Patriot Politics

Discussing Creationism and Evolution with @Andrew_X_Thomas

2013-08-13T12:30:00.003-07:00

Recently on Twitter, @Andrew_X_Thomas and I had a disagreement--I think there is more evidence for creationism and he thinks evolution has more evidence. Instead of hurling insults like children we decided to have a civil and polite discussion on the matter here. So, I believe I have the privilege of making the opening statement.

What is Creationism?

First let me clear up exactly what I mean by creationism. A simple definition may be that God created organisms divided into kinds which may speciate, but may never change kind (eg. human kind, fish kind, dog kind, etc.) Taxonomically kinds may be defined as somewhere between class and family. As opposed to the "tree of life" used in evolutionary biology, a creationist would see the progress of life as below.

The what is commonly called "micro evolution" or speciation is not unique to the theory of evolution since creationism employs it as well.

The Problem with Abiogenesis

The major fundamental flaw with evolution is that there is no explanation for the origin of life. According to the theory of evolution there must be an abiogenetic method by which life has arisen. In the 50's, Miller and Urey did experiments in which a mixture of water and the gasses thought to be within the early atmosphere were passed through a system such as below which used electric discharges to simulate lightening on the early Earth.

The experiment yielded a mixture of amino acids and other organic molecules and the mechanism by which life arose was thought to be found.

But the experiment has serious flaws.

The mixture of gasses used were those that would be found in a reductive atmostphere, yet there is ample evidence that the early atmosphere was oxidative instead. This means that any amino acids or organic molecules produced would be oxidated shortly after they were formed and would not be usable as a building block of life. It is actually for this reason that the mixture of gasses used was reductive, because only a reductive atmosphere would be conducive to life.

Further, there is also a problem with the chirality of amino acids, DNA, RNA and sugars. All amino acids in the vast majority of species on Earth are homochiral left handed (with the exception of a handful of other species) and all DNA, RNA and sugars in all species on Earth are homochiral right handed (again with the few exceptions.) However, all organisms on Earth to have these same chiralities poses a problem since the results of Miller-Urey type experiments yield equal amounts of each handedness of molecule. Since the current evolutionary idea is that there was a "ring of life" in which life arose simultaneously in many areas one would expect there to be 4 distinct types of organisms with each possible combination of chiralities. However, only 1 combination (amino left handed and carbohydrate right handed) exists. This would either point to the idea that a single organism gave rise to all life (which science has rejected) or that life could not have arisen in its current form if Miller-Urey type pathways are responsible for the abiogenesis of life.

There are many more problems with Miller-Urey type experiments including the effects of Brownian motion, the origin of DNA and RNA, the concentration of organic molecules in primordial soup, etc. but the former two are the most succinct and immediate problems with this method of abiogenesis.

However, the major problem arises when one considers that if Miller-Urey type pathways of abiogenesis are discarded, there is no valid alternative to the problem with the origin of life. Some argue transpermia as an alternative, but all this explanation does is move the problem of abiogenesis to another planet. Since there is no viable, well supported theory of the origin of life; the naturalistic view of abiogenesis is essentially faith: Scientists know life arose by chemical means without the intervention of a God without any evidence or proof to support this position.

Due to technical difficulties you can read the debate on @Andrew_X_Thomas's website.

INFOGRAPHIC: Abortion: The Saddening Statistics

2013-08-12T14:54:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul's Question

2013-08-09T12:33:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I attended a meet and greet even in my hometown in south eastern Kentucky by Rand Paul. The event was short; he gave a ten minute speech about how the EPA and Obama's war on coal have destroyed the economy of this part of Kentucky and how many families have sunk into poverty because of the lost mining jobs. He spoke about how coal is the most economically viable and efficient means of energy production and is vital if the US seeks energy independence. He concluded his speech by showing how even when the government subsidizes "green" energy jobs (eg. Solyndra) these jobs are economic nightmares.

Rand Paul may have only spoke for a few minutes, but in those few minutes he spoke about economic viability, pragmatism, and true energy independence--essentially things liberals hate to talk about. This showed very clearly at the end when Paul asked if there were any questions. There was only time for three questions (sorry Virgil Edwards, I didn't get to ask.) The first of these three questions, however, showed me more than the answer to any question I could ask could have. It went like this:

PAUL: "So we have time for three questions or comments. Anyone?"
LADY: "Mr. Rand, you said that the EPA and Obama are causing miners to lose jobs, but that is untrue! It's because coal is harder to mine now so they have to mechanize the process and the people are losing jobs to the machines. The EPA regulations don't affect the mines."
PAUL: "Right...so the comment was that jobs are being lost because of machines, not regulation; but the coal industry is like every other industry: when they become mechanized there are more jobs created, not fewer. They become more efficient and can mine more coal, people work on the machines as mechanics, there are factories producing machines; but this isn't what is happening. Entire mines are being closed down because they're taxed to death....[Continues with a very thorough and concise argument]
LADY: [A frown permanently freezes on her face]

If you know anything at all about coal, this lady's argument is absurd. Coal mining has been mechanized for decades. From the early days when carts were used to rush coal to the surface to today when giant augers and drills are used, machines have always been inextricably linked to coal mining. This dissonance between the lady's perception of reality and how things actually are is (sadly) very common among liberals. They don't care about things like economics, reason, or even logic. They invent reasons why things are the way they are and ignore the facts.

Stereotypical Republican

2013-08-01T18:31:00.001-07:00

DISCLAIMER: I am abundantly aware that conservative and republican do not mean the same thing. After all, if they did they would have the same spelling. However, it is true that in the US there is no conservative party (yet) so most conservatives vote republican.

Ask any person what a stereotypical Republican is and two polar opposites invariably are the answer. Either they are fat cat CEO's who, being the robber barons of industry, will do any unscrupulous thing to make a buck; or they are the uneducated, uncivilized country hicks who thump their Bibles while insisting they "don't need no education."

These two common perceptions of Republicans show some of the more serious flaws of liberal propaganda and even highlight the integrity of conservatives.

Whatever They Are, It's Bad!

This seems to be the common theme of ingrained societal stereotypes of Republicans. The image of an uncaring, fat cat is one of a person that, although intelligent and wealthy, has no moral character and is a slave to the love of money. The image of a country bumpkin is one of a person that, although moral and honest, is unintelligent and destitute (presumably because of their disregard for education.) The common themes in both these images are that Republicans are bad. That sounds pretty obvious, but due to the overarching failure of these stereotypes to be consistent, it is clear that there is no immediate flaws with the ideology, so instead invented personae have been constructed as straw men in order to be knocked down.

What We Really Are

So, what are Republicans really? Of course there are people who act exactly like the stereotypes, but these people are only an unimaginably small percent of all Conservative-Republicans. The true image? It is you, the average person. Republicans are the everyday, average people who want what is best for everybody. They are the critical thinkers and evaluators of history, science, and reason. They are those who have a stronger moral fiber and act accordingly. They are charitable, kind and generous. That is why any sane person would covet the title "conservative" and vote Republican.

Final Thoughts

There are stereotypes of every group of people imaginable. That includes liberals. However, stereotypes of liberals are based on legitimate flaws in their ideology and are universally consistent (unlike the Republican stereotypes.) While I in no way condone the labeling of people on stereotypes, it is interesting to see the disconnect between the image of Republicans and the way they really are.

How to Destroy America

2013-07-29T18:08:00.002-07:00

The title may be a bit off-putting, so allow me to be clear: I write this article only to identify the ways in which America is currently being assaulted from within with the intent to quash these practices. I in no way wish to see the end of America--instead I wish to see its restoration.

America: The Monolithic Melting Pot

It's an old analogy that America, while still a British colony, was the great melting pot of cultures, languages and people. It was this early diversity and unification that lead to our national motto E Pluribus Unum which is Latin for "Out of many, one." This diversity made America strong because all people, cultures, ethnicity, and groups of people were unified under a single flag. Indeed, such a set up was ideal for propelling this country to the status of a world superpower in less than 200 years, a feat that has never been accomplished before. Diversity and unity were two dual and essential social concepts which made America the invincible nation.

E Pluribus Plures

If the national motto of a country which could not be defeated was E Pluribus Unum, then the polar opposite of such a country (one that is fragile and weak) is almost certainly E Pluribus Plures, "Out of many, multiple." Diversity without unity is a gun pointed at one's head. Indeed, perhaps the most cliched military tactics is "divide and conquer." A single, unified army is impervious to attack, yet many smaller ones easily fall.

Dividing the Whole

So from this we can see one of the most necessary components of destroying America: division. If America is divided into many smaller groups of people who hold loyalty only to their group then it can easily fall. When people identify as "African-American," "Asian-American," "Latino-American," or any other hyphenated group, they are drawing the lines of division that are the bane of America's strength. Divided along ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, gender, class, etc. America becomes not a single nation, but hundreds of smaller nations.

Liberal Division

In America today, division is being actively pursued by liberal policy. Affirmative action breeds contempt among races, insinuating that without government intervention minorities will be discriminated against which instigates race warfare. Welfare breeds contempt for those with more money, instigating class warfare. The systematic purging of religion from the public view breeds contempt between the religious and non religious, instigating religious intolerance. In the end, the lines of division are drawn from within.

Final Thoughts

So what may we do to avoid this division and weakening of America? The single biggest thing is to stop identifying as "XXXX-American" and simply as "American." The second is to pursue rational and civil debates on differences in a polite and controlled manner. If these two things alone were practiced by the majority of Americans, our nation would remain true to its motto.

A Question for Atheists: The Book of God's Existence

2013-07-28T15:24:00.003-07:00

Atheists maintain that rejection of faith is superior to practicing faith. However, despite this commonly held view, one may at least force an atheist to admit he/she is capable of practicing faith. Simply ask this question:

Suppose there exists a book simply titled "The Book of God's Existence" which, using formal logic and reasoning, proves the existence of God. However, if one who does not already believe in God reads this book that person is doomed to eternal damnation. Many prominent and vocal atheists have read the book intending to prove it wrong, but in each case they immediately become depressed believing their fate in Hell is assured.

You, as an atheist, are not convinced that the book is correct. In fact, you're almost certain that it can be proven wrong since you discover it is simply a modified ontological argument and have successfully found logical fallacies in numerous other similar arguments. What do you do?

There are only 3 valid actions that an atheist may take:

Refuse to read the book, but continue to deny God's existence.
Refuse to read the book, but accept God's existence.
Read the book.

Each action requires a display of faith, either in God or one's self. Here's why:

1. If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I wouldn't believe in God either" they express a blind faith that the book is fallacious without examination of its contents and in direct conflict with the evidence that every atheist who has read the book believes in God--even those who were most vocal about their non belief.

2.If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I would believe in God's existence" they express a blind faith that the book is correct without examination of its contents and accept the testimony of those who have read it as correct without any real proof to validate their claims. Most importantly, however, they also express a faith in God.

3. Unfortunately, this is the choice most atheists would make. If they respond to the question with "I would just read the book" they express a blind faith that their intuition of the book's fallibility is correct without any evidence. Further, they show a faith that the testimony of all the atheists who read the book is misguided despite the fact that each person who read the book was a strong atheist before, most likely including others that had also successfully refuted other ontological arguments. However, the greatest faith they place is in their belief that they will not be damned to Hell for reading the book without assurance.

Final Thoughts

In the end, each person is "granted a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3) by God, and an atheist is no different. Despite the claims that they will not express any faith, they are quite capable of doing so in many different situations. This question is simply a thought experiment to point out that they are indeed capable of faith.

********UPDATE********

Although not clearly explained in the question, one may assume that the reason for eternal damnation after reading the book is because a proof of God's existence means a person does not exercise faith in God or Jesus Christ, but instead logic. For this reason, the person commits blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (the only unforgivable sin) for essentially having no faith in God. After all, one doesn't have to have faith the sky is blue or any other proven thing.

Further, you can assume that the number of atheist who read the book is irrelevant. Their combined knowledge covered every facet of atheism, agnosticism and ignosticism as well as every refutation for every argument for the existence of God. Suffice it to say they, as a group, represent the summation of all of atheist thought.

Finally, one can assume that the knowledge of the nature of the argument (ie. it's ontological) alone does not damn one to Hell, and this knowledge was gained from others who had read the work previously.

Discussion on the Origin of God with @NowAtheist

2013-07-26T06:31:00.000-07:00

Who created God? This is one of the major questions that atheist use to justify their beliefs. It was first published by Betrand Russel and is still asked today by such prominent atheists as Richard Dawkins . However, lets dissect this question and find its logical conclusion.

We may provide the first premise the conclusion of the argument is based on which is everything with a beginning has a sufficient cause. This is simple enough: its straightforward logic. If a mirror shatters then something must have caused it to do so. Things do not spontaneously appear or happen (if it did then this would be a egregious transgression of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics) and thus one can safely assume this premise.

However, less intuitively the corollary of this premise, namely everything without a beginning has no cause. It makes sense that something that is truly infinite and eternal and able to transcend all universes would have no cause: nothing to make it appear or happen. Of course, such a situation cannot happen in our universe due to the aforementioned laws of physics. Therefore, it follows that any object that has no beginning is extraneous to the universe.

Further, we may also draw the premise that there must be a first cause. There really is no way around this. If the universe has a beginning (which it does) and the premise that everything with a beginning has a sufficient cause then it follows the universe had a cause. There are currently two explanations for this: either 1. it is a by-product of complex processes that operate in a multiverse in which new universes such as our own can be created or destroyed, or 2. it is a product of God. Naturally one may be inclined to accept the first as more reasonable, however, for the same reasons as our own universe, a multiverse must also have a beginning: some temporal point in which it existed that before which it did not. Of course, you could draw more elaborate hierarchies of multiverses to encompass our own, but this would always be subject to the same flaw: that it must have a first cause.

This is why God makes most sense. If God has no beginning, then He has no cause. This means He is a perfectly suitable entity to initiate the first cause of the universe (or multiverse.) Logically, the premises that lead to this conclusion may be summarized as follows:

Everything with a beginning has a cause.
Everything without a beginning does not have a cause.
Because of the temporal geometry of the universe, there must be a first cause.
The first cause is either initiated by God or a mechanism of the multiverse.
The multiverse must also have a beginning such as our own universe.
Therefore, God is the most likely first cause.

Within the context of this logical framework the question "Who created God" is really moot. If there was an entity that created God, then that would violate the logic of first cause. Simply because God is the first cause, the intelligence that created the multiverse, and because He is extraneous to our own universe and therefore not subject to the same laws of physics as we are, it follows that God must not have a creator.

Homosexuality: Disrupting God's Soul Mates

2013-07-25T16:46:00.001-07:00

DISCLAIMER: This post is predicated on Christian theology and is addressed to Christians.

As a Christian, one of the things that discourages me most is the large number of fellow Christians that accept, and even advocate the legalization of gay marriage. There are even some churches that refuse to marry straight couples until gay couples are allowed the same. However, a Christian that truly believes it is best to allow people to marry who they wish and that God is omniscient is severely contradicting himself and allowing himself to be "carried about with every wind of doctrine."

God's Plan

Let us begin by explaining this hypocrisy with the most rudimentary of theology. Most Christians would agree that God is omniscient--that is, He is an all-knowing God with infinite wisdom. So it follows that what God prescribes or ordains is best for us. In Genesis 1:21-25 Adam was in need of a helper; alone in the world, he had not a suitable helper to aid him in tending the Garden of Eden. For this reason, God created Eve, his helper. This was God's creation of the institution of marriage; in verse 24 it says "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh." By extension, this means God has created every man a soul mate--a helper that the man shall cling unto and become one. This forms the first basic theological point: that God has created every person a soul mate that is best for that person.

What if this soul mate happens to be of the same sex? Many Christians who advocate gay marriage no doubt fall into this same trap of ignoring that God does not make one's soul mate the same sex. Many times in the Bible (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, Jude 1:7, etc.) homosexuality is shown as an abomination unto God with severe consequences. Some dismiss the most explicit passage in Leviticus simply because it is in the Old Testament, however this is a moral law, not a ceremonial or cultural, which means it is still as binding today as the 10 commandments (future article to come soon.) Everywhere the practice in mentioned in God's Word it is shown as a sin. This forms the second basic theological point: that homosexuality is a sin.

Destroying Soul Mates

Given that the two points made in the last section are accepted by Christians (which is easy enough since the Bible explicitly points out both numerous times) it is easy to see why homosexuality hurts people: because it stops a person from marrying the soul mate that God designed specifically for them. Think about it, every person has someone who God made for them which, according to His plan, is the best person for them to marry--their soul mate. A person's soul mate will help, guide, and strengthen them throughout life as well as love and care for them with a deep love. However, to support homosexual marriage is to either deny that this is true (which I have shown earlier it is true) or to support someone marrying a person that isn't their soul mate and therefore isn't best for them.

Final Thoughts

As I consider Christians who support same-sex relations, I suppose they do so in an effort to help others live the best life they can and be truly loved. In short, it is compassion that moves them. However, this sentiment is expressed in contradiction to God's Word. If a Christian were truly compassionate upon a homosexual, they would teach them the Word of God, show them that God has designed a special soul mate for them and help them enter into a biblical and godly marriage. By supporting traditional marriage, a Christian supports the idea that the soul mate which God has created for a person is the best spouse for him/her. If you know a Christian that supports gay marriage, please share this article with them and help guide them on a path of biblical truth in love. Also, to those who say homosexuality is permanent, I would encourage you to watch the following testimony.

What is Open Mindedness?

2013-07-21T16:55:00.003-07:00

Open mindedness seems to be the all-important virtue for our society today: those who have mastered it are treated as intellectual geniuses who have evolved beyond themselves to embrace the world, and those who do not are treated as imbeciles unable to participate in any form of intelligent discussion. However, even with our obsession over this virtue, many people are unable to grasp what it means or practice it--including those who hail it as the chief political virtue.

Open Mindedness Predicated on Humility

In order to be open minded you must be willing to change your currently held ideas and beliefs if sufficient evidence has convinced you the opposite to be true. This should be a rather common sense practice: once you're proven wrong you change your opinion to coincide with the truth. However, to do this, one must accept that they are in error, something which only the humble can easily do. It is for this reason that open mindedness, and the ability to earnestly seek the truth is predicated on humility, yet this same humility is lacking in most of society today--especially those who boast that they are experts or more intelligent.

A Conservatives Best Debate Tool

Open mindedness is a great tool to use in debates with liberals. It usually tends to be a liberals that pride themselves on open mindedness and tolerance, yet when they are faced with opposing political opinions they quickly deny their legitimacy with any number of insults (eg racist, homophobe, Bible-thumper, etc.) However, this can be used to a conservative's advantage with a simple question:

Do you consider yourself open minded?

The most likely answer is "yes" to which one should reply "Open minded enough to consider my thoughts? Good. Then ...." and proceed with the argument. This is not only useful only for presenting the argument in a fair manner, but also instrumental in concessions. Because the majority of conservative ideologies (if not all) are based on simple truths, and logical premises and conclusions, open mindedness can be used to gain a concession. After the arguments have been presented and you've justified your position with statistics, logic, and science, the other person will either agree that you are correct and leave knowing the truth, or they will insist that their fallacious ideas are correct. To which you may simply reply:

You told me you were open minded. I've shown you how (my argument) is correct with reasonable, logical conclusions drawn from reasonable premises. If you really are open minded why won't you concede that your argument doesn't hold up under inspection?

This is of course only a rough template, but the idea is the same. Expose their hypocrisy in hailing a virtue they do not possess. Even if they never do concede, those who watch your debate or listen in will understand that yours is the more level headed and logical argument.

Final Thoughts

Open mindedness, at least for some people, is a virtue they praise but do not truly understand or hold. When you use it as a tool to expose the truth, nobody who holds truthful ideas or positions will ever fear it. It is only those whose pride and hubris does not allow them to be wrong that cannot accept this virtue and these people will always drift through life always believing lies and fallacious arguments.

Even Dollars

2013-06-30T17:44:00.002-07:00

Today's society seems to be dominated by ideas of efficiency, and rightly so: the most efficient methods of using time or resources lead in the end to a more profitable endeavor. With such a premium placed on this virtue of the modern era, it is surprising to see that one of the most mundane aspects of life, paying for goods, is also one of the most wasteful and inefficient aspects of our society. However, the solution is simply and easily implemented: include tax in the price of goods (like gasoline) and set the price to even dollar amounts.

Why the Current System is Flawed

Go to the average supermarket and purchase a single item; perhaps a book for $4.99. The sales tax of your state is 8.875%. You clearly have no idea how much money you owe until you've checked out, and even then one must receive a number of small coins in change. This scenario illustrates two of the most inefficient and easily fixable aspects of added sales tax: namely the inability to ready exact change if one must pay with cash as well as the existence of change which is detrimental to the company and the individual.

Supermarket Traffic Jam

Let's take them one at a time. First the exact change. Although there are fewer people who pay exclusively by cash today, there are large populations that prefer this classic payment method. However, time is wasted by counting out cash that could have been readied before hand if the price were known. Although the amount of time it adds to a single transaction may be negligible (15 or 20 second) the time quickly adds up when a line of customers wishes to pay for their goods until the amount of time wasted is minutes. The same phenomenon happens in traffic jams: a single car slows down and the car behind it slows down too, going ever so slightly slower. Eventually the chain continues until the freeway is at a standstill without any cause except the magnification of small changes in speed. In such a way check out lines become horribly inefficient and slow means of paying for goods when every transaction takes longer than necessary thereby wasting the time of the cashier as well as every person in line.

Coins are Leeches

When a large supermarket has coins and bills delivered by an armored car, a fee is added according to the weight of the money transported. This is ultimately the reason that dollar coins, although more efficient for a country, are less efficient for a business since they weigh more than a bill and therefore cost more to transport. Since storing and transporting coins costs money, it should then be questioned how to either eliminate or restrict the amount of coins that are handled.

Enter the even dollar method.

Since all goods already have taxes included in this system, a cartload of groceries may cost $214.00. This is an exact number, one that can be paid in all bills. When all customers orders ring up as even dollar amounts the need for pennies, nickels and dimes to give exact change is eliminated which means the store does not have to waste as much money transporting and storing change.

Final Thoughts

Although changing the current system would be complex and involve cooperation between manufacturers and stores in complex agreements over price, in the end including tax in goods saves the public and stores time and money. Of course, I'm not the first one to ever propose the idea: England already includes taxes in the price of goods. In the end, the stores that employ this method will not only gain a competitive edge over other stores by saving time and money, but will draw a larger customer base due to convenience. I understand this is a complex and very involved issue, but the ideas behind it are sound: they only need implemented.

Let me know what you think: do you own a store or business? Could you implement this system? Does it sound feasible for your purposes? Leave a comment below!

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

2013-06-28T18:32:00.000-07:00

"You can't say gay couples shouldn't be married, after all, they are born that way." is one of the most common arguments for gay "marriage." The idea is if the public is convinced that homosexuality is innate and not a choice, then the public as a whole will become more accepting of homosexuality and gay marriage. However, this argument has no scientific support and indeed, neurology may provide an explanation of how homosexuality is indeed a choice.

Hasn't it Been Proven to be Genetic?

The short answer is no--there has never been any biologic or genetic explanation for homosexuality. In fact, Colombia University professors Dr. Byrne and Parsons explain that there "Is no evidence at present to substantiate a biological theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data." Quite simply, there is absolutely no experimental or observational evidence that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, there is much more evidence that it is due to psychological conditions or the persons own free will. This would indeed explain the large number of ex-gay persons who become heterosexual after a religious experience.

So, Why Are They Gay?

Although there are a number of theories, none of which have been tested, I personally hold one to be most likely: namely, that homosexuality is a result of a neural plastic connections favoring homosexual behavior being strengthened by active stimulus. This is simply a smarter way to say that when a person's reward centers in the brain are triggered during sexually deviant acts (such as homosexuality) a connection between homosexuality and rewards builds. Perhaps this short video can explain better than I the mechanism by which I purpose homosexuality is derived.

Simply replace the porn addiction with homosexuality and its a pretty concise and intuitive reason for homosexuality. However, what is most interesting about the video was the part at the end. Specifically when the narrator said that porn addiction can be overcome by actively blocking the stimulus. Which brings me to my final point.

Ex-Gays: Evidence Against Innate Homosexuality

There exists large populations of people who, having been homosexual for long periods of time, decide to no longer be homosexual. Many reasons exist for their wishing to leave the homosexual lifestyle, but the most prevalent ones are internal--not dictated by societal pressure as shown here. This includes spiritual as well as emotional reasons. Pretty simply, if homosexuality truly was innate, something one is born with like left handedness, then there should be virtually no people leaving homosexuality. However, large numbers of people do, which strongly indicates that heterosexuality is the default for all people.

Why It Matters

One of the ways that homosexual activists plan on integrating their perversion into the public and achieving their goal of marriage redefinition is by swaying public opinion. One of the easiest ways to do this is by constructing the image of an oppressed people who are unfairly treated due to no fault of their own. Simply put, they want to victimize themselves so the average American will emotionally support their agenda. However, this method can only work if it appears they have no control over their oppression, ie. born that way. By perpetuating the lie that homosexuality isn't a choice, their propaganda is strengthened and their goals are even nearer. So what, dear reader, may you do to stop this? Share the truth: simply explain why homosexuality is a choice and educate the public. In due time the truth shall surface and their foot shall slide; but we can help it along.

When Does Life Begin?

2013-06-09T14:59:00.003-07:00

Pro choice advocates never fail to explain that there is no way to know for sure when life begins and that the answer is purely philosophical: only able to be answered by religion which, they are quick to point out, has no place in government. However, this somewhat logical sounding conjecture is based upon a faulty premise: that there is no way to determine when life begins, when in fact there is a simple and quite clear answer from science, namely, that life does indeed begin at conception.

Biology and Life

Biology, after all, is the study of life, so biologist have determined 7 criteria that all life meets. Although not a perfect model, it does work for all known life including humans. These 7 criteria are:

Homeostasis
Organization
Metabolism
Growth
Adaptation
Response to Stimuli
Reproduction

By definition, if something meets all 7 of these criteria, then it is alive. This is the way scientists can logically classify viruses as not alive and bacteria as alive. However, when these seven criteria are applied to the zygote (fertilized egg) it becomes clear that it is indeed alive simply because it meets all 7 criteria.

The only place this is not considered alive is
in the philosophy of a pro-choice advocate.

What About Sperm and Eggs?

When applying science to the issue of abortion, pro choice advocates immediately argue that sperm and eggs are alive too, so to say purposefully aborting a zygote is murder is akin to saying menstruating is murder as well. However, this is a glaring example of a reductio ab adsurdum fallacy. Sperm and eggs are alive, but they are part of the person that produces them simply because they have the exact same copy of DNA as the man or woman. However, since a zygote contains unique DNA, it is clearly not part of the woman or the man, but instead a new individual. Since the zygote contains DNA that differs from the mother or father, is biologically, scientifically and medically alive, and abortion terminates the viability of the zygote, abortion is therefore murder to any logical mind.

A Final Thought

In arguing against abortion, many pro choice advocates who hear this argument simply reply "All those arguments have been dismissed by the courts a long time ago. If it's not illegal then they must have thought about that and saw its all right." This, however, is putting a large amount of blind faith into an imperfect court system. After all the courts at one time argued that slaves were subhuman and since they weren't people they didn't deserve the same rights as white men (Dred Scott v. Sanford.) Today this is seen as a glaringly racist statement and is condemned as such. In such a manner, the abortion of children on the basis that they are not people and don't deserve the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else will eventually be seen as an infanticidal decision and Roe v. Wade will one day be overturned.

Of course, there are a number of logistical problems with completely outlawing abortion, but if done in incremental steps with appropriate infrastructure for the placement of unwanted babies in caring homes, this crime against humanity can be eliminated.