If I Were an Atheist...How Would I Mourn?

Greetings, mortals!  It may seem like it's been some time since I posted last, but that's only true in the context of your fleeting lives.  For a timeless embodiment of God's Will like me, it's been less than the barest fraction of an instant.  So try to see things from my perspective and quit giving me a hard time, ok?

Speaking of fleeting lives, one of the great things about being an ageless immortal in the company of ageless immortals is that I never have to confront the decline and death of any loved ones.  Ever!  It's awesome.

Recently, however, a mortal who was close to me passed away.  Her death got me to thinking.  As one who believes ardently in God, I can be certain that the end of her mortal form was not her end.  I can take comfort that her immortal soul received the reward she earned in life (which, granted, was condemnation to Hell.  She was a good, honest, and loving person, but unrepentantly wore cotton/polyester blends for decades).  Similarly, a mortal who believes in God as I do could look at her death and stave off the fear of his own with that same, comforting thought: my body's inevitable death is not the end.  My loved ones' deaths are not the end.  Our souls will go on.

But what about atheists?  How does someone who believes that there is no afterlife confront the loss of a loved one?  Where does she or he find comfort from the fear of death?  What does she or he say to young children who keep hearing that the deceased is now "watching over them from Heaven," and asking their atheist mother or father whether that's true?

I didn't have ready answers -- I mean, apart from "all of those thoughts are affronts to the LORD; repent your heresy!" -- so I thought I'd conduct another thought experiment.  This time, I'm asking:

If I were an atheist, how would I mourn the loss of a loved one?

Well, first, I'd have to confront the hard reality.  The person who died is gone.  Forever.  Her single shot at a meaningful existence is over.  All that's left of her are the changes she worked in the world and our memories of her...but even those will gradually dim and disappear.  Our crediting her for her works, our memories of her, will decay.  The biochemical and neurological mechanisms we have evolved to defend ourselves from the strain of trauma will work inexorably to close the psychic wound of her absence by dimming our memories of her.  And then, soon enough, those who knew her works and remember her will themselves die.  The world will go on as if she had never been here.

Next, I'd have to accept that the exact same thing will happen to me.  That the exact same thing will happen to every single one of my loved ones.  I'd have to confront the fact that there is no external source of comfort from the fear of death.  No God will shepherd me to an afterlife; no aspect of my consciousness will continue to eternity.  Death is instead (except for one species of jellyfish) total and inevitable.

As I, an atheist, grappled with this, I'd also have to be jealous of theists.  I'd watch them find sincere comfort in their beliefs of an afterlife and a merciful God.  I'd realize that while I disagree with them about God's existence, I see undeniable value in how they mourn together through ritual and song, knitting together communities to aid those hit hardest by the loss of a loved one.

At the same time, I'd be furious to hear them label the person who died a flawed sinner, who goes to Heaven only through the grace and forgiveness of God.  I'd want to scream at them that they were demeaning her memory in the name of ancient superstition.  I'd want to ask them why they couldn't just celebrate her as a good person who struggled through a good person's life to leave behind healthy, well-loved children.  But then I wouldn't do any of those things, because who wants to be the [blasphemy redacted] who pulls that [more blasphemy redacted] at a funeral service?

Then I'd answer the questions from my children:

Is our loved one in Heaven, like the celebrant said? 

No one really knows.  Some people believe that.  I don't think there's a Heaven. 

If there's no Heaven, where did she go? 

Nowhere.  Her body and her brain stopped, like they do for all living things.  What goes on is people's memories of her.

We're supposed to be happy that she's in Heaven.  If she's not, do we just have to be sad? 

Being sad is perfectly natural when someone you know dies.  Everyone feels sad when they lose someone.  But we don't have to just be sad because she's gone.  You saw all the people who came to celebrate her life; she made a lot of people happy for a long time.  We can be happy for us and for them that we had such wonderful times with her -- and have the happy memories to carry with us. 

Will I die?  Will you and Mommy? 

Yes, eventually.  But probably not for a long time.  And for as long as we're alive, I promise we'll work to have wonderful times together and build lots of happy memories for you to carry when we're gone.

And then...where would I go from the thought that death is final, total, and inevitable?

Well, after I finished crying, I'd go to the realization that my finite life -- which is no greater or less in dignity than the finite life of every sapient being on the planet -- is precious.  I don't have eternity to find meaning or satisfaction.  If I want those things (as I ardently do), I need to work for them now.

I'd realize that I still need comfort from the fear of death, but that the source of that comfort isn't faith, or a religious leader, or God.  The sole source of comfort from the fear of death is me.  If I want to prolong my existence, I need to make choices that protect and strengthen my body starting right now.  If I want to die satisfied with my life, I need to work for that satisfaction starting right now.  And if I want to make sure that my loved ones are left with comforting, happy memories of me -- or that I'm left with comforting, happy memories of them -- I need to create those with them starting right now.

In short, I'd realize that what shields me from the fear of death is not avoiding it with promises of an afterlife, but working every day on myself and my relationships to be satisfied with my lot in life when my death inevitably comes.

My next thought would be that because we all evolved the same way, and that none of us is favored above others by any God, that's true for everyone.  So everyone I see working through their days?  Is working to make the most of the only meaningful existence they'll ever get.  So I should probably make choices that help them (within reason) to reach our shared goal of personal satisfaction.

What, then, about the comfort of believing that my consciousness will continue on to eternity?  That there will never be a world without me?

I don't get to have that.  I have to instead confront the universe for what it is: something that will go on without me almost entirely unchanged by my death.

But while I may have to live in an uncaring universe, I get to live in a consistent one.  As an atheist, I view every natural death -- including my own -- as neither fair nor unfair.  No death is freighted with divine judgment or inequity.  Death is natural and impartial.

If, for example, my three-year-old neighbor is afflicted with an inoperable, cancerous brain tumor, I'm not driven to resent a God who let something so awful happen to an innocent and his family.  I don't have to struggle through grief to reconcile my beliefs about God with the evidence of suffering before me.  Because I know God didn't let that child die.  I know He didn't engineer the boy's death for a greater purpose.  The child just developed cancer because the biological processes that have allowed all known life to evolve occasionally lead to cellular mutations that cause cancer.  So I can work through my grief without the distraction of anger at an absent, heedless, or cruel God.  I get to see every death as tragic, but sensible.

So, in short, as an atheist confronting death, I lose the external comfort of the promise of eternal life.  But in exchange, I can take comfort in the fact that while the universe is cold and uncaring, it is ultimately cold and uncaring to all of us equally.  And I gain the urgent desire to live my life meaningfully -- and to help others do the same.

Wow, that really sounds like a ton more work than believing in Heaven.

Yep!  And why would anyone put in that kind of effort?  Thank God (again) 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, again, totally does exist) bless.

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!

Debunking the Claim that the Book of Genesis Contradicts Itself

Greetings, mortals!  During my time interacting with you, many have confronted me with supposed "contradictions" in the Bible.  The favorite "contradictions" of apostates, atheists, and infidels seem to be the order and manner of creation in the Book of Genesis.  "Did God create man before beasts, or beasts before man?  Did He fashion waterfowl of the water, or of the ground?"  I wanted to take time out from my usual work of concealing God's Creation in mundane phenomena (and blogging about it) to address and resolve these questions.

Because if you don't stop asking them, trust me, you will go to Hell.

What is the order of creation in Genesis?

According to Genesis 1, God Created all that is, seen and unseen, in this order:

1. Heaven (Gen 1:1);
2. A formless Earth, which was nothing but a dark ocean on which God walked (Gen 1:2);
3. Light;
4. Night and day, after which the first day and night passed (Gen 1:4-5); 
5. A firmament to divide the waters above and below, which firmament He called Heaven (Gen 1:7-8);
6. Dry land on Earth, created by gathering all the waters below the firmam...uh, also Heaven...in one place. (Gen 1:9-10);
7. Grass, herbs, and fruit are brought forth from the Earth (Gen 1:11-12);
8. Night and day...um...again.  Then, the seasons, days and years (Gen 1:14);
9. Light upon the Earth (Gen 1:15);
10. The Sun to rule the day and the Moon to rule the night, plus the stars (Gen 1:16);
11. Um, okay.  Then Light upon the Earth.  Again.  This time by way of setting the Sun, Moon and stars in the firmament of Heaven (the Heaven under the half of the dark ocean from item 5, above, not the Heaven in item 1, which is geographically unrelated to said dark ocean), thereby separating night from day.  Again.  (Gen 1:17-18);
12. Every creature that has life is made from the waters, including whales, fish, waterfowl, and every single creature that moves. (Gen 1:20-21);
13. Ohh, boy. Um, at this point, God creates the creatures of the land, as distinct from every single creature that moves, from the earth. (Gen 1:24-25);
14. Finally, God makes men and women in His image and grants them dominion over all other creatures of the land, sea, and air. (Gen 1:26-30).

Okay, that went somewhat less smoothly than I expected it to.  But have faith!   All these "contradictions" will be proven to not be contradictions at all, because all things are possible with God.  On to Genesis 2!  

We pick up right where we left off.  Genesis 2 acknowledges that "[t]hus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them," adopting in total the recitation of Genesis 1.  It continues with the following additional matters of Creation:

1. God rests on the Seventh Day (Gen 2:2).
2. He sees that...ah, Christ.  He sees that while the grasses, herbs, and fruit are in the ground, the ground has not yet been tilled and it had not yet rained, so none of those plants, which He, in his omnipotence, willed forth from the Earth in Gen 1:11-12 actually came forth. (Gen 2:5);
3. God fashions one man, Adam, from the dust of the earth.  Adam is utterly alone. (Gen 2:7);
4. God wills forth trees in Eden (this time successfully). (Gen 2:9);
5. God places Adam in Eden to tend it. (Gen 2:15);
6. Because Adam is utterly alone, God forms from the earth all the beasts of the earth, again, and fowl of the air...again.  But from earth, not water. (Gen 2:18-20);
7. Finally, God creates the one and only woman from Adam's rib (Gen 2:20-23).

What are the apparent contradictions?

1. First there was Heaven and Earth but Earth is a dark ocean.  Then God creates a firmament that horizontally bisects the dark ocean, which firmament He declares to also be Heaven.  So Heaven is Created, then Created again, this time with a portion of the dark ocean of the Earth on top of it.
2. The Earth is lit on at least two separate occasions and night and day are created and separated, like, a bajillion times.
3. Grass, herbs, and fruit are called forth from the Earth, and God sees that they are good.  Then, they're in the Earth again till the land is tended and/or God calls them forth in Eden alone.
4. Every creature that moves, swims, or flies is created from the water before men & women.  Then beasts of the land are created of the earth, also before men & women.  Then men & women are created and given dominion over all the creatures of the Earth.  Then Adam is created, but is utterly alone.  Then everything that crawls, walks, or flies is created from the earth -- after Adam.
5. As just mentioned, men & women are created after all other living creatures.  Then Adam is created before all land-based animals and birds, and Eve is created after.  No mention is made of sea life.

Wow.  That's quite a list.

Shut up, mortal, I'm thinking.

Are these contradictions?

No.  Clearly not.  God is omniscient & omnipotent.  His Creation was, and is, perfect.  So why the "contradictions"?  Let's take them in order.

1. Creation of Heaven, then an ocean-only Earth, then Heaven in the middle of the Earth-ocean.

Some would say that this is a capitalization error -- that the firmament separating the part of the ocean-only Earth that remained ocean from the part that became land and sea is "the heavens," meaning the sky, not Heaven.  But not me.  God, in revealing His perfect Word, did not abide such errors.  That's why the Bible contains none.

No, what happened here is that God created Heaven.  Then He took part of Earth and simply made more Heaven, with a saltwater pool in the middle.  It's now a favorite attraction of those saved through Christ.

2. Light created; night and day divided.  Then night & day again, along with seasons, years, and days.  Then light upon the Earth.  Then light upon the Earth again, which is subsequently separated into night and day.  Again.

Okay, now, there are those who would argue that this is the kind of additive repetition of elements is indicative of Genesis being a story passed on orally and eventually transcribed.  But that's incorrect.  Here's what really happened, all of which is entirely consistent and not at all contradictory.

First, God Created Light, which He separated into night and day.  Then, He separated the dark ocean of Earth with Heaven.  The light had been above the dark ocean and lit its surface, but now there was light, then light-absorbing water, than Heaven, complete with a ground, and then more dark ocean.  What remained of Earth's dark ocean -- that which would become the land and sea -- was again dark.  Not because there wasn't light, mind you, but because that light was occluded by half the dark ocean and Heaven.  The second Heaven, not the first one.

Moving on.

Then, after calling forth photosynthetic plants -- we'll discuss that in the next subsection -- God creates the categories of night and day, along with seasons, days, and years.  He just doesn't put anything into them yet.  They're Platonic forms, sitting there, unused.  Then He creates light upon the Earth, so the Earth is lit, but then takes that light to make the Sun, Moon, and stars, and His omnipresent hands blot the light out in relation to the Earth.  It's as simple as that.

Finally, He places the Sun, Moon, and stars in Heaven (the second-but-equally-as-Heaven Heaven, not the first Heaven, which is no more Heaven than the second one), and the Earth is not only lit, but the categories of Earthly night and day are put to use.

See?  No contradictions at all.

3. Grasses, herbs, and trees are created and called forth from the Earth, and God sees them upon the Earth, but then they're not present except in the Earth, and not only have to be tended and rained upon to come forth, but have to be called forth by God a second time in Eden specifically.

As you'll recall, God called these photosynthetic plants upon the Earth, which He subsequently lit.  But then He had to block that light to separate it into the Sun, Moon, and stars.  There was just enough time for those plants to spread their seeds before dying for total want of light.  So they were there, then died, and the second generation of plants was in the Earth waiting for rain and care.  As for the plants in Eden, God just re-did His work.  Obviously.

But, wait, why would an omniscient being not plan ahead so he didn't have to do the same thing all over--

Mystery of faith.  On to the last two, which I'll explain together.

4 & 5. Everything that moves, including fowl, is Created from the waters.  Then land creatures, a subset of everything that moves, are created from the earth.  Then men & women are Created and given dominion over every creature of the earth, sea, and air.  Then, somehow, all the living things are gone and God makes Adam alone.  Then God makes all the beasts of the land and air from the earth and gives Adam dominion over them (making no mention of creatures of the sea).  Then God makes Eve.

I'll be honest with you, this is the most difficult "contradiction" to confront.  Not because it's a clear inconsistency in a Creation myth derived from similar creation myths of religions that preceded Judaism.  No sir, because that's not the case.  It's difficult to confront because it is somewhat inconsistent with what we'll call "modern concepts of morality prohibiting omnicide."

Like I said above, God called forth all those photosynthetic plants.  They die for want of light.  Then he Creates all the beasts of the sea, air, and land from the waters, and finally, his greatest Creation: men & women.  Those men and women were unfortunately naked, exposed, surrounded mostly by salt water and unfamiliar with desalinization techniques, and unable to rely on any plants at all for food (because, as I mentioned, all the plants are dead already).

While men and women were able to hunt and kill some smaller herbivores without tools, weapons, or defenses against injury, those herbivores themselves had nothing to eat.  They quickly died off.  That left the omnivores -- and especially carnivores -- desperate for food.  As you may know, men and women are somewhat less than capable in unarmed combat against other animals.  So, while mankind had dominion over all other creatures, hunger doesn't care about concepts like dominion.  Humanity was thus slaughtered.  

Shortly thereafter, following their descents into scavenging and cannibalism, all the other creatures of the land and air died off as well.  Creatures of the sea, which did not depend as heavily on photosynthetic plants, survived -- which is why they're not mentioned as being created again.  Look at that! Consistency in Genesis.

And so it came to pass that God started over again with Adam.  He made sure Adam had plenty of viable plants to live on in Eden.  He also made sure that the animals, seeing themselves named by Adam, were clear on the whole dominion thing and let Adam (and Eve) be until Eve screwed it all up.

There you go.  No contradictions at all -- because of some minor issues involving light and photosynthesis, God's perfect Creation descended into an orgy of starvation and slaughter, and required a bit of a reboot.

Okay, holy shit, I'm going to be sick.  And again, how could an omniscient, omnipotent God not plan ahead so he didn't have to--

Mystery of faith.  Get with the program.

There you have it, mortals.  Genesis contains no contradictions at all, because Almighty God is a loving God who gets everything right the first time.

Farewell, and as always, I look forward to your comments!

The newly-discovered "Mega-Earth"...and a reminder that only God's Earth matters.

Earlier today, astronomers announced that they have detected a rocky world 17 times the size of earth orbiting star Kepler-10.  They have deemed this planet, which they have named Kepler-10c, a "Mega-Earth."  Their theories about planetary formation did not allow for the possibility of so large a rocky planet.  Astronomers thought that all planets of this size would be gas giants, like Jupiter.  

They were, of course, wrong.  God can create any planet of any kind at any size He sees fit.  We need no model of planetary formation to tell us that.  It is my ardent hope that this discovery of a mystery of God's Creation -- one that illustrates that Man's science is and will forever be flawed and limited -- will convince these astronomers to abandon scientific inquiry and return to Faith in God Almighty.

There's one other thing I wanted to mention: As you can see in the Smithsonian Science article linked above, Dimitar Sasselov, one of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics researchers involved in the project that detected Kepler-10c, says that "Kepler-10c has positive implications for life."

Now, I don't want to take away from Professor Sasselov's work here -- he has laid bare the fact that humanity cannot grasp the full wonder of God's Creation and so should simply abandon science, accept that God's Creation is wonderful, and focus on faithfully serving Him.  But if he means that the existence of Mega-Earths like Kepler-10c suggests that there are more planets out there capable of supporting extraterrestrial life, he is flat wrong.

God created life once -- ONCE -- and He did it here on Earth.  There is no other life in the Universe.  All of the money you're funneling into astronomy, astrophysics, exobiology?  That budget increase you just awarded NASA?  It is all a waste of money.  You're chasing things that don't exist when you should be focused on using that money to establish Christianity as your global religion, build churches, and exalt God.

Now that your science has served the limited purpose of disproving itself, it's time to pack it in, okay?  No other beings will ever come down out of the sky to communicate with you.  

Well, except for Jesus.  And when that day comes, trust me: you'll be glad you accepted that scientific inquiry is heretical and returned to unquestioning faith in God.

Observable, Convergent Evolution of Crickets? Hardly.

Greetings, mortals!  Okay, so, I've gotten a few questions about this one: in the May 29, 2014, Current Biology, scientists published the results of a study led by Dr. Nathan W. Bailey purporting to show evidence of observable, convergent evolution in two separate populations of Hawaiian field crickets.  Isn't that strong evidence for evolution?

No!

What the scientists claim to have observed is the development of flat wings for soundless flight in each population of crickets (one population on O'ahu, the other on Kaua'i).  This change in wing structure helped them avoid a sound-attracted (and fatal) parasitic fly.  The O'ahu crickets developed silent flight first.  Then it was observed in the Kaua'i population.  These researchers diligently checked for genetic markers of introgression of a genetic variation from the O'ahu crickets into the Kaua'i population -- in other words, they looked to see if an O'ahu cricket and a Kaua'i cricket had ridden what we in Heaven call the "wild nookie train."  They not only found no evidence of transmission of the trait from the O'ahu crickets to the Kaua'i crickets, they found that the flat wings of the two populations were structurally very dissimilar.  The researchers concluded from this, as you humans are wont to do, that natural selection had shaped the two populations in similar ways to compensate for the same environmental challenge -- the fatal parasite.

But, of course, that's not what happened.  There is no such thing as evolution.  You may observe what you think is evolution, but the evidence you see is just a sham.  It's a test, created to see whether you have abandoned the same hubris that led you to rob yourselves of Eden by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

And you haven't.  No wonder science continues to lead you further from the peace, warmth, and light of God's Love.

So, what actually happened to these crickets?  It's obvious: their wings changed shape to help them avoid this fatal parasite, but not by means of evolution.  These changes were wrought by the Hand of God.  They further the miracle and beauty of His design.  God simply chose to adjust the wing configurations on the O'ahu crickets and Kaua'i crickets a little differently because, well, don't you get bored doing the same thing over and over again?  Of course you do.  Just imagine if you were omniscient.  Avoiding boredom would be job #1.  Well, job #2, after the loving curation of all existence.

Now, because you're human, some of you may be asking, "If God wanted to save these crickets, why are only about half of each population created with flat wings that help them avoid the parasite?"  The answer to that is simple: Stop questioning God.

Thank you all for reading!  And please, I welcome your thoughts in the comments.

An Introduction

Greetings, mortals!  I am Decipiatur, Angel of the Lord and servant to the Archangel Raphael.  Since before you were formed from clay (or, for you lady readers, a rib), it has been my duty to test Man's faith in the Lord our God by concealing His work in the mundane phenomena you examine with your "science."

Five thousand, seven hundred years ago, when the Almighty spoke the Universe into being, it was I who strewed the cosmos with the gravitational ripples you recently observed with your Bicep-2 telescope. It was I who shaped those ripples so as to appear to have arisen from a massive explosion approximately 13.8 billion years ago.  And, yes, as many have speculated, it was I who created geological strata and radioactive decay patterns suggesting the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, strewed the bowels of the Earth with the fossils of dinosaurs who never lived, and stole away the evidence of the great Flood.  It was I who laced the cells of every living thing on earth with the nucleic acids that not only appear to your limited, mortal faculties to guide the functions of life, but suggest a common ancestry and evolution.

All of that is a fraud.  In fact, you, like everything in this universe, exist and function by dint of God's Love alone.  You were, like all living things, shaped not by the complex interaction of physics, chemistry, biology, scarcity, and happenstance, but by His hand alone.

Some of you are asking, "Decipiatur, why reveal yourself and your divine mission, and why on a blog?"  It's simple.  I'm revealing my divine mission because 5,700 years ago, God, who is, of course, omniscient, foresaw that you would ask exactly that question.  He revealed to me that on this date, humanity's faith in its own analytic prowess would reach what he called a "tipping point" (a term he later gifted to Morton Grodzins (and I am compelled to note that God did not gift Professor Grodzins the term "white flight."  That was Satan.)).  He told me that unless I began to explain my work, thereby exposing the fact that all scientific observation is the pursuit of my righteous frauds, Man would be led into apostasy by his own hubris.

I will, of course, continue my work.  Faith is valueless unless tested, after all!  But that brings us to the second question, "Why on a blog?"  Because God revealed to me that in this time, this Internet -- which is also not a triumph of your applied sciences, but a manifestation of God's Love -- would be such a cacophony of voices that only those endowed with the curiosity to allow their faith to be tested would find their way here.  As it has always been (well, as it's been since 3,686 B.C., when the universe was created), only a select few will have the truth of God's Word revealed unto them so that they may carry the message of the Lord to the unfaithful many.

You, dear reader, are one of the few, brave and faithful.  You will stand with me against the tide of false scientific discoveries.  Together, we will hold back Man's false pride in his own abilities.  We will lead humanity back away from the frauds of science and discovery -- my divinely-commanded fabrications -- and into the light of unquestioning Faith.