TaN: One of the most compelling arguments on the issue of the existence of an Almighty is Free Will. Everything else in the universe has, to some certain degree, been (somewhat) convincingly explained by so-called evolutionary scientists but have conveniently left out explaining how free will developed.
It is interesting to note that most, if not all, of the physical and mental changes and adaptations that came about from or during evolution, another thing that cannot satisfactorily explained is: When the variation occurred in the offspring/s, how did they survive and, for those species that care for their young, how did the parents cope, especially in the case of drastic changes in the diet? How did the newborns know what to eat and how did the parents know what to feed the young?
Until today, evolutionary scientists have not yet been able to find or at least show (in terms of explanation) the intermediaries or transition species — the so-called “missing links”. Sure there are some recent discoveries of so-called missing links in evolution — like the coelecanth — but these still do not explain or show the transition. If there are full-grown specimens or fossil remains, why are there no developmental stages — from hatchlings and newborns and through the different stages of growth?
Moreover, what about the DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) composition? What changes occurred in the DNA? Were there additions or alterations? How did these happen from the gamete stage? Did that parents already carry reproductive cells with variant DNAs? And, how many “mistakes” did nature have to make before a “successful” divergence from the proginator?
Returning to free will, this will remain as the most compelling and troublesome thorn in the issue of man’s origin — creation or evolution. [Btw, there is also the scientific and philosophical principle of: One cannot pass on to the next generation what one does not have — and this includes genetic material. So, if our animal proginators did or do not have free will, how or where the heck did we get it from? And why is it that only we were so fortunate as to be the only ones to acquire it? How come at least a couple or so other animals should exhibit some form of free will, considering how many species there are and were? What are the odds?]
TaN: It never ceases to amaze and intrigue me to hear and read, every now and then, that man is at the brink of destroying the planet. Well, it will first have to depend on how man (re-)defines “destroy”. From my understanding, man cannot even come close to destroying the planet. All he can hope to achieve is to make living conditions extremely intolerable or uninhabitable — for himself and his co-inhabitants. That is just the best he can ever hope for.
Especially for Christians — those who truly and sincerely believes in and obeys the Holy Scriptures and not those in name only — the power to destroy this planet resides solely with or in the Father. Imagine the contradiction when scientists and other experts say that there are enough nuclear weapons in the world to destroy the planet yet every time a natural disaster — say a super storm as in hurricane/typhoon/cyclone or a volcanic eruption or a tsunami or an earthquake occurs — to provide an analog to the power of or energy required to bring about the disasters, they frequently use nuclear weapons like “equivalent to so-and-so many nuclear devices”.
So, if such natural disasters have the power or force equivalent to several nuclear devices, then how can it be said that man has the power to destroy the planet when his nuclear weapons cannot even come close to matching the power or energy release of natural disasters?
In fact, modern man — with all his advances in science and technology — has yet to satisfactorily explain how “primitive” man was able to achieve such engineering marvels with the “primitive” tools they had that we still cannot duplicate or replicate. Further, how is it that great minds such as Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the earth to within a hundred or so kilometers off — and using no complicated or sophisticated measuring device but simple observation and knowledge of fundamental facts and some simple mathematics. And remember, he lived more than two millennia ago, even before the birth of Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, I am not doubting that man is prone to self-destruction — and taking many other species and perhaps even all living things on the planet along with him — but I seriously cannot believe that we can destroy the world (as in break the planet apart).
Sure, with out nuclear weapons, we can crack portions of the planet crust and make massive (from our perspective) craters and holes on the ground but that is all. I simply cannot bring myself to believe that we have the capability to destroy the planet — as one would destroy a building or a city.
The only way I can see the destruction of the planet is by fire — as written in the Holy Scriptures. And I can just imagine it because two of the most abundant elements on this planet are highly combustible and are present (literally) everywhere — hydrogen (which is found throughout the universe as it is the most basic of elements) and oxygen, just look at how much water we have (even if most of it is salty or highly mineralized).
TaN: Intellectual property rights (IPR) has its own valid argument but it is a very significant factor in the increasing focus and emphasis of materialism, consumerism, and greed. It effectively discourages people to share and encourages people to be selfish — to look out only for number 1, the self.
IPR, likewise, encourages piracy because — knowing or being familiar with youthful behavior (because we have all been young once and went through that rebellious stage when we try to challenge authority to test our own resilience, resourcefulness, limits, and just simply for the heck of it) — it is innate in all (or at least many) of us to want what we cannot or should not have. [It is what got us kicked out of Eden/Paradise.] We try to see if we can get away with challenging authority or go against established norms and rules.
Eventually, most of us grow out of it, but some either never do or find it profitable, as in the case of so-called IPR pirates. [Btw, IPR piracy is actually a scheme dreamt up by the ruling wealthy elite — but not quite everyone of the wealthy is guilty of it — to ensure a tight grip or stranglehold on inventions, discoveries, and innovations to create a perpetual monopoly and guarantee control and continuous inflow of revenue to keep the 99% where they belong.] And because of this, most of the global population have a skewed and perverted understanding what true piracy is and willingly accept what the ruling global elite dictates.
In any case, IPR, for all its “noble” purpose of ensuring that creative works are (amply or handsomely) rewarded and guarded against the unscrupulous who seek only to capitalize on the hard work of others and “share” in the profits without having to contribute anything in the process of creation, is still better off discarded. Unknown or unnoticed by most is that those who are the fiercest or at the forefront of the campaign against piracy (of IPR) are actually the ones who are free riders, pretending to be defenders and guardians of IPR when, in truth, they rake in proportionally more profits than the inventor/innovator,discoverer — if you consider how much they contributed to the invention/innovation/discovery…NADA!
Think about it; really think about it; carefully and honestly examine the facts and see if you will come to the same conclusion as I did: That those who claim to police against IPR pirates make proportionally more, much more, than the inventor/innovator,discoverer and they are profiting by using government to do their work for them, serving as their enforcers.