Rantatouille Caveat Lector

Entry #007 - 10th August 2007 Friday
The remarkable frequency of genetic exchange - and the consequential rapid pace of bacterial mutation - strongly suggests that they having been evolving for a substantial period. This does not necessarily contradict the Genesis principal of conservative reproduction ("after its / his kind"), which was applicable only to plants, mammals, fish, birds, man etc.; excluding microbes, insects, worms etc

The Genesis "conservative-reproducer list" seems to include only sentient creatures, whose collective beings are clearly greater than the sum of their material parts - consciousness being the differential over physiological composition. Perhaps this should be considered a new definition for life, a more precise discriminant between living and non-living chemical reactions (whether or not they are self-sustaining). In other words, reproductive ability need not be a fundamental, definitive criterion. After all, viruses are considered as complex self-replicating chemical compounds or reproductive non-living things.

This leads to a new postulate explanation for the fundamental biological dichotomy between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Perhaps the former were the result of satanic biochemical dabbling, or even devious strategies to mislead from Theistic Creationism to Evolution. Perhaps only the latter constitute creation of divine origin.  

#006 - 10th August 2007 Friday

The Miller-Urey experiment - which demonstrated the possibilty of amino acid synthesis by random interaction of constituent elements in a high-energy environment - is foolishly touted as evidence for evolution of all life from a primordial soup.

It is observed that in biological systems, amino acids may be synthesised from DNA, but the converse is not true. The experiment did not produce any DNA, or hint at how they may have arisen from amino acids.

Furthermore, amino acids on their own are relatively simple compounds, and pale in complexity when compared with the vastly convoluted protein arrays which effectively constitute the entire cell. The experiment failed to demonstrate synthesis of even simple peptides from the amino acids.

Finally, random elemental interaction at high-energy levels contrasts starkly with the precise, energy-efficient mechanism by which the specific proteins are decoded from DNA.

At best, the experiment is little more than a fun but superficial chemical curiosity; at worst it is a devious red herring to distract impulsive theorists from the true origin of life.    

#005 -3rd November 2007 Saturday
When death strikes close by, it suddenly grows clear that there is more to life than biology, more to humanity than complex grey matter; There is more to conscience than pavlovian conditioning, more to morality than philosophy, more to romance than hormones.

#004 - July 2007
The structure, order and function in the universe - and especially biological life - explicitly testify of a Creator. Man is God's creation, yet evolutionists continue to rant and rail in defiant denial. They have sustained multiple defeats in scientific debate but still managed to cover up.

But refutation of atheistic evolution is not confined to science. We submit that there is an intuitive, moral refutation by contradiction:

If one believes that human life is a biochemical accident, then one essentially dismisses the moral conscience as a neurological delusion and justice as a sociological phenomenon. Ultimately, one argues for a fundamentally chaotic and unjust universe, in which no-one is entitled to any absolute justice whatsoever. Felonies and war-time atrocities warrant no moral indignation because whatever pain inflicted is merely a neurochemical response. One can arbitrarily oppress and torment another, yet be guilty of no wrong, since suffering is just some nervous electricity.

Even the staunchest atheist intuitively acknowledges such contradiction, though s/he may deny this to save face. Many would forsake sense to embrace a convoluted theory which blatantly sanitises evil and perverts the truth.

And the truth is that conscience is an innate understanding of Divine moral principles, even if it is as rudimentary as reciprocity - "do unto others as they unto you" or "do unto others as you would yourself". Conscience is derived from the character of God, imparted from Creator to creature.
Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

The excuse that violence is morally acceptable when culturally conditioned holds no substance. A primeval savage cannot feign righteous ignorance to kill or maim “for honour”, since he himself possesses a nervous system, by which he can reasonably imagine and empathise with the suffering on the receiving end. He is fully aware of the moral responsibility to defy his depraved “culture”.

Romans 2:1   Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Romans 2:2   But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Romans 2:3   And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

#003 - 2nd July 2007 Monday 9 pm
Evolution theory suggests that a primordial goo - for no rhyme or reason - spawned biological structure, function and design; that molecules - by purely random permutations - arranged themselves to form neuro-nervous, cardiovascular, reproductive systems etc. Perhaps that might be plausible for a single primitive species, but for an entire ecosystem that is obviously absurd.

The theory blatantly extrapolates and twists the theory of natural selection, assuming that shifting proportions of characteristics within a population can fundamentally change that species.

It cites competitive survival as the primary driving force for mutagenic improvement of a species, without explaining why such a process has yet to develop immunity to age-induced death. If an organism is merely a self-sustaining collective chemical reaction, then theoretically it should persist indefinitely if all nutrients are available. It would thus make more evolutionary sense to develop age-immune metabolisms and reserve reproduction as precautionary measure against unnatural death, rather than develop intrinsically mortal metabolisms and promote rampant reproduction. But the observed phenomena contradict these.

Theistic creationism, on the other hand, reveals that the cosmos and all life within it are the creation of God. This is indeed very consistent with simple and complex observations. Scientists can identify consistent physical laws which govern matter, space, energy and time, but cannot explain why or how these laws are enforced. The universe behaves like some astronomical piece of software, clearly the work of some Divine Programmer. Order and function in life are plainly the design of omniscient God, who alone can balance every variable and parameter an ecosystem requires.

Scripture teaches that biological death was imposed by God as punishment for, and release from sinful mortality.
Genesis 2:16   And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis 2:17   But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:19   In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
Genesis 3:22   And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Reproductive ability and instinct was ingrained into life by His blessing and for His dominion.
Genesis 1:27   So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:28   And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The only defense evolutionists can afford against creationist reasoning is that the latter too conveniently explains everything by introducing an all-powerful, unobservable divine entity. But it is the hallmark of faulty reasoning to dismiss as false what it cannot prove true, and declare true what it cannot prove false. Absence of empirical evidence is not empirical evidence of absence.  

#002 - 24th June 2007 Sunday 2pm
That God allows sin for His greater glory is a faulty and inconsistent proposition, because it implies that sin is a necessary evil, and God created the sinful or sin-prone only to destroy them in a grand, glorious display of judgment. This blatantly portrays God as a capricious puppeteer who manipulates, and then disposes of his creatures as pawns on a cosmic chessboard - completely contradictory to His benevolent nature. Furthermore, the present reality is clearly inferior to what could, and should have been – namely, the non-occurrence of original sin and persistence of Eden.

It is far more reasonable to suggest that God allows sin simply because He can afford to - the same way billionaires can afford to ignore petty thefts on their property. God is able to over-compensate for the effects of sin. He is more than able to deliver and avenge the afflicted, and consume oppressors in His wrath.
Psalm 72:4 He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.
2Peter2:9   The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
Isaiah 14:4   That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
Isaiah 14:5   The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, [and] the sceptre of the rulers.
Isaiah 14:6   He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, [and] none hindereth.
Isaiah 14:7   The whole earth is at rest, [and] is quiet: they break forth into singing.

#001 - 20th May 2007 Sunday
The logic of Pascal's Gamble is simple: It is the safest choice to believe in God since one has nothing to lose whether that faith proves true or false. Should it prove true, one gains everything from embracing it, but loses all for rejecting it. Conversely, should it prove false, one loses nothing for embracing it, and gains nothing from rejecting it.

But there are problems with this argument.

First, the various religions and cults present a chaotic kaleidoscope of perspectives on God (or gods), each of which claims to be exclusively true. The probability of choosing wrong, and consequently losing everything, is exceedingly high. Hence it is reasonable to abstain from a choice altogether.

Second, adopting the Christian Faith as Pascal Gamble cheapens and trivialises it into another safe lottery number. That degrades faith into astute speculation.

Third, the Christian Faith substantiates itself irrefutably with concrete evidence in scripture - historical/archaeological, scientific and prophetic. There is no room for 'if and then' or 'if not, then not'.