Write down the date

wwrhiuklxm-vladimir-kudinov

We speak of the day you decided to stop lying. Try to hold that position, and you will find life becomes more enjoyable. You may fail, but you have made a mission statement, and to the best of your ability this is where you stand. Do not be afraid to say; I do not believe that, or, you might like to consider this. That way you are not pushing someone else’s cart. Let them push their cart up the hill.

You can start a conversation by saying; on the 27th of July 2016 I decided to stop lying about that subject. This will open up a new range of interesting discussion, for you can be reasonably sure your discussion partner has not made a commitment like that. They will ask why. You can tell of your reservations, and conflict does not enter into it.

I recommend you start moving toward an answer, because it is a light to see where you are going. It is not comfortable to stay in the dark, but a lie is darkness, so move away from that. Remain open and you will learn, for they will make their best case, and that is what you want. You may have never encountered a person who comes back with a good question before. Most offer ridicule and astonishment that you have not come to the same conclusion they have, and it gets awkward. Not unmanageable just argumentative.

What do we do

Eye
Eye

I will not trust anyone to decide this question for me. They have so much baggage they carry; we cannot trust them to be true about anything. So question everything they claim. Make up your own mind what is true. I know; we cannot even trust ourselves to be true, so where do we start? Stop arguing a position until we know what we are talking about. Declare ourselves to be in a neutral until we have the proof. Tell people we are undecided for the evidence is not all in. Be true to yourself. Tell them you are confused about the answer because you are not in a position to decide one way or the other. That is a good start.

You could say; I lean toward this, or I lean toward that, but at least you do not add to the big lie at the sub-strata of both views. If the religious people claim we are true and you can trust us, they support the lie, because you cannot trust them. If the scientist claims evolution is true and you can trust us to lead you to the answer to all things, then he or she supports the lie. They have not answered any of the hard questions. They claim assumptions are fact, when they know it is not true.

Survival of the fittest

Exercising with dumbbell.

When I was a teenager we debated whether life forms progressed because they were the ones best suited to survive. The argument died because it was not true. The least likely survived, and the strong struggled to hold their percentage on the survivor table. We discarded the obviously wrong hypothesis. So we add to the ever changing list of theories that explain our being.  There is a pattern to these theories and it always comes down to finding a way to deny creation. There are two options. It happened by chance, or it happened by design. To put it into words we discuss today, it evolved or was created.

With all inhabitants of the earth choosing one or other of the two alternative views we need to look at those who champion each cause. On the one hand we have the religious leaders of our world. Can we rely on their view of the answer? If we take religious leaders to mean church hierarchy, we must admit, all of them push a line which protects the integrity of the church more then they protect the people in the church. What they allow appals everyone. The good is offset by what is bad about the institutions supported by the church, so we ask: can they claim to be right about anything?

Now it emerges the scientists who claim evolution is true must defend their right to have a view when they tell us the fossils are 65 million years old, when the evidence suggests they are only a few thousand years old. The debate on this will rage over a long and protracted period, but we need to ask; can we trust these people to just give us the facts.

People want what they want

By Michelle Brea
By Michelle Brea

It does not matter if it is true or not. And yet everyone sends the signal that truth matters. It is not the truth that matters, but that you accept the person who said it has integrity. We cannot live without impressing others. So your impression of me is more important than if what I say is true. If you think I think it is true, that is good enough. I cannot have you thinking I believe a lie. That entitles you to think less of me, and I cannot have that.

This is why we argue our position so strenuously. People need others to believe they have beliefs, and their position can stand along with all the rest. But then some people will not stop looking till they find what is true. The key is: do not ignore the obvious, which comes down to our personal honesty. A person will change their view to hold on to honesty. There is no shame in changing our position to get closer to the truth. A fool will hold the line in the face of facts. A wise person will check the facts, to see if they hold up against known logic.

One person’s logic is another’s nonsense, so it is subjective. We carry much baggage around with us. Let go of the burden we lug around and take a simple approach. If soft tissue decays more quickly than hard substances, and soft tissue still exists, then as old as it seems, the fossil is not very old. No one opens the fossil to see the state of preservation inside, because it destroys what is the main feature of the fossil, it’s size and shape. We like to identify it as a creature that was once a living organism. If we opened all we would find many have soft tissue remaining meaning they are only a few thousand years old at the most. Certainly not 65 million years old.

The money

Woman with vertigo. Young patient suffering from dizziness

We should stop maligning scientists. They just do their job. The complaint is; the job they do is not true to the mission statement. Incorporated in their charter is the obligation to be true. The community is led to believe they met the challenge of only dealing with facts. If facts are false, the structure crumples. Much money and time is given to scientific endeavour. Businesses allocate funds to research to assure the public their company and products can be trusted. Should scandal arise in any part of the science industry all science suffers. Credibility is lost in an industry that only exists because it is true.

But charlatans have always been present, and they happily hold on to the shirt tails of the scientific community. People who believe in snake oil cures will always be present. What it means is: we must do some investigating ourselves, or become gullible fools.

If soft tissue degrades in sun light in days, we have the science to extrapolate the removal of light and contaminates and decay over time, and come to a reasonable expectation of the length of time it will take for organic substance to degrade into dust particles. Part of the calculation will be the likelihood of a scientist being corrupted by removal of his wage, if he does not hold the preferred line of scientific theory. Money is a serious concern and Business has been known to spend billions to buy support for the cart they push and also threaten removal of billions from those who betray the story they want told.

Is it true?

Soothsayer during a Seance or session with Crystal ball

We should stop maligning scientists. They just do their job. The complaint is; the job they do is not true to the mission statement. Incorporated in their charter is the obligation to be true. The community is led to believe they met the challenge of only dealing with facts. If facts are false, the structure crumples. Much money and time is given to scientific endeavour. Businesses allocate funds to research to assure the public their company and products can be trusted. Should scandal arise in any part of the science industry all science suffers. Credibility is lost in an industry that only exists because it is true.

But charlatans have always been present, and they happily hold on to the shirt tails of the scientific community. People who believe in snake oil cures will always be present. What it means is: we must do some investigating ourselves, or become gullible fools.

If soft tissue degrades in sun light in days, we have the science to extrapolate the removal of light and contaminates and decay over time, and come to a reasonable expectation of the length of time it will take for organic substance to degrade into dust particles. Part of the calculation will be the likelihood of a scientist being corrupted by removal of his wage, if he does not hold the preferred line of scientific theory. Money is a serious concern, and Business has been known to spend billions to buy support for the cart they push, and also threaten removal of billions from those who betray the story they want told.

Pseudo science

taking fingerprints

The photo looks as if these people are doing serious research, testing and retesting to ensure everything is scientific. What happens when testing results in skewed evidence supporting a view that cannot be shown to be true. If organic or soft tissue can only last a short time, no matter how well it is preserved, how can some scientists insist it can last 65 million years. The scientist at best lives for eighty useful years of scientific investigation. They must therefore build on the evidence of those who have gone before. The scientific era is only a few hundred years old, and yet we reach back millions of years, making assumptions we cannot prove.

Everyone must have reservations about science that reaches so far back. What if the earth and rocks and strata and solar system seem to be old? How does this prove living creatures have been around for this time? Scientists talk of the Universe, claiming it is huge, and full of many planets and stars, and then drop on us the idea we must speak of the Multiverse, involving many universes of equal size. That makes big so large it cannot be conceived. And it makes the scientist and his eighty years of life so insignificant, he is like dust on the balance, or a drop in the ocean.

There is danger of a charge of arrogance, when someone so small speaks of something so large.

What about history?

4542299135_1bd23c46bf_b

If this grasshopper was twelve feet tall, and flew awkwardly in the sky as they do, and frightened our children, we would soon make them extinct. As we presently do to the Rhinoceros, the Elephant, the Tiger, the Dodo, the Tasmanian Tiger. We would assign them to the pages of prehistory, and make up tales about them, calling them mythological creatures. We would draw images of them in children’s readers, and make up fairy tales about them to send our children to sleep.

Let us be honest enough to admit, if the Dinosaur existed today, we would soon find a way to get rid of him or her. We assign nations to history. Empires have risen and gone. We do this because we can. Dictators come and go, and we dramatize their excesses in movies for entertainment. 

Do you know that the fossils we dig up today or since we began to recognise what they were in 1840, the time the word “Dinosaur” was coined, are show in images made by artists, carved in rock, in pottery, on cave walls, in Palaces from one end of the earth to the other. It means people saw these creatures and accurately sketched them, and managed to preserve them in Museums. The next generation spoke of them as images from mythology, and everyone thought they came from the artist’s imagination. But them the fossils appeared to prove these creatures are not inventions, they existed in the life times of the artists.

 

Scientists

Unfolding of the Mind

Scientists need to be scientific. This means being true to their claim they will test everything so their conclusion is true. It is not unreasonable, and they rely on our trust. We will give them trust, as long as they do not mislead us. The science of Evolution is not the science that put us on the moon. That is a claim we reject. The Moon walk happened, evolution is a theory that cannot be shown to happen.

For them to say the Dinosaur became extinct 65 million years ago means they must show they can accurately measure that period. If they make assumptions about strata and what they find next to the fossil they need to tell us and not imply their calculations are fact. If they cannot do that everyone can take it as their belief and it falls into the category of faith like all other religions.

To claim we think evolution is a fact of existence, and we know more than anyone else about the subject, is like the celibate priest claiming he knows more about holy behaviour than anyone else. It can be shown they know nothing about being holy, or having integrity.

 

Evolution

"Hippopotamus - 04" by Kabacchi -
by Kabacchi –

I am not saying the scientific community all subscribe to a big fat porky pie. What I do not see is scientists falling over themselves to explain how soft tissue can survive 65 million years since extinction. What we hear are the sounds of silence. There is too much at stake. They must explain why they did not date the fossil itself, as this is too hard. They dated the igneous rock lying next to the fossil in the strata they claim is 65 million years old.

It may seem strange, that they stop being scientific just because they need to be consistent in the report, and so many lies have already been told, it gets hard to keep it going. They must cover up the assumptions of past scientific hero’s it becomes a farce. No one wants to burst the bubble. It was a lie, but a good one, told with a straight face. The alternative is to believe God, and this is something nobody wants.

What do we do when everyone wants a lie more than they want truth? This is not new. They have been telling everyone we do not die when we die. We go to a better place. There must be a better place than this, because dying is so gross, and we deserve more than that.