The Burrito Question

Greetings, mortals!  In my ministry on Twitter, I am frequently challenged to answer what I have come to call "The Burrito Question."

The Burrito Question was most famously asked by the well-known, jaundiced, anadactylic heathen Homer Simpson of good Christian Ned Flanders in Episode 16:13, Weekend at Burnsies:

Hey, I've got a question for you. Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

It's a variation on the more standard omnipotence paradox, "Can omnipotent God create a stone so heavy even He cannot lift it?"

Since I'm asked this so often, I thought I'd address it here so all four of my faithful readers can have ready access to the definitive answer to this so-called "paradox."

Can the Triune God (or any aspect thereof) microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

Yes.  God is omnipotent, and so may accomplish any task at His barest whim.  This necessarily includes the Creation of a burrito so hot He cannot eat it (and its necessary predicate, Creation of a microwave capable of this feat).

Does this prove that God, who can create a task that is impossible for Him, is consequently not omnipotent?  

No.  Remember, in addition to being omnipotent, God is omniscient.  And as we all know, knowledge is power.  Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, and knowledge is power, He is omnipotent twice.

God can therefore use His first omnipotence to create a task beyond His boundless power -- a burrito too hot to eat, a stone to heavy to lift, an argument so circular even He couldn't believe it -- and then use His second omnipotence to accomplish it.

Glad we got that settled once and for all.  Thank you, mortals, for reading.  As always, I look forward to your thoughts in the comments section.

What Would Happen if Atheists Really Re-Wrote the Ten Commandments? The Collapse of Civilization.

Greetings, mortals!  Sorry for my long absence from this blog.  I recently got a new job falsifying the spectrographic profiles of exoplanets to make them appear Earth-like (to further test your faith in Creation, of course).  As you might imagine, the work involves a lot of travel, which has eaten into my blogging time.  Nonetheless, I'm ready to dive right back in to bringing everyone Christ's Word of love, generosity, and kindness to your fellow humans.

First up?  Discussing how atheists -- every single one of them -- are working to destroy civilization by driving people away from God.  As you may have heard on CNN, two atheists, Lex Bayer and John Figdor, recently promulgated ten atheist "non-commandments."

As you'll see, these guidelines are a recipe for the destruction of everything religion has helped build.  Under them, people would think critically, follow the evidence rather than their feelings to conclusions (which would be modifiable by new evidence!), act thoughtfully and treat others mindfully, and be tolerant of the harmless choices of their fellow human beings.  In other words, these "non-commandments" would lay waste to the racial, social, and economic distinctions that God, through His churches and chosen servants in government, has established and maintained on Earth.

As scary as these are, however, just imagine if atheists, in their secular humanist zeal, re-wrote the actual Ten Commandments -- which are indisputably the first-ever written legal code and the basis for all morals and laws, particularly in the United States of America.

Actually, let's not imagine.  Let's build on my thought experiment about what atheists believe, pretend to be atheists, and re-write the actual Commandments.  Be warned!  What follows here is terrifying.

First, "I am the LORD thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.  Thou shalt have no other gods before me" becomes

1. Believe in God or gods or whatever you want, just so long as you don't seek to impose your beliefs on anyone else or discriminate against those who believe differently.  But we respectfully suggest taking a skeptical view of all claims concerning the supernatural -- especially ones where the claims are extreme, e.g., of creatures endowed with omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

Laughable.  As if the claim that there exists a God who can rewrite the laws of the Universe at his barest whim is "extreme."

Okay, next, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is corrupted into

2. Pictures of pretty much anything are allowed, so long as you don't create or use the images in ways that harm the body and/or mind of the entity depicted.  Also, don't distribute images without the express consent of their subjects or, for copyrighted materials, the content creators.  That's just basic decency.

Huh.  Not bad.  Sure, permitting sexually explicit images is execrable, but at least this version would take care of the whole "the Crucifix is a graven image/no it isn't/yes it is/fine, be that way, let's kill each other by the thousands over the course of centuries and split our religion that nominally calls all humanity into oneness with God into innumerable sects" thing.

Anyway, on to "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."  This one becomes a depraved free-for-all:

3. Say anything you want at any time you want, so long as you're not saying it to deliberately hurt someone or prevent people from having their say.  And if something someone says hurts or offends you, feel free to confront her or him about that, explain why you felt hurt, find out whether she or he intended the hurt, and react (within reason) accordingly.

Chilling, isn't it?  Obeying this would prevent me and my fellow Christians from protecting our beliefs from criticism by feigning umbrage.  No thank you.

Ok, next, "Remember the Sabbath Day" becomes the social order-disrupting

4. Give people time off from work and/or school when they're sick or need to handle the personal matters that everybody has from time to time, and offer a generous amount of vacation time.  Not only will your employees/students be more productive, they'll be happier because they'll feel respected and thus more fulfilled in life -- which, in the end, is all that matters.

Please.  Don't atheists know that salvation comes by suffering all of life's travails without longing for any temporal reward?  Well, except for the rich.  They're saved mostly by philanthropy.  Or just going to church on the Sabbath.  Or praying at their convenience.  Because God gives us the suffering He knows we can bear, and the rich?  They're really out of practice at putting up with anything other than occasional, transient discomfort.

How about "Honor thy father and mother?"

5. Treat family members with the respect they deserve.  If they nurtured and supported you, nurture and support them right back.  If they tore you down, be at peace with the fact that there's no shame in parting ways with destructive people -- even if they're family.  Oh, and, don't anybody judge those who made the hard choice to limit or break contact with family members.  Such decisions are never arrived at easily and should be respected.

*Shudder*.  People feeling free to leave relationships that diminish them would pretty much kill efforts to recruit people into religion by harping on their sinful nature and consequent need for salvation.  Can't have that.

Alright, now for the big one.  How do atheists re-write "Thou shalt not kill"?

6. Don't kill anyone for any reason other than defense of oneself or another against lethal force or involuntary servitude.  This includes war and the death penalty. 

Huh!  That doesn't seem so--

6 (cont'd). No other exceptions ok?  None.  None of this divine command or preventing the spread of an ideology with which you disagree bullshit.  No god told you to kill or go to war, and even if you think one or more did, see #1.  Same for if you have the desire to bring a knife -- or a bomb, or an army -- to an idea fight.  No.  Killing.

Well, then.  Not so sure why secular humanists would be so worked up about people killing each other for perfectly good reasons like combating apostasy and to fulfill perceived divine command, but I guess they are.

Moving on!  "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

7. Consensual sex between adults only, please, and if you've promised someone you'll have sex exclusively with her or him, keep your promise until you've told her or him that you've changed your mind.

That's...not terrible.  It's basically identical in effect to the original.  Score one for the atheists, I guess.  Oh, wait, no, this includes homosexual relationships.  My bad!  This would be destructive because treating the gays like they're people destabilizes civilization.  Don't ask me how, but it does.

Anyway, on to number eight: "Thou shalt not steal."

8. Don't steal, and especially don't set up entire social and economic systems designed to irrevocably concentrate wealth in an elite class to the detriment of all others.

I don't really have a problem with this, except it kind of piles on the moneychangers.  They haven't been able to ply their trade in sites of worship for, like, 2,000 years.  Lay off, ok?

Getting close to the end now.  Number 9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor."

9. Don't lie to anyone about matters of consequence.

No, no, no.  Can you imagine not being able to mischaracterize or fabricate things about people you've outgrouped so as to bolster your own personal, social, economic, or political standing?  How would we maintain the integrity of our insular communities, or make sure that governments only help those whom we deem deserving?

Alright, finally, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

10. We suggest that comparing yourself to other people is a recipe for unhappiness.  Instead, try working hard to get what you want in the way you want it.  If you see someone who has what you want, ask her or him how to get it.  We think you'll find yourself most fulfilled most often by living the life you build for yourself -- even when it's hard.

That's just ridiculous.  The key to happiness is not to strive for what you want.  It's to pray for what you want, and then, when your prayers go unanswered -- as they almost certainly will -- to resign yourself to lifelong privation, the pain of which you dampen with the unconfirmed promise of an eternal paradise in Heaven.  Seriously, it's like atheists don't understand how these things are supposed to work.  I'll stick with the original Commandments -- and hope you do, too.

Thank you, mortals, for reading!  As always, please offer your thoughts and feedback in the comments.

Evidence that the building blocks of life are abundant in the interstellar medium? Yes, but it's not a big deal.

Greetings, mortals!  Earlier today, scientists with the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy announced their finding that isopropyl cyanide, an organic molecule, is abundant in the interstellar medium.  They made this "discovery" by observing the Sagittarius B2 gas cloud with the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) of radio telescopes to analyze the radiospectrometric signatures of the various molecules that make up the gas cloud. 

While researchers have previously detected organic molecules in space, isopropyl cyanide is the first such organic molecule seen that has a branched carbon backbone.  It, unlike any of those previously-observed molecules, is thus more like the amino acids that your sciences (incorrectly) believe form the building blocks of life here on Earth.  Because the amino acids, like isopropyl cyanide, have a branched, carbon-based structure.

What's the significance of this?  Well, if you believe life on Earth arose naturalistically, this finding strongly suggests that other branched carbon molecules -- including, possibly, amino acids themselves -- exist in abundance in space.  That would further support the theory that life arose on Earth without any supernatural intervention because it means those building blocks were likely already present here on Earth and didn't have to form from simpler molecules under the right conditions.

In other words, if branched carbon molecules are abundant in space, they were likely abundant on Earth from its earliest days.  And if that's true, the number of steps humans thought were needed to move from molecules present on Earth to the emergence of life decreases.  It also increases the likelihood that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Said another way, given the existence of branched carbon organic molecules in space, the number of assumptions in the chemical synthesis-based hypotheses of abiogenesis goes down.  And as scientists are always fond of telling us, the simpler a hypothesis is in relation to competing hypotheses, the more likely it's true.

Does this undermine Creation or Intelligent Design?  No, of course not.  First of all, if you want to blaspheme by calling Creation a hypothesis, it's the simplest hypothesis of all: God did it.  You don't even need to assume anything (apart from the agency of a supernatural being of limitless power and eternal duration whose very existence is at variance with all available evidence, which evidence is consistent only with a naturalistic universe).  QED.

Second, even if branched carbon organic molecules were abundant on Earth from its beginning, no one was around to see those molecules become self-replicating bases for all terrestrial life.  That means abiogenesis can't be proven, which means, of course, abiogenesis must not be true.  And if abiogenesis isn't true, then Creation must be, because it says so in the Bible.  QED again!

If God Created all, why, then, are complex organic molecules present in interstellar space?  Simple.  As I said in my last post, God has been expanding the veil of Heaven to make sure human space exploration doesn't pierce through it.  It's been a big project and something we had to do pretty quickly, so, well, there wasn't a lot of time to clean everything up.

Basically, the organic compounds you're seeing in space are the cast-off materials from Creation.  It's the sawdust on the floor of God's workshop.  That's all.  There's no significance to it at all apart from being further proof that God Created all life on Earth.

So quit getting all excited about this, okay?  Focus on something more important.  Like praying, or figuring out better ways to rationalize the Bible into being literal truth.  The salvation of your immortal soul is, after all, both incompatible with and more important than knowledge.

Thank you for reading, and as always, I welcome your comments below!

If God Punished Humanity for the Tower of Babel, why not for Space Exploration?

Oh, He's punishing you for it.  And what He's doing is chilling.

But we'll get to that.  First let's discuss what you're doing wrong.  The Book of Genesis is clear on how humanity is supposed to view the cosmos: 

"Flammarion" by Anonymous - Camille Flammarion, L'Atmosphere: Météorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888), pp. 163. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

I, of course, cloaked this truth of Creation in the evidence that you now claim points to a spherical earth, heliocentric solar system, and Big Bang cosmology.  But you were supposed to reject all of that evidence.  You were supposed to accept what the Bible says about the cosmos because what the Bible says about the cosmos is in the Bible.

Obviously you went a different way.

And so here we are, with humanity growing more and more distant from the beliefs God prescribed for you as your scientists re-create the conditions of the Big Bang, achieve greater understanding of your place in the universe, and use space-based telescopes to peer further than ever before into the cosmos.

You're not limiting yourself to terrestrial efforts, either.  You have collaborated despite nationalism to build an orbital station, sent a probe past the heliosphere into interstellar space (maybe), and landed a laser-armed, nuclear-powered science tank on another planet.  Your spaceflight capabilities have advanced to the point that private entities are now able to accomplish feats of engineering once achievable only by governments.

Which brings us back to the Tower of Babel.  Genesis 11:1-9 teaches,

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. 

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto Heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 

So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

In short, a bunch of dudes got together and, because they had both the ability to collaborate effortlessly and a sufficient supply of slime, were able to begin building a tower that would have pierced Heaven but for the intervention of God.  Because as God said, when humans collaborate fully, nothing within their imaginations remains beyond their grasp.

Seriously.  You guys are figuring out how to propel spaceships with glorified microwave ovens.  You're working on a warp drive, for [blasphemy redacted]'s sake.  Let that sink in.  You are working on a warp drive.

Now, sure, the warp drive stuff is still all theoretical.  But do you think something being theoretical is going to stop you?  Look at your Rosetta spacecraft.  It was launched in 2004.  A week ago, the European Space Agency chose a landing site on comet 67P for the Rosetta's Philae lander.  Let that sink in.  Humans shot a rocket into space ten years ago, successfully maneuvered its payload into stable orbit around a comet this year, and are about to land on that comet another science tank.  And how did you do this?  By combining math, astronomy, physics, chemistry, engineering, and fire.  Holy [blasphemy redacted].

Anyway!  Back to Babel.  Humanity was about to pierce the veil of Heaven.  But if it had done that, the portion of the dark ocean held above the Earth by Heaven would have poured through, drowning everything on Earth.  And that kind of devastation is something only God is allowed to wreak, thank you very much.  Also, secondarily, humanity was proving itself capable of equaling the glory of God, which He really doesn't like.

For those two reasons, God (who, of course, loves you and wants only for you to succeed), robbed you of your ability to collaborate with one another for your shared benefit.  The veil of Heaven and God's majesty were thus preserved.

Except you found workarounds.  Fast forward 4,300 years -- since, of course, the Earth is only 6,000 years old -- and not only have you learned each others'  languages, you're now so capable as scientists and engineers that you can exceed the works of the Babel architects within not just a single language, but within a single nation.

So what was God to do?  Organized religious sects already keep you divided, obviously, but that's no longer sufficient.  Neither is the languages thing.  Even if He pulled that again, you'd just adapt again.  You'd keep expanding your reach to the stars, pierce the veil of Heaven, and drown the Earth.

So He decided to punish you by implementing a public works project second in scope only to Creation.  As humanity has peered and explored deeper into space, God has concomitantly expanded the veil of Heaven to exceed your reach.  That is His horrifying punishment for your continued, arrogant exploration of the cosmos.

Now, you may be saying, "that doesn't seem so bad."  Well, then.  You haven't thought through the implications.

Before they may receive their posthumous reward in Heaven, virtuous souls must first get there.  And as you know, God has made it so nothing in the universe travels faster than the speed of light -- including humans' immortal souls.

The veil of Heaven is now over 13 billion light-years away from the Earth.  Which means that when your faithful loved ones pass away, it takes at least 13 billion years for their souls to reach Heaven.  So your dear departed Grandma?  Yep, you guessed it.  She's presently hurtling through the blackness of space, incorporeal, immortal, and utterly alone, just as she will be for billions and billions of years to come.

Terrible, isn't it?  But necessary -- because God loves you.  He doesn't want you to drown.

...again, I mean.

Thank you for reading, mortals!  As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments.

If I Were an Atheist...

Greetings, mortals!  Christ, in Chapter 5, verse 44 of the Gospel of Matthew, teaches,

But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?  Do not even the publicans the same?  And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?  Do not even the publicans so?  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Which, of course, I always strive to do.  But it's hard!  Throughout my ministry on Twitter, I have encountered atheists who disbelieve the very existence of God.  Loving them despite their persistent apostasy has been difficult.  So I sought guidance from a moral authority nearly equal to Christ: Atticus Finch.

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view -- until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.

So, to better follow Christ's teachings, I thought I'd try what I believe infidels call a "thought experiment."

If I were an atheist, what would I believe?

Well, first, I'd be human.  Second, I'd have concluded after inquiry and introspection that there's no reliable proof of God -- of any gods.  I'd believe that the available evidence points to nothing supernatural at all.  In addition, I'd maintain that what evidence we do have is consistent only with a naturalistic universe.  And while I wouldn't currently have an explanation for how all known life arose, I would see from what science tells us that the known diversity of life is well-explained by the occurrence of genetic mutations and application of selective pressures over the billions of years the Earth has existed.

Wow, ok.  Wow, I'd have to reject Creationism.  I'd no longer believe that all life was Created by an omnipotent God, in whom lies infinite plenty.  Instead, I, like all but a few biologists, would believe that everything we know about life -- above all the universal condition of constant, brutal competition for scarce resources during finite lives -- supports the theory that life emerged on Earth billions of years ago and evolved from there to its current states.  Moreover, my view would be supported not by a holy text, but by centuries of consistent findings in the fossil record, naturalistic observations, and laboratory experiments.

I'd also be skeptical about my own, personal experiences of God.  After all, neuroscience has demonstrated that my feeling of a personal connection to something greater than myself during prayer and ritual worship is, on a chemical level, indistinguishable from connections with the divine felt by others who believe in a God or gods that I hold to be false.  I, being skeptical, would therefore be inclined to conclude that my personal experience of God was nothing more than the operation of chemical processes in the reward center of my brain.

Based on all of that, I'd reject the supernatural events described in holy texts.  After all, none of them has been observed or repeated.  All of them are explainable by science in a way consistent with a naturalistic universe.  On top of that, if I viewed holy texts skeptically, the contradictions, demonstrable inaccuracies, and immoralities they contain would strongly suggest human authorship, rather than inspiration by an omniscient, omnibenevolent God.

So there's no God. Nothing outside holy texts supports His existence.  In fact, those same holy texts undermine His existence.  Where do I go from there?

Ok, well, if there's no God, the universe wasn't Created for me.  I'm not exalted above all other living creatures.  In fact, I exist by mere chance.  The universe not only doesn't care about my fleeting existence, it, outside of those of its sentient subcomponents who know me, isn't aware of me at all.  

Furthermore, no God loves me above others because I happen to worship Him in the right way with the right words.  My origin and existence are no more remarkable or memorable than that of any other person. Even if my life becomes the stuff of legend on Earth, I will be, at best, forgotten with the collapse of civilization.  Should records of my exploits be discovered and translated by whatever civilization arises after ours, or after that one, or after the next one yet, I'll be forgotten when it collapses.  And no matter what, I'll be forgotten here when the Sun expands and the Earth becomes, like most of the universe, inhospitable to all life.  

Not even the idea that my exploits would be broadcast to the stars is a comfort.  After all, the expansion of the universe will eventually stretch out that signal to the point of unintelligibility.  Even if it were to persist long enough to be received and understood by some extraterrestrial beings, they, too, would eventually come to nothing.

In short, virtually nothing I do matters on a scale meaningful to anything outside my immediate environs and anyone other than those whose lives intersect with mine.  And no matter what I do, no matter how great I am, I will die, decompose, and be forgotten -- just like everyone else.

So life is meaningless.

Well, yeah, obviously.  I'm an atheist for this thought experiment.  But I've still got this pesky will to live.  I can't shake it.  Even though the universe isn't handing me a reason to go on, I seem to need to find one.  In fact, I seem to need to assign meaning and purpose to what I do in order to find what I do rewarding.  I suspect that's evolutionarily advantageous.

It also seems that the biological processes that evolved to help me survive as a member of the current global apex predator species, which initially achieved dominance as an endurant pack animal, make me feel happy when I do things that those biological processes make me feel are meaningful.  And a lot of the things those processes make me feel are meaningful just happen to build connections with the humans around me.  I suspect that that's also evolutionarily advantageous.

So, in other words, even though no God exists to supply my life with meaning, I have inborn in me, independent of anything external or supernatural, the need to live a life of purpose.

So...

Shh, I'm thinking.  So while, to the universe, my life is infinitesimal, I need to live it.  And I need for it to be full of meaning.  And who cares whether those needs arise from biochemical processes?  They are mine, and they are constant and inescapable.

And, holy crap, everyone else needs the same things too.  Because we all evolved the same way.  The biochemical processes that drive me drive everyone else.  And...and none of us is loved by a God above another.  There is no God to do so.  None of us is favored in any way by anything other than chance.  

We are all, therefore, creatures of a common origin and destination.  Nothing else will ever help us, comfort us, or guide us.  There is no other life but that which competes with us for what we need to live.  We are all we have.  That's why we evolved to work -- and have succeeded only by working -- together.

Um, so...

Shh, still thinking.  This means no one is my better.  Not only are we all shaped by mutation and natural selection to need each other, but everyone is driven by the same basic needs as me: water, food, shelter, companionship, competence, and purpose.  When other people behave in ways that increase my access to those things, they enrich my life.  They enrich that part they've touched of the only life I'll ever have.  When they're selfish, they diminish and make difficult part of the only life I'll ever have.

And when I'm selfish -- when I behave in ways that benefit me to others' detriment -- that's what I do to them.  I take a part of a fleeting existence that is equally as precious as mine and I make it worse.  But when I'm generous, thoughtful, and caring, I make it better.

Then, in turn, I'm rewarded!  The biological processes that drive me to be a collaborative member of a collaborative species make me feel good about how I acted.  I get not just the same dopamine-driven satisfaction I once found by saying the right words in the right way at the right time to the right God, but the knowledge that I've given of myself in a way that improved a life equal in value to my own.

So...life isn't meaningless?

It would appear not.  I, an atheist, find my own life's meaning.  And I find it most frequently by acting to enrich the lives of my co-equal human beings.

Wow.  It sounds like thinking that way would take a lot of care and consideration.

Oh, yeah, it sounds like a ton of work.  Thank God I'm not an atheist!

Thank you for reading, mortals, and as always, I look forward to your comments and questions.  Take care, and God (who totally does exist) bless.

Anthropogenic Warming "Pause" Due to Ocean Currents? No, it's Intelligent Planetary Thermodynamics.

Greetings, mortals!  Today I'd like to discuss the so-called global warming "hiatus," and the recent claim by scientists that they've found what they believe to be its cause.

What is the claimed discovery?

Earlier today, researchers led by Drs. Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung published in Science the results of a study showing that currents in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans have been operating as heat sinks, carrying heat down from the ocean surface to its depths.  According to their research, currents carry warm water from the tropics -- which is relatively saltier than ocean water closer to the poles -- to the North Atlantic, where it cools.  Then, because saltier water is denser, it sinks to the ocean depths, taking with it heat from the surface.  This process is known as saltwater subduction.

The researchers further announced that based on their analysis of available data, these currents are cyclical.  The warmer water coming from the tropics melts ice at the poles (which has been happening rapidly over the last decade).  That makes the water closer to the poles less saline, and therefore less dense.  That slows the ocean current.  As a result, the scientists claim, the current switches back to a warming cycle until the salinity differentials switch back.  This happens once every 30 years or so.

The last time these currents were on a cooling cycle, in the 1970s, the cooling trend was so pronounced it triggered fears of a new Ice Age.  The switch to the warming cycle corresponded with the rapid global warming observed between the mid-70s and early 2000s.  Researchers attribute half of that warming to these ocean cycles, and half to human activity.  The current switched back to a cooling cycle in or about 2000 -- the start of the global warming "pause."

But global temperatures did not drop.  Rather, they rose more slowly and intermittently. 

What does this mean for me?

If the researchers are right about the effect of these ocean currents, this suggests human activities over the last 15 years have contributed so significantly to average global temperature rise that they counteracted a cooling effect that, when last observed, was so significant people feared an Ice Age.  That, in turn, suggests that when the current switches back to a warming cycle in approximately 15 years, we will see unprecedented warming of the Earth's average global temperature due to human greenhouse gas emissions, to possibly catastrophic effect:

"The frightening part," Tung says, is "it's going to warm just as fast as the last three decades of the 20th century, which was the fastest warming we've seen." Only now, we'll be starting from a higher average surface temperature than before.

Is it time to finally get serious on a global level about changing human behavior to avoid and counteract further anthropogenic warming?

No, of course not.  There's no such thing as anthropogenic warming.  These ocean currents aren't responsible for any changes in global temperatures at all.  The evidence the scientists presented is simply not valid.  They didn't find it in the Bible, so it's just not true.

What's really causing these fluctuations in global temperatures?  God's Will.  He changes the average global temperatures, thus causing fluctuations in climates, to further his inscrutable -- but perfect -- Design.  I call it "Intelligent Planetary Thermodynamics."  That's a lot of syllables, though, so I'm open to suggestions on a better name.

The bottom line is, human activity doesn't cause warming, despite the overwhelming evidence for exactly that.  God does.  And you can rest assured that despite His history of allowing, condoning, and/or commanding slavery, torture, murder, infanticide, and genocide, AND triggering a global Flood, that He is causing all of these changes because He has humanity's best interests at heart.

So, in summary, you can, despite the mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise, go on burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases.  There will be no adverse consequences.  Everything will be just fine.

Rapid evolution in butterflies? No, God pitying unfortunate physicists.

Greetings, mortals!  Apologies for my long absence.  I have been focusing on my Twitter ministry (@angelofscience), which so far goes well.  I have, admittedly, converted zero infidels and nonbelievers to Christ, but I feel I've come close on at least one occasion.  Maybe.  Towards the end of my proselytizing efforts, the person became intensely and aggressively interested in what I was wearing, and in what I would do to her or his nether regions.  I was compelled to disengage and scourge myself as penance.

Anyway!  Earlier this month, scientists at Yale University announced that through selective breeding, they were able to induce the butterfly Bicyclus anynana to "evolve" from having dull, brown wings to having wings streaked with violet.  The researchers published their results in Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

The colors in butterfly wings -- whether brilliant or dull -- are, of course, merely expressions of the glory of God.  Your sciences nonetheless say that such colors are the result of constructive interference of light reflected off of microscopic structures in butterfly wings.  B. anyana has wings that are predominantly brown.  Two other Bicyclus species, B. sambulos an B. medontias, have "evolved" more brightly decorated wings.  The Yale researchers hypothesized that B. anyana, under selective pressure favoring the development of more colorful wings, could thus "evolve" similar nano-morphologies and begin to display more colorful wings.  Their experiment was not only successful, the B. anyana butterflies developed wings streaked with violet in just six generations.

Now, is this shockingly quick change a demonstration that even slight changes in genotype can, in a very small number of generations, rapidly produce exactly the kind of phenotypic variations that would, given the various selective pressures in different ecological niches, account for the massive diversity of life, thus supporting modern theories of biological evolution?

No!  No, of course not.  The theory of evolution is contradicted by the entirely factual and internally consistent Creation story in Genesis, and so is necessarily false.  Here's what the Yale researchers' work really means.

God felt bad for them.  Truly bad for them.  These were physicists studying butterflies.  Do you know what other physicists are like if you're studying an observable, physical object that's subject to Newtonian mechanics but isn't a hypothetical frictionless sphere?  They're awful.  Just, I mean, awful.  Incredibly derisive.  And they never give up mocking you because your social cues of offense and shame aren't hypothetical frictionless spheres, and so bullying physicists don't bother to observe them.  Given what these poor researchers were going through, God pitied them.  He made their butterflies all pretty.

What proof of this do I have, you ask?  Well, first, as always, stop questioning God lest you go to Hell.  Second, since it wasn't evolution, it had to be the Christian God.  There's no other God, per the Bible, so if a phenomenon was caused by supernatural means rather than evolution, it has to be Him instead of some other un-evidenced, supernatural cause.  QED.

Thank you, mortals, for reading!  As always, I look forward to your comments and questions.