Alien Autopsy

I have recently been given a whole pile of videos, from a guy at work, of the UFO/Alien phenomena. Currently I’m part way through the fabled ‘Alien Autopsy’ video. And I must say it is very convincing!




So what is so convincing about the Alien Autopsy video? Let me just say that if this is a hoax -which the amazing human ingenuity is fully capable of achieving- it is a bloody good one!

• The external appearance of the body is very life like, despite the grainy and monotone nature of the film.

• The hands and feet have six digits, as opposed to our five

• Blood seeps from the pathologist’s incisions. Not so much as to mimic a still-pumping heart, but just enough as to indicate the presence of a fluid below the external surface

• One knee joint is slightly flexed by the pathologist which indicated that the body isn’t one solid fabricated block. I would expect rigor-mortis to have stiffened the body, but hey, I would also expect that extraterrestrial bodies would behave differently to ours!

• The skin, when peeled back, behaves as I would expect from a real organism





One thing that annoyed me was that whenever the camera went in for a close-up, the video went all blurry, which totally negated the purpose of getting the camera up close in the first place. Maybe this was to hide the less-than-convincing details of the hoax close up. Either that or camera operator was a trainee or just really drunk.



I kept expecting the thing to jump up and scare the hair off me, as so often happens in every alien autopsy scene in the movies! But alas, it was totally inanimate (phew!).





Being a devout Christian, I naturally believe that there are simply no intelligent extraterrestrial life forms, period. But that is not to say I am hopelessly biased and incapable of rational critique of the phenomena, like so many of the so-called ‘sceptical’ scientists that are interviewed in such videos. These people are so hopelessly blinded by their own ideology and arrogance that they can’t even address the phenomena without working themselves up into a childishly arrogant hissy-fit. The opinions of these types of so-called ‘scientists’ can legitimately be rejected out of hand as nothing more than pathetically myopic bigotry.





My opinion: FAKE (but a very good one!)

Science and the Bible

I’ve just received a first edition of “Science and the Bible: or, The Mosaic Creation and Modern Discoveries”, by Rev. Herbert W. Morris, 1871. As the description below states, Morris advocates a ‘Ruin-Reconstruction’ type exegesis of Genesis.

I’m looking forward to seeing what differences exist, if any, between this old form of secular-compromising, and that which more modern compromisers propound.



“Morris believed in a six day creation long after Darwin and anthropologists began to find evidence of mankind living longer ago than previously believed. He believed in an old universe but a young humanity and a literal deluge, like many of the 19th century Christians.


His literal view of the Bible was undiminished. He wrote:


"Few readers need be informed that the theory has been advanced, that these days were not literal days, but immensely long periods. Much ingenuity and learning have been exercised in attempts to make the Divine Record countenance this idea. While we regard the great facts of geology as being established by proofs second only to the mathematical demonstrations of astronomy, yet we are constrained to say, that the method pursued to establish this interpretation does not appear to us to be plain and fair dealing with the Word of God but rather a "torturing of the Book of Life out of its proper meaning." If the first chapter of Genesis can be made to mean what these theories express, other portions of Scripture can, with equal ease, be made to mean almost anything that the whim of man may desire, or his imagination invent. Here the point to be decided is, not what this Scripture can be made to mean, but what does it mean what idea was it intended to convey? We believe that it means literal and natural days, for the following reasons:……. "(Morris, 1871, p. 80)”

YEC, ID and the God of the Gaps

Atheist Fairytales

The ‘God of the Gaps’ idea (hereafter abbreviated as gotg) is commonly used as a disparaging epithet against anyone who denies that only natural causes have been in effect in the universe’s history. Wikipedia defines it as:

“a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge, or that otherwise lack a plausible natural explanation….a tendency to postulate acts of God to explain phenomena for which science has yet to give a satisfactory account.” [Emphasis added]

I will ignore the non-sequitur logical fallacy of the gotg argument that, just because you can imagine a plausible natural explanation for an event in the past doesn’t mean that it actually occurred that way. Instead I want to focus on it’s common application to the two worldviews of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and the Intelligent Design movement (ID).

It seems to me that the idea of filling the explanatory gaps in the naturalist theory of origins with ‘god did it’ is most applicable to ID. To explain why this is so, a brief explanation of what ID is, is necessary. Wikipedia defines ID as the:

“proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

This means that ID basically accepts every single part of the atheistic model of evolutionary origins, except where atheistic evolution fails to explain how something happened, like the commonly cite bacterial flagellum. So whenever naturalism fails to provide a plausible explanation of how something could have occurred naturally, ID says “god did it” (or to be more accurate: “a designer did it”). So we see that the definition of what ID is, inherently includes the essential logic of the ‘God of the Gaps’ idea.

YEC on the other hand, rejects all forms of evolution (be it atheistic, theistic, deistic etc) totally and utterly. YEC has a totally different model for the origin of life. It completely rejects the idea that all life has commonly descent from bacteria via any form of evolution. YEC rejects the theory that all life has a common ancestry as merely a figment of the imagination, and as a false interpretation of the empirical data that the earth’s rocks provide.

I would consider YEC immune from the gotg allegation, as opposed to ID (or any other variation of theistic naturalism), because YEC doesn’t actually attempt to insert supernaturalism in the gaps of the atheistic framework, but inserts supernaturalism in place of the whole atheistic framework itself!

Thus, if the YEC theory rejects the actual whole fractured framework of evolution, than any accusation that the YEC theory is a gotg type theory is inapplicable since the YEC model rejects the actual framework and thus the gaps that gotg thinking is employed to plug.

Because of this rejection of the atheistic evolution of all species, and the rejection of the corollary gaps in the model that ID tries to fill, YEC is free to interpret nature through supernatural means, immune to the gotg epithet.

It is for this reason that YEC avoids the whole gotg trap that ID inherently falls head-first into.

Interpreting Scripture

It is generally agreed by laymen and Biblical scholars alike that the best way to interpret the meaning of Scripture is to compare it to itself (that is, cross-referencing with itself), and that a good rule is that the Bible should be taken as literal unless it obviously means otherwise, as is obviously the case with Psalms or Revelations.


Yet when the topic of Creation and the Flood is discussed, the rules suddenly change and we are told that Scripture should also be interpreted by "science" whenever the two disagree.



Essentially what is implied-consciously or not- is that the Christian worldview is to be subordinate to all other worldviews, particularly the currently reigning secular worldview. Whenever there is a disagreement between these two, the Bible is always the one that is reinterpreted. It is claimed that the “science” of the secular worldview is the acme of human knowledge and as such all other forms of knowledge must be subservient.



But what is meant by the term 'science'? It seems that the two terms ‘science’ and ‘naturalistic evolution’ are used synonymously. It is certainly true that most of the public have the fallacious impression that ‘science’ inherently means naturalistic evolution to the exclusion of all other worldviews such as YEC, OLC, theistic evolution etc. And vice versa it is believed that naturalistic evolution has exclusive rights over the term ‘science’, to the exclusion of all other worldviews (Hence why so many religious people feel compelled to reject all ‘science’ outright; they wrongly think that in order to reject evolution they must also reject ‘science’).

Science certainly is a powerful explanatory tool for acquiring knowledge. Therefore because naturalistic evolution claims exclusive rights over ‘science’ it is wrongly assumed that ‘naturalistic evolution’ must similarly be regarded as just as powerful and authoritative by synonymous association alone. Thus, it is claimed that the philosophical worldview of naturalism must be the rule to which all other worldviews conform.

It is for this reason alone that the Biblical account of origins is demanded by secularists to be subservient and must genuflect to their own worldview of naturalistic evolution.





What secularists are erroneously claiming is that any Biblical idea that conflicts with science is wrong.

But what they really mean is that any Biblical idea that conflicts with their philosophy of naturalism is wrong! It has NOTHING to do with science at all!



But what mus be remembered is that science is rather like statistics; you can pick or ignore whatever pieces of science that you like to suit whatever worldview you like; YEC, OEC, IDism, theistic evolution, deistic evolution, atheistic evolution etc, the fact is that ALL worldviews have some sort of science behind them.



So in the end we see that scientific evidence actually does comport with Scripture-rather; it is only the philosophical worldview of naturalistic evolution that does not fit with Scripture. And considering that it was originally designed to oppose the Biblical model, the fact that the two conflict should come as no surprise to anyone.

The conflict is not between ‘science’ vs the Bible at all. Instead the real conflict is between the worldviews of naturalism vs the Bible, as well as between naturalistic science vs Biblical science.



So what Christians are actually doing when trying to compromise the Bible with evolution is making the Bible subservient to the most popular worldview of today in a vain attempt to avoid embarrassment in the face of ungodly man, rather than being concerned with truth in the face of God.



Should the perspicacious Word of God really be subservient to the capricious vogue of man?

A Letter Sent to My Local Member for Parliament

Hello,

I am quite concerned in hearing about the Federal Parliament’s intentions in allowing homosexual couples to marry, giving the same status to homosexual unions as heterosexual unions. This incidentally, and most importantly, legitimises the rescinding of the right that children have always had to the psychological necessity of both a mother and a father.





What I see as the problem here, is that for proper psychological development in children, they need to have both feminine and masculine roll models in the same house. Preadolescent humans have been designed to develop under certain strict biological conditions, and having the feminine and masculine influences of both the mother and a father one is one of the most important.

I do not for a minute, think that anyone would seriously assert that a parental couple of the same sex would be in any way equal to a heterosexual couple in providing distinct feminine and masculine attributes to a child’s development. Be it male or female children, both sexes need close feminine and masculine influences. Even a male or female roll model ‘popping around’, or taking the child of a homosexual couple out fishing or shopping could never replace the 24hour attentive support and influence that a heterosexual couple will inherently provide.



I fear that two parents of the same sex could easily lead to some form of psychological imbalances in the delicate mind of a developing child. We are talking about the psychological wellbeing of the most vulnerable people in our society. At the very least the Government needs to conduct thorough research to make sure that legitimising homosexual marriage doesn’t also legitimise a detrimental environment for so many children. It would be quite irresponsible to make such an extraordinary decision with such far-reaching consequences based on whim.





While the rights of a homosexual couple to some form of legalized cohabitation must certainly be taken into account, the wellbeing of a child’s development must be paramount, above and beyond the desires of the parents.

This is true not just in the case of homosexual couples, but also other forms of cohabitation such as polygamy and bigamy. These other forms of cohabitation are not sanctioned by the state for a very good reason; they are detrimental to the most vulnerable people in the ‘family’; the children.

If the Government can, in anyway, prevent any child growing up in such a poor psychological environment, then it most certainly should, especially when it can do so in such a basic way as prohibiting homosexuals, polygamists and bigamists from marriage.



While I do disagree with homosexuality as such, I am by no means homophobic. I have close family members who are gay and we get on extremely well, so one could not dismiss my opinions as mere homophobic bigotry.

As I see it, this proposed legislation or law will result in children growing up in conditions that are unnecessarily detrimental to the child’s psychological development. This I believe is unacceptable.



Regards,

Timothy





P.S. Below is a link to an article that I found quite informative. I highly recommend that you take a look:



http://www.jubileecentre.org/resources/the_causes_of_homosexuality_what_science_tells_us