Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

Science Proves Once Again that Life Begins at Conception

“An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.”

So says an article published in the UK Telegraph on April 26, 2016.

Here is the link.

Moment Life Begins.png

The Abortion Genocide in the United States has claimed nearly 60,000,000 innocent lives since it began raging in 1973, over 40 years ago.

And it is truly driven by a culture of death and perverse, excessive appetite, not any rational moral standards.

The atheist-genocider argument against the science of life is, “if it doesn’t think like me, look like me, or feel things like me, it isn’t really human.”

Gosh, where have we heard that perversity before?

Hint: it was the same reason used by a very famous genocider who founded his own culture of death and called it, The Father Land. I can only image the late, great Winston Churchill calling that, bloody ironic.

Keeping to the theme of natural law theory, the newly fertilized human egg is truly alive and human because at the moment of conception it possesses human nature.

Why?

Science tells us that at the moment of conception the newly fertilized egg possesses a complete set of human DNA.

Common sense tells us that every living thing has a beginning and an end.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that the word, “conception” means beginning.

 

 

Silence of Mind

, , ,

25 responses to “Science Proves Once Again that Life Begins at Conception”

  1. john zande Avatar
    john zande

    LOL. Sorry, but no. At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. silenceofmind Avatar
      silenceofmind

      John,

      Such an urbane, erudite, articulate AND atheist, denial of modern science!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  2. tildeb Avatar
    tildeb

    So now SOM tells us science is our friend!

    Too funny.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. silenceofmind Avatar
      silenceofmind

      tildeb,

      I have a degree in electrical engineering and am currently studying biotechnology.

      Christianity and science go good together.

      Also, why can’t atheists ever argue to the point?

      Zande hallucinates 3.8 billion years ago and you attack me, personally instead of making an argument. Both are examples of logical fallacies.

      Zande’s is called “non sequitur (ridiculous).” Yours is called “ad hominin (against the man).”

      If science has actually proven that life begins at the instant of conception, who is, or isn’t our friend according to me, is totally irrelevant.

      You can see that can’t you?

      Like

      Reply
      1. tildeb Avatar
        tildeb

        I’ve noticed a correlation between religious fundamentalism and engineering. There’s also a connection between creationism and dentistry.

        Interesting.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. silenceofmind Avatar
          silenceofmind

          I must really make an appointment to see the dentist.

          It’s been far too long since my last visit, apparently.

          Like

          Reply
  3. Citizen Tom Avatar
    Citizen Tom

    I guess I need to see the dentist too.

    Not sure about the THEORY of Evolution, but I am definitely certain God created everything. What amazes me is mere mortals who think otherwise.

    Like

    Reply
    1. tildeb Avatar
      tildeb

      I think you’d be amazed, CT, if you ever bothered to learn about what the scientific endeavor has unveiled about reality. But, with God whispering in your ever-so-special ear, who needs something as mundane as science to know what God Himself tells you about it?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Citizen Tom Avatar
        Citizen Tom

        @tildeb

        One thing I have learned with God whispering in my ear is to wonder why He cares enough to speak into my ear.

        Consider what little we know about reality. We had nothing to do with it. It speaks of Him. That tends to make one a bit more objective, don’t you know?

        Like

        Reply
        1. tildeb Avatar
          tildeb

          More objective? Certainly not in your case!

          You actually believe your insight into the universe is personally revealed to you by an omnipotent being!

          Sorry, CT; it doesn’t get any more subjective than that. And all it requires is enormous gullibility combined with a towering egoism and an utter lack of respect for reality to think you’re being humble to believe such imaginary whispering.

          Like

          Reply
          1. Citizen Tom Avatar
            Citizen Tom

            @tildeb

            Respect for reality? If reality just is — if you and I just happen to be — if all that is is accidental, here and gone to no purpose, what is there that is worthy of respect? Objectively, of course. However, if there is a Creator, a Creator who gives each of us His purpose, even those who deny He exists, what is not worthy of respect?

            Like

            Reply
            1. tildeb Avatar
              tildeb

              If reality just is, what is worthy of respect? Maybe this will help reveal the extraordinary poverty and immaturity of your view.

              Like

            2. Citizen Tom Avatar
              Citizen Tom

              @tildeb

              Curious, Christopher Hitchens tries to use the Bible says to attack it, but he misses the point.

              Hitchens tries to make it about “me” and him. It isn’t. Hitchen tries to make about the superiority of his view over that guy’s view. It isn’t.

              Yet surely he has read this passage.

              19 Psalm 19Amplified Bible (AMP)

              1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
              And the expanse [of heaven] is declaring the work of His hands.

              2 Day after day pours forth speech,
              And night after night reveals knowledge.

              3 There is no speech, nor are there [spoken] words [from the stars];
              Their voice is not heard.

              4 Yet their voice [in quiet evidence] has gone out through all the earth,
              Their words to the end of the world.

              Long before you or I or Hitchens were born people observed Creation. And they wondered. How could a thing be? They determined the obvious. Someone had created it.

              Now such as Hitchens, just because primitive peoples observed the obvious first, want to set aside the obvious. For some reason, Hitchens seems to think observing the obvious is anti-science. For some reason, he seems to think studying — as an act of worship — what our Lord has created is anti-science. Yet science began in the worship of God as the Creator. For if there is a Maker who takes joy in the order and beauty of His works, then His creatures can begin to understand Him — worship Him — by studying what He has made.

              So why does Hitchens reject the obvious? I suspect his reason is his pride. When we observe what God has done, His work should shred our pride to tatters. Strangely, perhaps our reason is so inadequate, it rarely does.

              Like

            3. tildeb Avatar
              tildeb

              Psalm 19 is often quoted but its meaning is equivalent to ‘Wow, would you look at that!’ Wonder isn’t a problem; ATTRIBUTING a supernatural causal agency IS the problem because, as the Hitch points out, you kill honest inquiry as soon as you accept on faith that you already know the answer to empirical causal claims. This is the hubris you bring to any understanding of reality. It is entirely subjective and colossal arrogance that then tries and fails to hide behind a transparently false modesty: ‘Yes,God has personally revealed Himself to me (yeah, no hubris there), but hey, I’m not worthy (see how humble I am?)’.

              Science as a method of inquiry does not begin with the worship of God as Creator; that approach is exactly wrong and holding that assumptive premise is a guaranteed starting point that will not produce knowledge. All it does is close your eyes and ears. ‘Goddidit’ is not a starting point; it’s a conclusion. It’s neither an answer nor explanation, ever. It’s an empty claim not just devoid of evidence but disallows reality to play any part informing it. That’s the problem with such creationist claptrap; it stifles honest inquiry and presumes you already know the answer. You pretend to already know what you do not know. This is not a virtue and it does not yield intellectual integrity but replaces it with gullibility and false certainty. All the rest of religious belief is filler for this creationist nonsense that turns your eyes and ears away from reality, denies you the means to understand it in all its glory and inwards into the make believe and incompatible world of faith-based woo-laden beliefs where some god is whispering in your ear and revealing a universe – what you presume is ‘obvious’ – that does not comport with reality… or creationists would do so and use the method of science to inform their superstitious beliefs about it. They don;t. You don’t. You just try to paint honest inquiry into reality as immoral and selling hopelessness and then deny reality any role to arbitrate your confident yet factually incorrect claims about it. You don’t care about what’s true and you have your faith-based method to blame for it. But, like any insane person, you’ll continue doing what you do, thinking as you do, and keep expecting a different outcome, that by magical intervention reality will someday come around to your way of thinking and eventually comport with your deeply anti-scientific beliefs.

              Like

            4. Citizen Tom Avatar
              Citizen Tom

              @tildeb

              Hubris from seeing stars and regarding that as a personal message? Hubris from reading the Bible (the best seller) and regarding that as a personal message?

              Last I checked John 3:16 says God loves the whole world, not just one person. Yet we are each special to God. So I suppose it is possible Jesus would have died on the cross for just one of us. You perhaps?

              It is fact that we can have a personal relationship with Jesus, but that experience, although joyful, requires humility. Anyone who is proud of the fact Jesus died for Him doesn’t have a clue.

              To attribute Creation to a Creator is a logical deduction, a reasonable line of inquiry. However, proving the existence of a Creator is beyond the scientific method. The problem of proof is similar to the problem proving the Theory of Evolution. Just as we can find indications that the Theory of Evolution may be true, the fact that the universe follows certain rules indicates the existence of a Creator who established that order. Yet indications alone don’t satisfy the demands for proof required by the scientific method.

              Does believing in a Creator (the God of the Bible) kill honest inquiry? Well, like the Theory of Evolution, that is also a speculative theory. However, there is clearly no evidence to support what is basically just a faith based assertion.

              Christians believe God is orderly, that His Creation obeys discoverable rules. That in essence the belief that drives scientific inquiry. After all, what science involves is discovering those rules. Miracles, because they are by definition improbable, are rare. Otherwise, miracles would cease to be miraculous. In any event, science does not have the capacity to explain miracles.

              On the other hand, consider your own version of Creation: it just happened. That’s what the pagans believed. Things just happened. Nevertheless, the demand to know why a thing just happen in inborn in every human being. So the pagans created their gods and attributed every event to some capricious god or spirit.

              What are your gods tildeb? How do you satisfy your need to know why a thing just happened?

              Ah, but I am suppose to be on defense, right? Proving I am not insane. So what do Christians “pretend” to know?
              1. God created everything.
              2. God loves us, and He insists we love Him as much as we can.
              3. We begin loving God, oddly enough, by loving each other.

              Is what Christians “pretend” to know anti-science? I suppose in a way it is. What Christians “pretend” to know is that science does not have an answer for everything.

              Like

            5. tildeb Avatar
              tildeb

              @ CT

              One can have as much a personal relationship with Bugs Bunny as one can with Jesus; it is wholly a subjective fantasy and most certainly not any kind of ‘objective’ encounter. It is a subject without an object; the object is created by you and so you’re having a relationship with yourself but claiming it’s source is elsewhere. You don;t get this because you’ve fooled yourself.

              Be that as it may, I wanted to comment specifically on this statement of yours:

              “To attribute Creation to a Creator is a logical deduction, a reasonable line of inquiry.”

              Right there you demonstrate the problem: you pretend your belief in a Creator is a deduction (it’s not; it’s a premise you maintain in spite of overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary) and then presume this is the ‘objective’ starting point for further inquiry.

              By presuming your premise is a conclusion, you’ve fatally polluted any further inquiry that advertises reality (and what it reveals to us) as your guide. You’ve already imposed a belief on reality and presumed it to be not just justified but true and then dismissed anything contrary to it that reality has to say in the matter.

              This is why the method of lending confidence to any faith-based belief is a GUARANTEED method to fooling yourself, assuming as you demonstrate time and time again that you think your beliefs are adduced from reality when they are not. The consequence of utilizing this broken methodology as a justification for your beliefs is that anything built on it – any further knowledge claims – are not knowledge claims at all (which is why evidence from reality does not support them). Compounding this fundamental problem is that further belief claims based on presuming your premise is a conclusion is that they continue to evade any requirement to be justified ‘objectively’ by reality itself… that is to say, by independent evidence linking your claimed effect from the supposed cause of them. And this is why the method you use has not, does not, and probably never shall yield any – ANY – knowledge. Such beliefs are devoid of knowledge and full to the brim of imaginary and magical thinking. And this is demonstrable: name any knowledge that such creationist belief has yielded and then demonstrate how it has been utilized (an application, therapy, or technology will suffice). If your claim is true (I think it’s nothing more than the Rain Dance problem cloaked in piety), then one should be able to show how Psalm 19 is accurate in fact and is independent of any beliefs imported to it, that the heavens really do show us evidence for God’s design. I think it’s just another empty claim used to bolster other empty claims.

              Like

            6. ColorStorm Avatar
              ColorStorm

              Subjective fantasy eh tildeb? Equating the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ with the wascally wabbit………

              Please.

              Perhaps a careful reading of the verified ‘fantasy’ of the provable genealogies found in the OPENING of the New Testament, (which btw, immediately shuts all mouths about the so called fantasy) as found in Matthew:

              The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

              Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

              And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

              And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

              And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

              And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; etc.

              Go ahead and challenge the fantasy of Bugs bunny here………….

              then there is the third of Luke:

              And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

              Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

              Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

              Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda……..and following to Adam,

              There is a reason Tildeb records are kept, surely you would admit that the state offices do not care for the records of ground hogs…………but people, ah, I wonder why………..or is it just to continue your fantasy?

              Looney Tunes? Christ? Warner bros. Bugs? Please.

              And btw, you gotta love the ‘as was supposed’ son of Joseph…………..yep, gotta love it.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. tildeb Avatar
              tildeb

              @CS

              Are you seriously questioning the genealogy of my childhood friend? Don’t you know he’s directly related to the Easter Bunny and FuFu? Why, I even have evidence far more compelling than Jesus of Bethlehem/Nazareth/Super8 for my personal relationship with my long-eared buddy with whom I spent time relayed through the magical box at home! Such good times…

              Like

            8. Citizen Tom Avatar
              Citizen Tom

              @tildeb

              I have never enjoyed a personal relationship with Bugs Bunny. When I was a little boy, I commandeered my big sister’s teddy bear, and that is about as close as I got to having a personal relationship with an imaginary animal. So I will have to take your word about the Easter Bunny.

              I am puzzled by your objection to this statement.

              To attribute Creation to a Creator is a logical deduction, a reasonable line of inquiry.

              You cannot and did not demonstrate why attributing Creation to a Creator is harmful or unreasonable. You just emphatically disagreed. Since your string of assertions is unsupported by either logic or evidence, I have nothing to refute. Frankly, I think your objections more emotional than logical. Full of redicule, but devoid of good sense and common decency. The most hilarious assertion is that I imposed a belief upon reality.

              You’ve already imposed a belief on reality and presumed it to be not just justified but true and then dismissed anything contrary to it that reality has to say in the matter.

              As far I know, my assertion that God exists has yet to change reality. God is still God, and I am still not God.

              I suppose what you are trying to get at is something along the lines of that hyped up dispute the Catholic Church had with Galileo. We have already had that silly argument and once is enough. It should suffice to say the Bible does not say the sun goes around the earth, but I will add this. The controversy arose because how we perceive the motion of the sun does not jive with its actual movement. Hence, without making any attempt to lecture the Hebrews on astrodynamics, Joshua 10:12-14 records Joshua’s perception. The Bible, remarkable though it may be, is not a science text. The discipline of science, as we know it today, did not exist when the Bible was written. So it is a basic mistake in hermeneutics to treat the Bible as an advance treatise in science, mathematics or engineering.

              This is kind of funny.

              And this is demonstrable: name any knowledge that such creationist belief has yielded and then demonstrate how it has been utilized (an application, therapy, or technology will suffice).

              Why don’t you ask this same question about Atheism, the Theory of Evolution, and Global Warming?

              Relatively few people are silly enough to claim they have scientific proof for the existence of a Creator. All I said is that the belief in a Creator suggests what He created follows logical, discoverable rules. Yet militant advocates for Atheism, the Theory of Evolution, and Global Warming insist upon using the government to shove their nonsense down other people’s throats. That indicates that neither logic or science is sufficient to support their position. What Christians have, because of their belief in God, is a different perspective on Creation. Because God is not the author of confusion, we expect an orderly universe. Therefore, where there is an effect, we expect to find a cause. In addition, because God is in charge of His creation, we have hope.

              Romans 8:28 New King James Version (NKJV)

              28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

              Like

            9. tildeb Avatar
              tildeb

              @CT

              Creationist belief is a dramatic negative influence that stopped honest inquiry into reality for about a millennium-and-a-half. And yes, Galileo (and his thought experiment of the inclined plane) had a profound positive effect on respecting reality contrary to dogmatic creationism. Now, I’m not crazy and expect you to suddenly understand what you have s[pectacularly failed to understand in the past… because you never have even taken a baby step towards reducing your ignorance about Galileo in spite of my best efforts to excruciatingly explain it to you that you conveniently categorized as ‘ranting’.

              To whit: here’s physicist Sean Carol:

              “Aristotle’s argument for an unmoved mover rests on his idea that motions require causes. Once we know about conservation of momentum, that idea loses its steam. We can quibble over the details — I have no doubt Aristotle would have been able to come up with an ingenious way of accounting for objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity. What matters is that the new physics of Galileo and his friends implied an entirely new ontology, a deep shift in how we thought about the nature of reality. “Causes” didn’t have the central role that they once did. The universe doesn’t need a push; it can just keep going.

              It’s hard to over-emphasize the importance of this shift. Of course, even today, we talk about causes and effects all the time. But if you open the contemporary equivalent of Aristotle’s Physics — a textbook on quantum field theory, for example — words like that are nowhere to be found. We sometimes talk about causes, but they’re no longer part of our best fundamental ontology.

              What we’re seeing is a manifestation of the layered nature of our descriptions of reality. At the deepest level we currently know about, the basic notions are things like “spacetime,” “quantum fields,” “equations of motions,” and “interactions.” No causes, whether material, formal, efficient, or final.”

              Your assertion that creation requires a cause is broken thinking when it comes to gaining insight into reality and how it operates. Again, I don’t expect you to understand why your thinking is mired in the misguided past and I know nothing I can say – or that any scientist can explain to you before being categorized by you as some kind of Militant Atheist – why your ‘conclusion’ is based on ancient and thoroughly discredited premises.

              You don’t care that your premise is your conclusion and you don’t care to fix your thinking errors. You just keep stating your beliefs as if they were true, as if logical, as if relevant, as if equivalent, no matter how profoundly inaccurate and misguided and ignorant they are. That’s how you can engage the colossal arrogance you must have to be a believer in a personal relationship with your God and declare a fundamental pillar of biology – evolution – to be doubtful because of this belief, to think yourself smarter and more capable and better informed than every major scientific body in the world and all the working scientists who have come to consensus about human caused athropogenic global warming leading to accelerated climate change. Your hubris has no bounds and you consider your contrarian opinions devoid of knowledge but full of belief as ‘humble’ and ‘meek’ when it’s exactly the opposite in practice. Your ignorance is profound and your arrogance the wall behind which you hide wrapped in pious and deeply anti-scientific foolishness.

              Like

            10. Citizen Tom Avatar
              Citizen Tom

              @tildeb

              You are not going to name any knowledge that Atheism, the Theory of Evolution, or Global Warming has yielded and then demonstrate how it has been utilized (an application, therapy, or technology will suffice)? I wonder why.
              😆

              You wonder why I keep restating my beliefs. I have taken a stand for Jesus Christ. I actually believe something, and that, apparently, that offends you. So you attack what I believe. Yet you don’t seem believe anything, at least not enough to defend it. So if I ask you to defend your belief, you just resort to another attack on what I believe. Do you really think that is a rational response? Why do something so pointless?

              Whether the notion that every effect requires a cause is out of fashion these days does not much concern me. I understand the argument that there is no original cause. We just assume that what is has always been. Maybe that is true, but there is this big problem. Entropy always increases.

              Here is the definition => http://www.dictionary.com/browse/entropy?s=t

              The specific definition that interests us is this one: (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death)

              If the universe is infinite in age, then the thermodynamic equations we use to describe entropy don’t scale up to describe the universe. There must be something missing. If, however, entropy does increase, then there has to be a first cause. How do we prove this one way or another? I have no idea.

              When we assume there is no original cause, there is another related problem. If the universe is infinite in age and just happens to exist, how is it that it provides sufficient order that life can exist. Any way we look at it, life requires such a high degree of order that in a random universe, the existence of life is highly improbable. Could it just happen? In this context, what does just happen mean? God is also impossible for us to define, but if there is intelligence behind Creation, if the creation of the universe was a nonrandom event, that that intelligence is definitely God.

              My belief is God exists. You don’t believe that? Ultimately, what you believe is not my problem. I don’t even believe it would be right to force my beliefs on you. My problem is to believe — to have faith in God. If God wants you to believe, then you are ultimately His problem.

              Like

            11. tildeb Avatar
              tildeb

              CT, yes, willful ignorance annoys me. And it should annoy you, too, not for their specifics but because, when held by many people, they cause a pernicious yet unnecessary effect. That’s the inevitable product of anti-scientific beliefs in action and are deserving of loud and sustained criticism… and not because as you rationalize that some people are offended. You hold certain beliefs out of willful ignorance and then promote them as if they were the virtuous product of a divine revelation when in fact they are not. They are subjective superstitious nonsense. The effects of your ‘virtuous’ beliefs when acted upon are a vice rooted in causing harm to others in the name of some god you happen to believe in. That’s why your beliefs and the method you use to inform them deserve stark and blunt criticism. You should change them for better reasons than the poor one you currently use to maintain them. This would allow you to stop being an agent – a self-deluded pious agent – of harm.

              Advances in knowledge are not statements of ‘fashion’. Again this kind of language you use to denigrate scientific understanding and successful modeling of explanations that work demonstrates the rationalizing you must employ to, on one the one hand, welcome technological and medical advancements of benefit to you based on this method of acquiring knowledge while pretending, on the other, that the same method that models explanations that challenges your Iron Age beliefs are in some way lacking. Hypocrisy, thy name is Citizen Tom.

              Contrary to your belief, you’re not the smartest person to be able to challenge fundamental scientific advancements in applicable knowledge that work for everyone everywhere all the time but – oh, by the way – the ones that just so happen to conflict with your religiously inspired beliefs must be dubious… not because you doubt them for poor reasons (and are therefore personally responsible for these denialist beliefs… no anyone who disagrees must be militant and motivated by hurt feelings…) but because you ‘take a stand for Jesus.’ You know that Jesus loves harmful ignorance, do you? That’s really what you’re saying here. This is the worst kind of intellectual cowardice that tries to use piety and some god to excuse and rationalize the ignorance your beliefs contain to arbitrate the reality – and insight into it that the scientific method produces – we share.

              Again, really poor thinking you demonstrate.

              Because your method of imposing faith on reality is what drives ignorance to be held in greater respect than knowledge, and because when such a belief is shared by many people who act on it cause profoundly pernicious effects, it falls to those of us who see the problem clearly to speak up and speak out. Your doubt about AGW climate change, for example, is a very real threat not just to every human being on the planet but for all of those who are to follow us into the future. By pretending the scientific consensus is somehow unworthy of investing political capital into making fundamental changes to mitigate these very harmful effects (but not, apparently, to identify acid rain and alter policy to mitigate its harm, not, apparently, to identify ozone depletion and alter policy to mitigate its harm, but climate change?… well, we can’t trust them on this issue because of a global conspiracy, donchaknow) you are doing your part to harm as many people as possible and you are doing so for the very worst of reasons: to protect very poor superstitious beliefs from reality’s arbitration of them.

              Like

            12. Citizen Tom Avatar
              Citizen Tom

              @tildeb

              At best you have made an idol out of science. Look at how you have approached this debate. Rationally? No. With venom and bile? Yes.

              You have not actually advocated a rational philosophy. You have just attacked Christianity. Moreover, in those few instances that you have actually offered a reason for your objections, I have replied, and you have not responded. You have just offer more objections, more unsupported assertions that have nothing to do with my response.

              So what is the point of a responding to you? So you can call me a hypocrite? Could be that I am a hypocrite, but you don’t have to make that your problem. If you don’t like me, don’t have to have anything to do with me. You can whine about my existence, but what right do you have to interfere with my life or anyone else’s life? Yet that is the problem with a world view that denies God. If you don’t actually care about other people, then you will a lack any restraint.

              Would you implement the final solution and eliminate enslave all the people who dare do disagree with you? Isn’t that what you and those of like mind would do if you could? After all, those who look at the “evidence” (what little there is) and doubt AGW pose “a very real threat not just to every human being on the planet but for all of those who are to follow us into the future.” AGW is nonsense, but for those who demand power and an excuse to abuse the rights of others, AGW is a handy bit of nonsense.

              That symbol of yours is most certainly ironic, but curiously ambiguous. At one time the comic book character represented truth, justice, and the American way. At one time the comic book Superman would have never thought of spouting half the nonsense you spout. And yet you have your excuse for portraying yourself as Superman. That imaginary hero takes his name from Friedrich Nietzsche’s Übermensch.

              The Nazis did love their Nietzsche. What Nietzsche would have thought of the Nazis is, of course, another matter altogether.

              Anyway, I am done with this. You want to insult me some more? Have at it.

              In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. — Martin Luther King, Jr.

              Like

            13. tildeb Avatar
              tildeb

              @CT,

              Do yourself a favour: once in a while put aside believing what you think you know and try thinking very seriously about how you know. Failing the latter means you don’t know the former.

              Like

            14. tildeb Avatar
              tildeb

              Oh, and for the amusement of any readers, note that the one who accuses others of intolerance, it is Citizen Tom who bans people like I am from his own blog who dare to criticize his statements of faith… statements masquerading as knowledge (his god whispers ‘truth’ in his ear, you see) as if descriptive of a reality that he then disallows from arbitrating his claims. That’s why he knows he knows more about climate than NASA, than the National Academy of Science, than the Royal Society, than all the major scientific bodies in the world. Yup, CT knows better… because he’s so humble, you see, so meek and mild and immune from any charges of arrogance and hubris. So very tolerant…

              Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment