from the Fox News narrative. Mr. Krauss asked about Shreia Law, admitting he knew little about it, Mr. Tzortzis gave evasive answers, now gets annoyed that Mr. Krauss hasn't read Shreia Law. Mr. Krauss says "That's why I asked the question". Trying to say Moral truths product of God.

Whew! I am going to have a good blog to write after this.

Mr. Krauss turn again.

I stopped putting anything more here last night because nothing new was offered. After this point, they only tried to get each other to understand each other's point of view. Both parties became frustrated with the other on several occasions. I really think most the people asking questions in the end didn't understand the concepts presented by Mr. Krauss. For instance, in one of his books he said "Nothing is something". People didn't understand that statement, and you could tell that it frustrated Mr. Krauss that they kept going back to that. The audience and the Islamic speaker kept trying to say it was a contradiction when it really isn't. They were taking the statement out of context. Mr. Krauss was only saying that the concept of "nothing" was something to think about, but these guys just couldn't seem to grasp that. The other concepts of physics were not grasped either, and that inability to understand these concepts became a real problem.

In the end, it was a futile exercise by both parties. For each party their idea still "Makes More Sense". After viewing this, atheism still "Makes More Sense" For me, atheism was re-enforced.

Marijuana: Legal State and Illegal State

When I move to the FREE state of Oregon I am going to start growing some cannabis like I did in New Mexico. I know how to grow HQ hydroponics. Pictures is one of my buds from when I had my Licensed Medical Marijuana grow in NM. The strain was Blue Dream. It is a sativa dominant plant. I like sativa better than indica because it doesn't put me to sleep. Indica is okay for bed time.

I had a pretty good grow going back then. What I grew helped me to deal with the effects of cancer treatment. All of that ended when I moved to the state of Indiana. I had to quit growing my personal garden because Indiana would lock me in prison if I tried to do that in the state. Here is another picture of my modest grow.

Indiana, and any other state where cannabis is still illegal should take note of something represented in these pictures. Economic activity is evident. All of that equipment costs money. I went to local stores to buy all of it. Hundreds of dollars worth of equipment in lights, replacements when the lights blow out, buckets, nutrients, PH adjusters, meters, pumps and other things. Not only that, many people in New Mexico have a Medical Marijuana card, but do not grow their own for one reason or the other. They go to the Licensed Dispensaries. When they purchase the products they are providing jobs, tax revenue and more! That more is, the dispensaries have to grow the products they sell. That means an investment in $hundreds of thousands$ of dollars of worth of equipment. That is another avenue of economic activity when they purchase all this equipment and supplies. Then there is lab fees. All of the products produced has to be tested by a certified lab for THC & CBD content, as well as mold.

It is my opinion that the law makers do not serve the interests of the citizens when they turn their backs on this potential economic generator. Not only is the state missing out on millions of dollars in tax revenue, but also on jobs for the people. It doesn't make sense to keep arresting people, and housing them in jails at the tax payers expense, when unregulated marijuana activity continues, and will continue. While Indiana continues with the policy of criminalize marijuana, badly needed monies go to criminal gangs, and the surrounding states which have legal medical marijuana programs.

End the draconian policy of criminalizing peaceful people who use this innocuous plant, marijuana. Let Indiana join in progressive legislature that will free up police resources, bring in more taxes, and provide many jobs. It is within your power. Speak up.

Fast Economic Growth Points to FOX News Bias

Not bad for a Muslim, racist, socialist, blah, blah. other accusations of treason, more blah, blah, FOX news crap.

Which brings up something I would like to point out. Fox News won a decision from SCOTUS that basically said they could make up anything they want and air it as the truth. 1st Amendment Rights to free speech prevail. I've got a problem with it. The electromagnetic spectrum belongs to the people. All of these TV stations and radio stations have to buy a license from the FCC in order to use the people's airwaves, in effect. They are renting the the airwaves/electromagnetic spectrum from us, the citizens.

Now that it is established that these radio and TV stations/broadcasters are tenants of the people of the United States renting the people's resources, wouldn't it be logical that the people should have some kind of expectation of performance? Shouldn't the people expect that nothing but the truth be expected from an agency that claims to be a "News Network" when they are using the people's resource, the airwaves?

I believe that when these organizations call themselves an organization who disseminate the news to the public over rented property, the airwaves, they should be expected to air nothing but the truth. If they stray from that purpose they should be required to state that it is satire at the beginning of the broadcast and at the end, and at any other time that would make sure the people do not confuse fact with fiction.

        Fox News Channel controversies  

The Fox News Channel has been accused by academics, media figures, political figures, and watchdog groups of having various biases in their news coverage[1][2][3] as well as more general views of aconservative bias.[4] Fox News has publicly denied such charges,[5] stating that the reporters in the newsroom provide separate, neutral reporting.....