A Christian Blog About Religion, God, Jesus, & the Bible Articles and Answers about God, the Bible, Jesus, Religion, & Theology

Hello Everyone!

Whew, my wife and I have been so busy lately that it has been a while since my last post. I have been posting a series called “The end times.” However, I am going to take a quick break to discuss an article on AOL today, and also address a skeptic claim.

Hopefully, I will be back on to the “end times” topic soon, as I do enjoy that (even though it does seem to take more time to write about).

Critiquing an Evolutionary Article on AOL Today

AOL published an article today that was quite absurd to say the least. I wish this was one of my “joke” type  articles, but this is a real article I assure you. An evolutionary biologists thinks he has found the “Real Reason” we cry.

What a relief! I am glad to see that cancer research is being placed on the back burner for now, because it is obvious that tears have such a high priority in modern medicine.

I mean, after all, we need to make sure our tax dollars for medical research are funding studies that will shed light on such important topics that will aide the human race such as tears (although this was at a university in Israel). I can’t wait to see what they roll out next week, perhaps they will tell us how our flatulence has evolved from smelling like roses to having an odor, or why broccoli isn’t enjoyed by most people despite being a healthy food.

According to this article, some brilliant evolutionist (aren’t they all so brilliant), says the following (and I quote):

Dr. Hasson notes that by blurring one’s vision, tears lower defenses, thereby handicapping aggressors and evolving into a sign of submission.

Isn’t that brilliant! This guy has the answer! Tears have evolved to simply keep us safe from people harming us. It shows people we are submitting to them, so they won’t kill us. Wow. This makes perfect sense, and is easily observed in nature.

After all, when people cry at a funeral, isn’t it obvious that the real reason they are crying is not from sadness, because they are fearing the corpse may spring back to life and strangle them? Thank you evolution for keeping us covered on that one from another potential aggressor.

And let me remind you, this comes just 1 day after AOL published another article about a man who slapped a child in a store because she would not stop crying. (WOW).

So which is it AOL? Does crying cause people to be aggressive to you, or prevent it? LOL….Get your story straight people! Crying actually tends to make people MORE aggressive in most cases. I know it sure annoys me to hear someone sniffling their nose at a movie, or a child crying non-stop for an hour.

Even Jim Carry had it right in the movie “Dumb and Dumber” when he goes: “Want to hear the most annoying sound in the world?….Whaa….Whaaaa..”

In reality (a place most evolutionists don’t like to dwell), matured people rarely display crying publicly if they can avoid doing so. Many people cry privately, and do everything they can to prevent crying in public (except for children, funerals, etc.). Out of all of the times I have cried in my whole life, most of it was done in private or late at night, as I recounted the loss of someone I cared about, or thought about the sad parts of life.

If crying is supposed to be a sign of vulnerability that simply evolved to help us stay protected from aggressors, then it is a severely malfunctioned process at best. If someone came up to me to try to fight or kill me, crying is the last thing I would do. My “flight or fight” sense would kick in, and I would either be running for my life or trying to use self defense. I would not be bawled up like a child in a corner sobbing.

Also, the article doesn’t even touch on the fact that crying has other biological benefits. When a newborn child cries, a mother will actually start secreting milk. Children often cry if they are hungry, scared, hurt, etc.

Then, in this same article, another “doctor” makes a brilliant statement:

“Pain is something people feel in their brains. We can shut off pain with medication but we can’t shut off crying,” notes Eric R. Braverman, M.D.

Okay did you catch that? Pain can be shut off, but crying can’t. What?? That makes no sense whatsoever. I have only cried in my life for 2 reasons:

1. I was sad (mental pain)
2. I was hurt (physical pain)

To stop crying at any point in my life, all I had to do was simple:

1. Remove the pain (the physical stimulus)
2. Remove the sadness (by getting over it, or accepting it)

After removing the stimulus, my crying seized with it. But this doctor makes it clear that crying simply cannot be shut off, even with medication. Interesting. Next time I hear a child crying in the store, I will go up to the parent and  say the following:

“Gee ma’am, did you know that your child’s crying simply cannot be shut off right now. The evolutionists have proven it scientifically. You can stop pain, but not crying, so don’t fight it.  In fact, your child is submitting to you right now and it is all good ole evolution in action. You will be glad if someone tries to mug you in the parking lot, because they will see you child’s tears and stop.”

On a serious note, it does frustrate me quite a bit that people publish such nonsense. Why are they even trying to research why we “cry” anyway. Will that do one thing to help anyone?

If they spent the same energy on another topic, we would have electric cars, cures for cancer, and we might even get the economy in shape. But heaven forbid we do that.

Instead, let us use our (evolved) brains and spend our time and money on really important topics such as why we cry, to make sure we research this and then publish a bogus article (probably so we can get press attention and get another grant). After all, this one has really stumped the average person for ages.

In reality, the only person I can recall ever NOT KNOWING why we cry is Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator (in Terminator 2). And that was because he was a machine. I think we ”humans” know why we cry already, without having to spend time and research to figure it out. Just one more great example of an evolutionists with nothing more to do.

What is that saying? An idle mind is the devil’s workshop (or playground)…

But then again, this was written by a man who apparently thinks his relatives are primates and researches this for a living, so what can I say? Perhaps crying should be added to those really hard questions in the universe such as:

1. Why are we here?
2. Where did we come from?
3. How can we cure cancer?
4. How can we save the economy?
5. How can we have world peace?
6. What can we do to stop Aids and other diseases that are killing people right now?

Oh wait guys…those other questions can wait, another more important questions just came in:

     7. Why do we cry?

So let’s focus in on that one for a while guys!

Then once again the article goes on to tell us information that is supposedly “just discovered.” Here is the next brilliant statement it makes:

“The research points out emotions as important clues [as to] how humans interact.” Essentially, the research demonstrates that we communicate non-verbally. “

We need a study to tell us that we communicate non-verbally? What? Um, what is this world coming to? Has that not been common knowledge since man has been in existence? I think so…

God help us all and please have mercy on us.

Sponsored Links

Posted under evolution

A funny video that has been circulating on YouTube for a couple of years now is the “Richard Dawkins Stumped video.”

I think this is funny, but first let me back up and give some background. As many of you may know, Richard Dawkins is one of the leading (and most aggressive) evangelistic atheists in the world right now.

He was also the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and is also the author of several books, with his most recent book being “The God Delusion,” which seeks to mock those who believe in God as delusional, and suggests there is no God. Fine. We get it, you don’t like God. Moving on.

Richard not only writes about evolution, teaches about evolution, but he even debates about evolution. So I would think that someone who has spent such a great amount of his life preaching that there is no God, and is so sure evolution is the answer, would be relatively knowledgeable about it. Don’t you agree? Of course so.

In order for macro-evolution to make sense, we would expect that a significant amount of information would be added to the genome by some process, and then ran through the riggors of “natural selection” over gazillions and gazillions of years, in a place far far away. If evolution is true, is should be very very easy to provide tons of examples of this.

So, Richard Dawkins (the leading atheist and evolutionist) is asked a very simple question:

Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

Okay, so how does one of the leading atheists and gurus on evolution answer the question? He doesn’t! HAHA. Here is the video below. First let me warn you of what will happen:

1. Richard will blink about 50,000 times as his mind desperately works to answer such a simple, yet IMPORTANT question that should come easy if macro evolution is true from a guy who has studied this his whole life. In fact, I think his blinking was the cause of a major windstorm that occurred that same year in that region and damaged a few homes in the area. It nearly blew me away just watching it.
2. When the video cuts back on, he gives the most gibberish answer I have ever heard in my life, which totally dodges the question!

He literally goes on and on for like 1 minute about how fish don’t just turn to reptiles, and something about we have ancestors, but they aren’t ancestors, they are cousins! What? He totally lost me, and didn’t even come close to even answering the question. What does that have anything to do with an example of new information?? So your cousin is a monkey. Cool, mine isn’t but hey, if you are proud of that, go for it Richard.  Here we go:

Isn’t that sad? One of the top evolutionists and atheists in the world, and yet he cannot answer such a simple and direct question that would be absolutely necessary to prove macro evolution?

You see how religious you must truly be to believe in the fairy tale story of slime turning to humans in the absense of intelligence? Wow. You have to be more religious than any person I know to truly believe in the entirety of macro evolution and atheism.

Some YouTube Rebuttals Which Were WORSE Than Dawkins Response

I guess this really hurt the feelings of some of Richard Dawkin’s disciples, so some of his YouTube disciples immediately worked to create rebuttal videos to defend him and prove first hand how easy it is to add useful information to the genome.

So what is their brilliant response that they all used: Down Syndrome! WHAT? Great examples guys! Is that all you could come up with? To prove your case of macro evolution you give an example of a condition that can produce a mild to severe mental disability, countless physical problems, difficulty reproducing (and if it is successful there is a high chance of inheriting the potentially disabling syndrome, premature births, and severe birth defects) and more? Brilliant.

I have a close family member who was born with down syndrome, so this remark is not only slightly offensive, but just ridiculous. She is a very beautiful girl, and very sweet, but it is been very difficult challenge for the family (and her).  It is a struggle every day for her to just have a “normal” life.

She has had heart problems and surgeries, and is lucky to even be alive at her young age, and we have shed many tears and prayers over the years due to this condition.   She has really had a lot of struggles with this condition, and even a few near death experiences. Having down syndrome certainly doesn’t make life easier for the person or the family, trust me on that. If you are unsure, ask any person or parent who has experienced it.

Many down syndrome children have severe physical defects (as did my own family member), and have to have heart surgery very early in life to just survive, plus so many other physical and mental challenges, and sometimes cannot even reproduce.

So I think it would suffice to say that  using down syndrome would NOT be any kind of a ideal example of increased information in the genome that helps prove macro evolution…sorry! You would think they would be able to easily come up with another example other than a condition that causes so many potentially deadly problems. Especially after studying this for an entire lifetime!

What next, are they going to start showing examples of  the “bat boy” that always pops up on those nonsense Weekly World News magazines at the checkout counter. Or perhaps “big foot” is nothing but a mere example of new information that was mysteriously added to the genome…Hmmm. I guess they are struggling to come up with anything.

Seriously, if I couldn’t give a better example than down syndrome of increasing genetic information, I think I would have just given the old ”dodging” act by Richard Dawkins and rambled a bunch of non-sense the whole time. His response made much more sense than the down syndrome example.

Sponsored Links

Posted under evolution