Plausible Deniability

I’ve pondered this question before:

“Why doesn’t G-d just let us all know that he exists? Why the big mystery?”

I’ve come to various conclusions each time I’ve come back upon this after a period of time. Hopefully, I have it finally resolved now. The answer? Plausible Deniability. Consider this. Adam and Eve knew G-d directly, but their human nature eventually resulted in their removal from the garden. The Israelites knew G-d directly, but after a period of time, human nature simply took over again and they became fat and lazy and indulgent in their own ways:

“When I bring them into the land flowing with milk and honey that I promised on oath to their fathers, and they eat their fill and grow fat and turn to other gods and serve them, spurning Me and breaking My covenant, and the many evils and troubles befall them–then..”

Basically, anytime G-d has made himself known to us we have turned away, and as a result G-d has had to deal harshly with his people. Instead, if G-d writes down what he wants from us in a scroll and then expects us to follow it thousands of years later, at the very least, we have plausible deniability. We have some recompense here. We can say that we tried and really wanted to do the right thing, but we weren’t really even sure if it all served a purpose. For all we knew, all of our history and the stories were just that. Stories. I mean, sure we believe that they’re true, but there’s no way to KNOW that they’re true, and that’s the difference. So long as we don’t have direct knowledge, G-d can be more generous and lenient with us when we go astray.

At least, for now, that’s my two cents on the matter. What do you think?


armageddon and you

This isn’t really a jewish concept, armageddon that is, but the likelihood of such an even seems almost unavoidable. Given the current rate of population growth, we were already scheduled to surpass our food supply quite some time ago. The threshold where we no longer produce enough food for the number of humans on the planet. We have scientific breakthroughs to thank for raising that threshold due to genetic engineering raising crop yields by 300%, but that isn’t going to last forever. There is a finite amount of space to grow food on, and a finite amount of space for us humans to live in. It’s simple supply and demand economics. We’re eventually headed toward a catastrophic event that will likely wipe out a large portion of the world’s population. I’m not saying that the almighty one will come back at that time and rule the earth, as predicted in the Christian bible, but simply that an event of that nature seems likely.

So rather than run in fear, I would suggest everyone begin to make preparations. I’m not preaching that the apocalypse is nigh, but rather a few generations off. You should begin preparing for your descendants, not for yourselves. That’s not to say that such an event cannot happen at any time. It’s not difficult to see the effects of over-crowding. Unusual stories of murders and crazy psychopaths eating someone’s face are becoming more and more common. It’s easy to think that perhaps these things always happened this frequently, but that’s simply not true. The rate of these occurrences has risen drastically in recent years and I believe it is a simple side-effect of overpopulation.

What can we do? The optimal solution feels like we should create an island refuge somewhere remote to weather out the storm and then come back when it’s all over. Hiding? Yes, definately. That aside, there are lots of remote locations, even here in the United States that would be a perfect location to lay-low. Alaska for example. Not quite an island paradise, but better than New York City for your shelter location.

Learning some basic survival skills might also be a good idea. Be able to determine what kinds of plants are edible and which are poisonous. Know how to create basic traps. The more civilized we become, the farther away we distance ourselves from these basic concepts. We can program our iPhone, but we cannot put together a simple snare trap to capture food.

Hopefully I’m wrong and this day will never come. This is something I wouldn’t mind being wrong about. Either way, good luck to you all.


A response to Bill Nye

I often think there aren’t enough things for me to blog about, but it turns out that there is no shortage of stupidity on this planet. Here is the popular quote:

“And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can – we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

“It’s just really a hard thing, it’s really a hard thing. You know, in another couple of centuries that world view, I’m sure, will be, it just won’t exist. There’s no evidence for it.”

On the surface, it’s easy to think that Mr. Nye is asking us not to teach our children our religious view, and if you stopped at just reading quotes in the media, that’s what you probably do believe. I’m glad to have watched the video , titled “Creationism is not appropriate for children”, as that isn’t exactly the message, but really it’s pretty close. The very title of the video is just about enough on it’s own, but I would urge everyone to watch it before forming an opinion, because then all you’re really forming an opinion on, is other peoples’ opinions of the video, not the video itself.

So what’s it all about? Really, his core message is to not use taxpayer dollars to teach Creationism as a legitimate theory in schools. I’m actually okay with this. Why? Because separation of Religion and State is a good thing. I don’t want my children learning about other religions in school, unless they’re taking a religious studies class that goes over other world religions, and then, it would have to be with my approval. So we cannot have it both ways, having only our religious viewpoints expressed in schools. It’s a bad thing.

Now, watching the video, you cannot help but notice the subtle overtone that Mr. Nye clearly things that Creationism is quite ridiculous and he actually says that the theory of evolution is core to everything in Life Science (Biology). As if Biology cannot stand on its own without evolution as a base. This is in no way true. The evolution theory is actually fairly unnecessary in almost every way to anything, other than perhaps genetics and DNA research. It’s really not that useful of a theory honestly, although perhaps someday in the future, scientists will make more breakthroughs and finally make it actually worthwhile. Right now, it’s not worthwhile. It has added zero benefit to the scientific community other than to confuse everyone into thinking that it’s a proven, valuable thing, when it is not. Now, if actual evidence and data someday supports evolution, I’ll be fine changing my viewpoints on it, but right now, no such supporting data exists.

However, Mr. Nye did mention the age of the universe and paralleled that evolution fits in better with the billions of years model of space than creationism. That’s because evolution requires billions of years to work, and really the main support for the statement. So if we think the earth is billions of years old, then this has some credence. Here we really start touching more on religious viewpoints that scientific viewpoints though. It’s kinda funny that it all hangs on the seven days of creation. If it weren’t for that, things would really be different. So either you think everything happened in seven physical days, and thus have a problem, or you believe that it’s just an overview of what G-d did, and you have no real problem. I’ve offered another Creationism theory, so I had to consider how this affects that theory.

I thought the pic was a cool timeline based on the flood. I haven’t evaluated it in anyway, just enjoy that someone put some effort into it!

To me, there are only a few key things to comment on, without any real definite resolution (because I haven’t lived for billions of years). First, on the one hand, you would think if man was created early in the life of the planet (sixth day) and given a planet that is several billions of years old, we would expect that the population of the earth would be much higher than it is now. The population of the planet doesn’t well support that humans have been around for billions of years. This however, supports neither side as it really doesn’t help evolutionists much either. Another point to consider, is that we haven’t uncovered any civilizations that far in the past. It doesn’t seem from our archaeological finds, that humans have existed for billions of years. Once again, doesn’t help either side really.

So what evidence actually supports an Earth age of several billion years? Really the only thing that does is fossils. Fossil ages for me are a mystery. I can’t make myself believe that there are reliable methods for dating them. The most used is, and just going from memory so the element is probably wrong, but Uranium based dating. So it determines the age by the decay rate of an element. To me, this idea is faulty because it expects the decay rate to remain constant for billions of years and never change. I find this hard to believe, since a billion years is just a long time and it feels possible that the decay rate could change at some point (speed up, slow down, be affected by environmental factors). I know ‘feels like’ isn’t very scientific, but I think some common-sense is sometimes useful (this isn’t always true though!). Also, I believe that fossils many times are taken from earth layers that aren’t likely to have been billions of years old, but the fossil is dated as billions of years old because it falls inline with the evolutionary scientist digging it up, so they discard the age of the earth layer in favor of the age of the fossil. This post goes over it in more detail, and while not presented in the most professional and scientific format, it sums up things better than I have time for here. It states that in most cases, scientists discard rock ages that they don’t like and keep the ones that fit what they want to believe, and I in-fact believe this is often true.

This ran a bit long, so for now, happy thinking!