Tags

,

To think is to reason what logical is to unsurprising.”
Russell D. Holder

 

Since you already know… I find it illogical when people can base what little they do believe on the most unlikely considerations… even imagination. I find it more than illogical, even perplexing, when people (might) insist on commenting without an explanation to the rationale they use to arrive at their conclusion(s) expressed- as if they might be an authority on anything at all. To find this as their reason [for themselves] not to believe in what stems from (for the sake of example) the Bible. Let’s search for some validity to ruminate on… and go past history to look at some examples of what being logical (once) meant.

 

Was it once considered illogical to think the Earth was round. It would seem Columbus thought it was round and was not a part of the ‘Flat Earth‘ belief structure. In fact, numerous writings from the time of the voyages of Columbus, well documented, point to a round Earth belief over the other. If you want to point a ‘finger of blame‘ to the popularity of this ‘fictionalized myth‘, one would have to look to the 1828 works of Author Washington Irving,”The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus”. Below is an abstract from the hyperlink directly above this reference…

 

Add to that Irving’s love of creating fiction that reads like historical fact (and a boost in popularity from a handful of Charles Darwin’s followers that wanted to show what silly, uneducated people their religious opponents were) and you’ll see why the myth spread like wildfire.
Furthermore, since ‘the theory of evolution’ was being passed around during the days of the life of Darwin himself, some of what was thought ‘logical‘ then has since been irrefutably proven wrong. I give you the information supporting this statement here (on cells and ‘irreducible complexity’), and know (as the Hebrews called it… Da’ath [dah’-ath]: knowledge, perception, skill, discernment, understanding or wisdom ) even Darwin’s ardent supporter, Ernst Haeckel, was wrong to suggest ‘mud from the bottom of the ocean could produce life by itself’. Does this not sound ‘illogical‘ to you? It was found out later that there was ‘a fraud’ committed by Haeckel, when he published,”Natural History of Creation”. See below a very brief abstract from the link above…

 

Fraud
… Haeckel’s frauds and evolutionary concepts based on these frauds are still unfortunately included as fact in many science textbooks in U.S. school systems in the 1990s.

 

Haeckel's Embryos

 

Does this seem ‘logical’ to do… by someone using science, scientific means or is it just someone promoting their views (in a scientific method) to advance themselves and their beliefs?

 

Creation vs. evolution

 

It turns out that there is a ‘structured social strata’ within the confines of the scientific community. If this was not the case… people like Maria Reiche would have been given the acclaim that was rightly hers. A dedication to understanding the ‘Nazca Lines‘ of Peru, with 40 years devoted to them, its people and culture. Here is a link with more questions about Maria, her findings and lack of respect for her work when she could have relished it- give me my flowers today to enjoy scent and sender (sort of thing). It seems logical and decent don’t always go together, do they?

 

Two varying views found in two different videos, first with Bill Nye (the Science Guy) and next with someone who has chosen to turn his back on ‘evolution’ and embraces creation- and why.

 

 

People call Christians narrow minded… in the broadest terms. How easy is it to turn your back to God and think it will be alright?

 


In the video above are two distinctly different references, one to the ‘Paluxy man (a fossil with human and dinosaur tracks… at first thought)’ but since proven erroneous. See this article for proof. The second is more recent, where a T. Rex was discovered (flesh is still moist [soft tissue and blood cells]) in 2000 in Montana- yet is claimed to be 68 million years old. That would be ‘illogicalbut factual regardless.

 

This comes from the Institute of Creation Research, an article on the errors of assumption and Biostratigraphy, and Fossil DNA found in Deep Seafloor Mud.
On a last note of scientific import and a full discourse of a ‘logical‘ nature, I share with you,”Why Darwinism Is False“, by Jonathan Wells, at this hyperlink here. From the Center for Science & Culture… a very through glimpse into what ‘Darwinism’ promotes is flatly illogically. Since evolution hangs itself, based on ‘assumptions of its own validity‘, I share these assumptions (speculation… sounds so scientific [guesswork]) with you here.

Albert and God

There are some people that might take offense to this picture, so I give you one more below… to show this was altogether plausible.

seek V

I was told by an Australian atheist once,”Einstein did not believe in God.” This makes me think he might have been ill-informed or misinformed.

Most of these images are from here but some images are from here (on Haeckel’s works).

 

See Part I, Part III, Part IV and Part V at these respective links.

Save

Save

Advertisements