Archive for DNA

Questioning Scriptural Creation Account

Posted in Atheist, Bible, faith, Hebrew scripture, random, religion, scriptures with tags , , , , on April 1, 2014 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say “Let there be…” such and such, and then such and such appeared. Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever He envisioned just magically came together in its manifested form. No trials, no errors, just zap. Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity in just seven “days.” Or so the Creationists avow. However, they never bother themselves to clarify which of the two Creation versions they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give somewhat differing specifics! And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence. Is this imaginative account given in Genesis of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in school science classes as creationists clamor?

And what about reproduction? In order for all of God’s varied and diverse material forms which He had manifested by speaking to himself to be regenerated and maintained, God did have to put in place some type of regeneration routine. And that renewal system for each and every thing that He had created by word of mouth required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation. Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that reproduction diagram today as DNA. Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental (evolutionary) processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Cultures that preceded the “revealed” word of God by thousands of years, and therefore not privileged to biblical enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance as to how everything became created. It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the “revealed” facts of Creation. At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the people concerning the facts of his acts of Creation. And that tiny percent just happened to be in the habit of agitating everyone around Jerusalem. Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what had gone into his creative process, like the chemical compounds and such, God did not bother himself to explain. Consequently, how He transformed energy into our little planet with its varied and diverse life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be utilized for their own ends. Perhaps we should question the Genesis version of Creation against some known facts.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet. But that, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation. Scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago. Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in exisitence on primal Earth–an incredibly short time in Creation terms. To science a few hundred million years after Earth’s violent formation and simple life forms were already appearing seems a case of too much too soon. Ah, but all that was just one “day” in the Genesis account.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were present well over three billion years ago–and these simplest life forms had, as science has shown, molecules of biological origin–it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than a combination of inert gases and chemicals that were then predominant on the infant planet. Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium. If biological life originated in such an abundant chemical composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more plentiful elements would figure in the composition of any life forms that would develop in the primeval stew (biblical “dust”), if not prominently, then at least moderately? But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatsoever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet. Of course they are not needed in the Genesis tale.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless that rare element plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all biological life! Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggests that a variety of genetic codes would have developed. But that did not happen either. Instead, all life forms on Earth developed from a single genetic code—and all life forms share this single genetic composition. To those who idolize the Bible tales, of course this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as proof of God’s verbal commandments.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide more authoritative information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on Earth, however. According to the deciphered Sumerian texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source: from a huge planet which made at least two passes through this developing solar system. The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid, or other space object, and the roving planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name Marduk. The Sumerians also referred to that rogue planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.” This information later became reworked and the basis for personifying the Babylonian god Marduk, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth. (Marduk was the source for the name Merodach in the Bible.) Could that possibly be the god that the post-Sumerian Genesis story refers to as commanding the activation of all life?

Oddly, in recent modern science, a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account. A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, dared to offer the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from miniscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth. Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical six “days” of Creation? Or was God simply playing a solo game of billiards that “day”?

Creation ala Genesis

Posted in Bible, biological traits, environment, faith, Hebrew scripture, life, prehistory, random, religion with tags , , , , , on January 27, 2013 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say, “Let there be…” this or that, and then this or that just popped into existence.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or thought-out blueprint all the varied components of whatever “he” envisioned just magically came together in its manifested form.  No trials, no errors, just zap.  Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity as well in just six twenty-four hour “days.” No wonder God had to rest on the seventh day: or so the Creationists avow.  However, the authors never bothered themselves to clarify which of the two Creation version they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give some slightly differing specifics!  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God himself came into existence.  Is this imaginative account of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in school science classes as creationists clamor?

However, in order for all of God’s varied and diverse forms which he had made manifest by talking to himself to be regenerated and maintained, God did have to put in place some system of renewal.  And that renewal system for each and every thing that he had created did require a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation. Scientific sleuthing has managed to discover one vital part of that blueprint, and we know that as DNA.  Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

Cultures that preceded by thousands of years the word of God as “revealed” in eighth century BCE Jerusalem apparently were not privileged to biblical enlightenment, and had to grope about in ignorance of how everything came into existence.  It was up to the self-appointed priests in Jerusalem in the much later timeframe to explain the facts of Creation.  At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million persons, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the population about the facts of his acts of Creation.  And that tiny percent happened to be in the habit of agitating everyone around Jerusalem.  Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what went into his creative process, like chemical compounds and such, were left unexplained.  Consequently, how he transformed energy into our little planet with its varied and diverse life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be mined and manipulated for their own ends.  Perhaps we should question the Bible style version of Creation against some known facts.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated on this planet.  But that, in itself, does not negate the Genesis explanation. Scores of years of scientific research has projected that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago.  Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in existence on the infant Earth—a remarkably short time in Creation terms.  To science a few hundred million years after Earth’s formation to have simple life forms appear seems a case of too much too soon.  Ah, but all that was just one “day” in the Genesis account.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were present on Earth well over three billion years ago—and these simple life forms had, as science has found, molecules of biological origin, it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than from a combination of inert gases and chemicals that were then predominant on the infant planet.  Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium.  If biological life originated in such an abundant chemical composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more plentiful elements would figure in the composition of any life forms that would originate in the primal stew (biblical “dust”), if not prominently then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role whatever in the biochemical structure of the life forms that thrive on this planet.  Of course they are not needed in the Genesis account.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless that rare element plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all Earth’s biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet, whether from the “dust” of Eden or in a simmering primeval stew, logic suggest that a variety of genetic codes would have developed.  But that did not happen either.  Instead, all life forms on planet Earth developed from a single genetic code.  All life forms share a single genetic composition.  To religionists, of course, this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as proof of God’s commandment.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on early Earth, however.  According to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge rogue planet that made at least two passes through this developing solar system.  The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid or other space object, and the roving  planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name of Marduk.  The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.”  This information later became reworked and the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk, known in the Bible as Merodach, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth.  Could that possibly be the god that the post-Sumerian Genesis story refers to as commanding the activation of life?

Oddly, in recent modern science, a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account.  A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, dared to offer the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from miniscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth.  Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical “six days” of Creation?  Or was God just playing a solo game of billiards that “day”?

God, Sex, and DNA

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, nature, random, religion, sex, Social with tags , , , , , on October 1, 2012 by chouck017894

Thanks to “saints” such as Jerome and Augustine, the Christian world has been schooled to regard the natural attraction and mechanics of sex as being somehow an affront to the power that created and sustains all the diversity which it approved as “Creation.”  The magnetism that stirs the urges for intimate relationship with another person is, admittedly, a power that often confounds us, but that mystification of attraction is not a sign of “sinfulness.”  The fact that such magnetic attraction to others is experienced by us at all is strong testimony that everyone and everything is somehow interrelated, and demonstrates that it is natural for units of similar energies to attract, intermingle and invigorate each other.

All forms of life, in one way or another, experience the magnetic attraction called sex, which insures a perpetual display of energy diversity that glorifies the universe.  That is an awesome truth that fuels infinity.  And that truth can be traced back into the miniscule and infinite energy components out of which we become manifest as definable beings—an involvement of energy-substance activity that science has designated as DNA.  And that awesome creative power, contrary to some self-serving religious assertions, could never disown or reject any expression of itself.

DNA, Deoxyribonucleic acid, is the chief constituent of chromosomes; it can replicate itself, and is responsible for transmitting genetic information, in the form of genes, from parents to their offspring.  This is the famed double helix, the “ladder of life.”  It consists of two long chains of linked nucleotides (various organic compounds consisting of a nucleoside combined with phosphoric acid), which are connected to each other by hydrogen bonds between the bases adenine and thymine or between cytosine and guanine.  (Sorry for this bit of technological stuff.)  The chromosomes are organized in 23 pairs—which make up the famed “ladder of life”—that mysterious “ladder” supposedly seen by Jacob in Genesis 28:12–before his name-change to Israel (where he attained physical life).  Out of these 23 pair of chromosomes only one pair of X and Y—one chromosome from the mother and one from the father—determine the diverse and variable sexual features of the entity.  The other 22 pair are known as autonomies, meaning that they are not sex determinants.

Amazingly, the complexity and specialness of each human being is determined by only around 30,000 genes, which is an astonishingly small number to be responsible for the escalation and intricacy that results in all the variety to be found in human life.  A haploid (cell) refers to a single cell which has the number of chromosomes present in the usual germ cell, and this is equal to only one half the number in what is known as a somatic cell—or in a manner of speaking, only one half of a rung on that “ladder of life.”  Soma, in biology, designates the body of an organism (cell) which is present but is not actually part of the germ cells.  Thus a gene is a hereditary unit located on a chromosome, which determines a specific function or characteristic in an organism.  A complete set of chromosomes is known as genome.

Male and female development is dependent upon the different determinants or segments or genes that are distributed along the X and Y chromosomes.  Each and every individual has thus been created with different combinations of these factors which affect their body structure, brain activity and behavior patterns, and this includes how physical stimulants arouse a person.  This fact of life-inception clearly attests that the Creative Source does not indulge in or demand cookie-cutter sameness within a species.  Thus the holy truth is that the chromosomes assemble in this manner to insure a wide diversity of physical characteristics for species benefit—and this includes differences in sexual preferences.

The X and Y chromosome—X for female, and Y for male—demonstrate how the chemical process results in character traits and attractions that are of psychological and social interest.  For example, all males with an excess of either X or Y chromosomes are likely to be predisposed to produce an increased amount of male hormones which often tend to become expressed with a tendency toward aggressiveness and a lower threshold for committing violence in comparison with the so-called “normal” male population.  Perhaps the religious extremists and obstructionist politicians in our society could possibly be accounted for by having an extra Y chromosomal composition.

For the XYY males it seems that tendencies toward violence generally begins early; around the age of 13 instead of surfacing around 18 years.  The XYY males generally issue out of a fairly “normal” sample of the population, but nonetheless the XYY male often feels at odds with the “normal” environment.”

The religiously obsessed commonly choose to ignore this resourceful means by which life’s fluid “design” become active for providing the energy source for manifestation of a life form.  Instead, the priest-written “good book” encourages the idea that human propagation is the sole purpose of physical closeness.  The priest-authors who dared to presume Yahweh’s “laws” (probably driven by their own XYY chromosomes) sought to encourage the non-stop reproduction of their followers because heavy breeding activity insured the increase of followers.  This priest-issued sexual license also assured their authoritative influence in the face of the differently oriented societies around them.  Therefore, it was the scheming priests, not the Creative Principle (personified by them as God) who decreed that any sexual activity that did not contribute to the growth of their cult was a “sin.”  The fourth book of priest-written Hebrew scripture tales is entitled Numbers, and that objective is always what all religious and political would-be leaders want—a steady increase in the number of followers and supporters.  Thus the widespread encouragement of nonstop breeding by such power-hungry men has today blessed this little planet with an excess of eight billion persons!

Thus it was claimed by the priest-authors of “holy word” that the Lord (creative law personified) abhorred and condemned any unproductive sexual activity such as masturbation, coitus interruptus, fellatio, celibacy, homosexuality, and by extension any use of pregnancy preventive aids and abortion.  This feigned godly abhorrence of unproductive sex was/is, to be blunt, economically and politically profitable for their religio-political power base as well as being eugenic.

But if procreation was supposedly God’s sole intent for instituting sexual attraction in the human species, would he/she/it not have also established physical safeguards to assure that?  It would have been easy enough for god to have incorporated in the human species, as in most other mammals, sexual activity that is regulated by estrus cycles.  That is the mammalian feature where the regularly recurring periods of ovulation and sexual excitement in female mammals become ready to bear offspring.  Obviously, if the estrus cycle in the human species was altered by god’s sanction, the role of sexual attraction was intentionally liberated and broadened in mankind in the probable expectation that the value of love would be achieved among humans.  Instead, man’s organized and self-serving religions and politics have chosen to pursue the mindless premise that the propagation of ever more humans is a sacred duty!  With the human population of this little planet today swarming with more than eight billion persons, such indulgence in runaway breeding is demonstratively irrational and irresponsible.

  • Related posts: Sex Attraction, A Bogus “Spiritual” Dilemma, Oct. 2009;  Creation’s Law of Diversity, Feb. 2010; God Didn’t Mention Chromosomes, May 2010.

Questioning Bible-Style Creation

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, faith, freethought, Hebrew scripture, humanity, logic, prehistory, random, religion, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , on May 10, 2011 by chouck017894

God’s revealed word assures us that God merely had to say, “Let there be…” such and such, then such and such appeared.  Thus, without any recipe or formula or blueprint, all the varied components of whatever he envisioned just magically came together in manifested form.  No trials, no errors; just zap.  Apparently God managed to fill up not only the naked Earth but all infinity in just seven “days.”  Or so say the Creationists.  However, they never bother themselves to  clarify which version of Creation they promote, conveniently ignoring that chapters one and two of Genesis give differing accounts!  And, of course, we are instructed to never ask how God came into existence.  Is this supernatural version of how matter and life came into existence really worthy to be taught in any school?

However, in order for all of God’s forms which he had manifested to be regenerated and maintained, a systematic routine had to be put in place.  And that regenerating system for each and every thing that he had created required a recipe or formula or blueprint for its continuation.  Scientific sleuthing managed to discover a vital part of that blueprint, and we know that as DNA.  Life, whether micro or macro, each follow specific developmental processes, and even galaxies and the universe itself follow the same constant motions of re-creation.

 Cultures that preceded the “revealed” word of God by thousands of years, and therefore were not privileged to divine enlightenment, apparently had to grope about in ignorance of how everything became created.  It was up to the priests in Jerusalem in the much later 8th century BCE to explain the facts of Creation.  At that time the entire population of the world has been guesstimated to have been around seventy to one hundred million, but God was interested in enlightening only a tiny percent of the people about the facts of his acts of Creation.  And that tiny percent happened to be agitating everyone around Jerusalem.  Even so, for some holy reason, the particulars of what went into his creative process, like chemical compounds and such, were left unexplained.  Consequently, how he transformed energy into our  little planet with varied life forms has long served enterprising Bible interpreters as a sacred mystery to be used for their own ends.  Maybe we should question the Bible-style version of Creation.

Planet Earth is heavy with chemical components, and it is this chemical heaviness which stands as a major argument against biological life having originated here.  Science says that Earth was formed around four billion five hundred million years ago.  Within a few hundred-million years the simple life forms were already in existence on Earth—a short time in Creation terms.  To science it seems to be a case of too much too soon.

If the oldest and simplest life forms were present well over three billion years ago—and these simplest life forms had, as science has shown, molecules of biological origin—it is hard evidence that life forms on this planet arose and developed from some source other than a combination of inert gases and chemicals that then exited on the infant planet.

Some of the most abundant chemical elements of Earth’s composition are nickel and chromium.  If biological life originated in such a composition, wouldn’t it seem logical that these more abundant elements would figure in any life forms that developed in the primal stew—if not prominently, then at least moderately?  But nickel and chromium play practically no role in the biochemical structure of the life forms that developed and thrive on this planet.

On the other hand, the element molybdenum, a metallic element of the chromium group is quite rare on this planet, but nonetheless it plays a pivotal role in enzymatic reactions that are vitally necessary to all biological life!  Furthermore, if biological life arose on this planet in a simmering primeval stew, as once thought, logic suggests that a variety of genetic codes would have developed.  But that did not happen either.  Instead, all life forms on Earth developed from a single genetic code.  All life forms on Earth share a single genetic composition.  To religionists, of course, this genetic singularity can be brushed aside as the work of God.

Some ancient Sumerian cuneiform texts, far older than the priest-written Genesis fable, provide information in regard to the puzzle of life’s appearance on Earth, however.  According  to the deciphered texts, life on this planet developed billions of years ago from an outer space source; from a huge planet that made at least two passes through this developing solar system.  The Sumerians did not confuse that rogue celestial object with any comet, asteroid, or other space object, and the roving planet that passed through our young solar system was given the name Marduk.  The Sumerians also referred to this planet, which was obviously not affiliated with our solar system, as “the planet of crossing.”  This information later became reworked as the basis for personification of the Babylonian god Marduk, known in the Bible as Merodach, who was credited with bringing the chemistry of life to planet Earth.  Could this possibly be the same god  that the post-Sumerian Genesis story relates commanded the activation of all life?

Oddly, in recent modern science, a theory has been advanced that is remarkably similar to the ancient Sumerian account.  A minority of scientists, risking reputation and government financial support, have offered the theory that life on this planet may have been seeded from miniscule organisms given off by some free-wheeling planet that once brushed close to the primordial Earth.  Perhaps that planetary lovemaking is what took place over the biblical six “days” of Creation?  Or was God just playing a solo game of billiards that week?

Questioning the U.S. Supreme Court

Posted in Atheist, culture, Government, politics, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , on February 1, 2010 by chouck017894

The oath of office taken by each U. S. Supreme Court Justice has them solemnly swear to “…faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”  (Italics added.)  Citizens who care about civil rights, civil liberties, and separation of church and state are beginning to get a bit nervous about the U. S. Supreme Court since John G. Roberts was made Chief Justice in 2005.  The extent to which this Court has actually changed national laws—laws with precedence going back seventy to one hundred years—and turning them steadily and covertly to the right is disquieting.  In the present Supreme Court, in the dispensing of “equal justice,” Roberts is more often than not aided and abetted by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Anthony Alito, with Anthony Kennedy very often inclined to the right.  All were Republican nominated, and all are Catholic.

 Even persons who are only superficially acquainted with the democratic principles expressed in the U.S. Constitution are aware that religion and government are meant to be kept separate for the sake of both.  So it is reason for alarm when a Supreme Court Justice promotes himself as “an avenger of the Christian faith,” and in one of his speeches declare himself to be “a fool for Christ.”  Perhaps Supreme Court Justice Antonio Scalia meant it in jest: for the sake of true equal justice let us hope so.  On the other hand, he has openly shown his favoritism toward his taught beliefs when considering his version of “equal justice” in regard to a religious symbol, the cross, that had been placed on government land in the Mohave Desert in California.

The eight foot tall cross was allegedly erected as a war memorial, so Scalia declared that it did not meet with the definition of a Christian symbol!  The court’s judgment, written by Scalia: the cross is “…the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.”  Really?  Perhaps the dead Christians slumber peacefully because of it, but what of the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, native Americans, atheists or others of lesser known faiths who died for the nation?  Does the long shadow cast by that stark unnatural form really grant all those killed in war the respect that they deserve and earned from the nation?  Despite what Christian extremists claim, the United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation.  Article 11 in the U. S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797, which also officially ended the War of Independence with Great Britain, says, “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….”

Equal justice means taking into consideration all evidence to be considered in a case.  As an example of how the Supreme Court has significantly changed national laws, consider the case of Herring v. United States.  The nine Justices passed the decision, which cannot be reviewed, of when evidence must be excluded when police, through good faith or negligent conduct, violate the Fourth Amendment.  Limitations on this were presented with this decision, but it fractured old precedence.  Other precedents have suffered as well.  Plaintiffs relying on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act were thrown a curve in the 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett case when the Justices declared that individual employees cannot bring claims to court under federal age-discrimination law when they are part of collective bargaining agreement that required arbitration.  The Age Discrimination in Employment Act suffered more fracturing in Gross v. FBL Financial Services by making it more difficult for the plaintiffs in this case to meet burden of proof than did plaintiffs in other forms of employment discrimination suits.

And are true democratic principles being exercised when the possible innocence of a person convicted of a crime is denied a means of presenting scientific support of his/her innocence?  In the District Attorney of the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, the Supreme Court passed a 5-4 decision that those convicted of a crime had no Constitutional right to DNA testing, even though it would not cost the government one cent.  Were the Justices at all concerned about assuring that someone might prove their innocence even though they were convicted?  Is a mistake in identity such a rarity in the legal system?   Yeah, sure.

  • see also Supreme Court NOT for the Citizens, January 22, 2010.

We Are One

Posted in Atheist, belief, biological traits, culture, faith, humanity, life, logic, meaning of life, nature, random, religion with tags , , , , on November 1, 2009 by chouck017894

Beneath the surface differences that we think of as reality all life remains committed to interrelationship, and that is most remarkably shown in the ladder of life that we now know as DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).  Bogus spirituality and human cultivated ignorance keep too many persons blind to the fact that the DNA of every living person is 99.9 percent the same.  It doesn’t matter if one is tall or short, fat or thin, white, black, yellow or red, male or female, genius or slow-witted, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist, hetero or homo, all persons are composed of the exact same DNA.  Genetically speaking, every human on Earth is eerily close to being your identical twin! 

The majority of problems that have arisen among the human family is easily traced back to the so-called “holy revealed wisdom” in selected writings that has misled seekers to concentrate on what are only superficial differences.  As a result the human species continues to fail in understanding that all things in Creation remain interrelated.  This self-induced failure of spirit to see the common relationship of all things only makes for an atmosphere of smug ignorance where the smallest diversities are pointed to as inferior or even “an abomination” in the sight of the power that created them!   In truth, the real abomination is to hoard such ignorance as spiritual truth, for such ignorance only teaches hatreds, and cultivated hatreds breed only violence, and we wind up with the world in a state of constant bloody conflict that we now have.

Knowledge of our close interrelationship with each other and other life forms was discovered barely over one hundred years ago, so we do have great piles of ignorance to flush away.  And of course, religious doctrines that were fashioned millennia ago to calm fears of the unknown and for ego gratification are intolerant of questions, investigation and exposure about how life-forms actually manifest.  None of the scriptural heroes ever mentioned that every cell nucleus in the human body contains the genetic master code for the entire physical body, for example.  And it was only in occasional flashes of intuition that a hint of the interrelatedness of all life might bob up in an obsure verse or two in scripture.  But the great diversity of all the observable life forms just did not seem to support such strange suggestions.

The propaganda that spiritual understanding was saved when it turned to monotheistic comprehension attempts to suggest that it became intellectually understood that all things are made manifest out one source and are therefore interrelated.  That is not how the lumbering monotheistic religions conduct themselves, however.  In many ways the Pagan attitude that all things held its own divine essence and that their influence radiated about them brought intimacy to Creation.  That recognition was actually more respectful of the source-power that had brought them into manifestation than is the practice of shortsightedly focusing on the minor physical differences seemingly decreed by an impassive creative being.

Abortion Anxiety

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, biological traits, faith, humanity, medical, nature, random, religion, science, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , on October 29, 2009 by chouck017894

Thoughts in regard to news that an extreme fringe group of anti-abortionists is trying to drum up cash for legal defense of Scott Roeder, killer of Dr. George Tiller who tried to provide for women seeking safe abortion.

Ask most anti-abortion supporters where in the Bible it is stated that inducing abortion is forbidden and they dutifully allude to three or four selected biblical verses, especially the sixth Commandment forbidding killing.  Other verses cited are in regard to the conceiving of one special person such as a man who is allegedly meant to be a “prophet” or who is to become king.  Because God is referred to as having worked in the womb of some certain woman for God’s special purpose, none of the verses used as authority declare or even imply that God is the active participant in every conception.

A favorite bit of anti-abortion propaganda is a phrase in the first chapter of the book of Jeremiah, verse 5, that goes; “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee…”  If these Bible pickers would just read the rest of the passage, the words there do not support their argument.  The phrase held in such fanatic respect was allegedly spoken to Jeremiah personally, to whom God also allegedly said, “…before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet of nations.”  The soliloquy continues through verse 10 and elaborates on Jeremiah’s call as “prophet.”  So, unless everyone is to play the role of “prophet” to nations it cannot be said of them, “…before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.”

Another favorite bit of cherry picking the Bible is Psalms 139:13-16, supposedly composed by King David, that alludes, “…thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.”  And, “My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”  So, once again, only one particular pregnancy was personally activated and it does not support the claim that every conception is God-ordained.

The third popular selection of holy word ferreted out by anti-abortionists comes from Luke 1:39-41 that describes the unlikelihood of a fetus (who was to become John the Baptist) carried in Elisabeth’s body leaping in his mother’s womb when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, greeted her.  That passage is taken by anti-abortionists to imply that all gestating fetuses are sentient persons; but once again the account is in regard only to a “prophet” allegedly ordained by God. 

Religious dogma too often celebrates ignorance, such as the untruth that self-aware physical personhood begins at conception.  A fertilized egg—a zygote—within a woman’s abdomen becomes active with 23 chromosomes from her egg and 23 chromosomes from a man’s sperm.  The resultant single cell that evolves then contains all the DNA to initiate a cellular glob, but that cellular mass has only the potential to evolve into a physical independent being.  The unproven assertion that a cognizant human exists is not a scientific or holy fact.

During the gestation period, a simple cell amoeba becomes activated by drawing upon nutrients and oxygen supplied by the carrier, which then converts (evolves) into biological energy which causes cells to divide, multiply and grow.  The developing energy-substance, although containing all 46 chromosomes for a potential human being, is not yet endowed with consciousness of self.  It is still simply a growing amoeba, meaning that it is without consciousness of personhood.  This is the indifferent method as described in Genesis by which all life in nature was programmed to renew itself.

Although a zygote, the fertilized egg, does contain all 46 chromosomes that can involve and evolve as a potential human, it is alive only as a mass of cells that are multiplying as an energy substance which continues to lack any consciousness of self.  That energy-mass will react to stimulus around itself just as “dead” tissue can be made to jerk by electrical stimulation, but it does not and cannot exist except by drawing all necessary life stimulants from its carrier.  Until the developing mass can breathe and take nourishment with a smattering of consciousness, it remains only a potential person.