W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Volume What is New
The Australian May 18,
Paul Kelly Editor- at- large
Is it fitting that a political leader*1 (or any other) should intimate that anyone who does not follow his ideas on what is called 'gender fluidity' is a bigot, when billions of virtual voices in a given, healthy human being deny that gender is fluid ? being the provided pathway for the continuation of the race. Thus in the expression of sometime Professor J.C. Sanford of Cornell "Genetic Entropy"), there are trillions of (nucleated) cells in the human body, and each one of them contains information equivalent to many sets of encyclopedias in a segment smaller than a speck of dust. They are constituents of a how-to-make instruction manual which is not just linear in commands, organisation and over-riding self-corrections, but subtly multi-purpose, amazingly miniaturised and at various levels of overview, staggering in its facilities, abilities and review-release potential.
Let us bring this to one current point in the history of the culture, the vulture-culture of this nation, its degrading diversion from reality.
There is far more than a sentence here; or a normal sized book; for there is a set of brilliance of efficiency, virtual conception, over-arching directive provisions and word equivalents which are duplicated to the point almost of delightful humour, as if every brick were stamped with the complex seal of the company - it is just that in this case, that seal is the equivalent of millions of words.
Are there not found massive multitudes in any one person, of manifest instructions about the building of babies in successive generations, in the DNA, and associated means of instruction, protection and correction for the minute colossus ? and are these not impressing and expressing, amongst other things, that there is the male and the female variety? Is this also to be ignored as if it were not so ? Why precisely ?
In an almost unimaginable enthronement of man, in the persons of children at the beck of educators, there is now, even in the more moderate exploits of government (as distinct from that which like to govern and is seeking to do so) a series of programs with the desire to expose children to diversity of gender concepts so that they may choose what they prefer!
Is then man so placed that anything a person desires is to be granted ? This is like making this provision for something far more complex than any space-ship, and that on the part of minors, even long before their full rational complement is in place.
But this dream is mere bagatelle belligerency and racist self-worship, as if there is no god so powerful as the one who had a beginning and each member of which genre has an end in not very distinguished circumstances, as far as this earth is concerned.
No, the power to have what you want, accomplish what pleases you, is not for man as he is to be found, for the members of this race, whatever the grace that God has and gives on His own conditions.
Such power for mankind is simply not so and dreams of this kind, whether personal or for a nation form a basis for endless wars. Is then naturalism to be joined with anti-naturalism ? If, to take the former term, 'nothing' is seen as able to make anything - a mere logical contradiction, but used by some as a basis for the universe, or if nature is to be made able to make nature (itself) before it is there to do it, with other naturalist myths, what then is the ultimate penalty for this subjugation of reality to fancy ? Whatever its end, its beginning is irrational, not even a matter of argument.
Trying to take refuge in ignorance is no answer, for the logic is missing whatever the basis. Well does one remember one of the British famed 'experts' in this biological and physical field, rambling on in some broadcast and saying, in effect:
Oh, what happened at the first ? well there was something or other, known or unknown, some type of thing, process, imaginable, unimaginable, whatever, and ... SO ON.
Now first this crucial aspect, the beginning, is here not given serious attention, and ANYTHING LESS SCIENTIFIC would probably be impossible to find, that is, anything deceptive. First, there is no definition, second no specification, third no evidence leading on to hypothesis that most nearly matches the things that has been found to happen, fourth there is no specification of logically adequate alternatives, or anything logically informed to consider. Imagine trying to account for magnetism in this way.
The sort of pseudo-scientific talk cited is in short an escape into vagueness and muddle. The crux of that 'answer' then is this. First, the theorist does not know the answer to the question. Secondly, he does not know how it would work. Thirdly, he has no basis for it, nor does he have anything to test. Fourthly, his propositions amount to nothing, for there is nothing formed and formulated which has what is needed, words not amounting to deeds. It is literally, much ado about nothing, which CAN do nothing and so is merely a verbal wander.
Nothing has neither future nor potential nor does it emit possibilities of ANY kind in ANY case, ANYWHERE, since the case is then simply self-contradictory and the mind has wandered. If there is to be a future for what is termed 'nothing' however vaguely (and unscientifically), then it is by definition at once NOT nothing but something-with-a-potential. The same applies to every other kind of wriggle*1A. If you have no money, it is useless telling us what cash accounts you have: they amount to nothing as stated.
As to the DNA construction actually apparent in trillions of statement or expressions in each of billions of people, why did it start, why did its vast provision cease; and if it were based on what is inadequate, why contradict reality by having it happen anyway; and if it were based on what is sufficient, why not name it and its minimal qualities in the usual way, as those of God.
If you want God, why not let Him speak, and cease interrupting, as if He did not quite know what to do, and you did; or as if His form of speech in DNA which though brilliant, as design, in fact deteriorates over time, as Sanford attests in the human case, were susceptible to simple contradiction! Why play God ? it takes work and the power of God so to act. If logic can trace His works, how were they made without it, instead of being a prime exhibit of that in our own minds, which tally with it and seek to explain in terms of it! Why make self-contradiction a routine, like a dancer who appears insistent on arousing the lust of desire, not the awareness of reality.
Take now the unnatural part in this review. This of course applies to the contradiction of what from Professor Sanford we learn is expressed trillions of times in a human body, the all but inconceivably complex but directive genetic information control and perform basis, each one set down! To contradict these flaring trillions of symbolic statement, like an endless moan, is mere submission to what is unnatural, contrary to the nature inherent in man. That is UNNATURAL NATURALISM, which cannot or will not conform even to its own subservience to what it calls 'nature' but each servant is actively contradicting his master concept even while he argues for 'nature'. Moreover, in this case, the term 'experimental' is used in the basis for such interference with the minds of children. But that too contradicts the STATEMENTS so stunning in their repetition in EACH living person on earth. Whistling in the dark is a symphony compared with this appalling clash.
Is what is NATURALLY apparent in the genetic orders that make babies for new generations, without experimentation, then, to be rejected for gender fluidity, and that in terms of experimental, naturalistic concepts ? Let us face up to a few more myths. Preoccupation with myths is precisely what the Bible predicts (II Timothy 4:4), together with that with gender changes (Romans 1)!
If you are going to play the lordly part, and imagine and secure a gender for yourself while a child, why not as an adult imagine that you are not part of mankind, and certify yourself as a god ? Assuredly by this means, you will not become one.
Is this not the very acme of confusion! Those who disagree with these irrational findings, futile fundings, they are called bigots ? Who then is a bigot ? and why ? and why not actually learn to reason in this case, instead of waving both convulsive-seeming law to discourage, to homogenise propaganda and make it stick, and abuse as if truth were irrelevant, and emotional frenzy had to sway the people ? It almost appears that all means to this end are being taken.
*1 DREAMS, IDEAS, FACTS AND DELINQUENCIES
AND TOYING WITH THE MINDS OF CHILDREN
Consider the survival idea. Some things do and some do not survive, and the removal of some bad cases may help reduce the rate of DEGRADATION, but that is reduced ruin, not advance. Let us look further at that.
Take an illustration.
First, if you interfere with a highly complex, multi-systematic, conceptually correlated, exceedingly crafted machine with assembly line techniques achieving in its production a low tolerance, highly schematised result, then to have a child play with it, with someone or something able to carry out any whim, would predictably lead to nothing good, only its ruin through its insensitivity and unawareness, of the marvel of creation that had been made.
The longer the child went, the worse the result would be expected to be, so that you might rush to have him removed from such a position of degradational power, counting in your head how much time before the child is stopped, for each new muddle about to be ruined in the creation, through this desecration.
To suggest in such a case, that on the whole and overall, if you had a million children doing this on a million machines (such as a million cells if they were made large enough), it would advance the economy, would be a position for the deficient mentally, to envisage. The levels of operation are simply far too high for any good thing to be expected, since the child might rarely outwit the geniuses who made it, and stumble on some slight improvement; but not for long.
Since it is increasingly clear that individual genes are grouped in clusters to achieve a multi-molecular and organically effectual result, then many of the advance-type oddities, occurring within their mantles of co-operative multiplicity of parts, would be required in the same, co-ordinated direction, if you want progress. When trillions is the total of information-relevant parts in man, and many dimensions work doubly or even trebly as it appears in advancing labours such as Sanford reviews in the book cited, then all hope of actual advance becomes a merely different name for creation. This is distinct from the throwing of effectual switches of control, leading to programmed potential for adjustment and adaptation to type to environment, which is now being found to be inherent in the robustness of life.
Such imagination of multiplied, sensitised, mutually moving, highly programmed, multi-layered switches being simultaneously moved in the right direction is substitution of contradiction for overall possibilities; so that even if a few thousand hopefuls came, their direction and impact in multiple manners would be like using pincers to cut your nails: grossly inept and obviously ruinous.
Micro-biology's contribution to this point, as shown in Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, is to show that there are no gradational evidences at that level, but that placements of relevant items are specific and specialised, not merging in type (cf. pp. 271,278).
Sanford's experimental reviews show that ludicrously ungoverned imagination scarcely makes works of genius, where the main imagined contribution is not the tinkerings of a child, but a work of NO intelligence, with NO purpose. If you insist on that scenario, then you be prepared for its result, instead of worshipping nature in some inscrutable and irrational fashion.
This then is not only ENTIRELY contrary to the character of the evidence, the construction, the living object in hand, but the equivalent of barbaric invasions of an electronically run city, by people wielding axes, with no ability to deal with the sophisticated type of material before them, EVEN IF they wanted a better result; and even that is not true of 'Nature", however often this fact is overlooked in the exuberance of imagination by theorists. It has no wants.
Thus, 'Nature' does not try to fill gaps, which might seem obviously to be places for this or that development to the brimming scientist, because it is NOT AWARE of them, and the idea that what intelligence can make out as an idea that might prove fruitful in some way entices, entails or draws things to seize that idea, when vast numbers of generations, even in this fiction, are required which die unhelped and so obliterative of possible advance, in the meantime, is just one more futile contribution. It is one more idea out of the void of ideas which must be faced, when you try to make what does not think not only make what does, but make it able to verify the irrationalities which led to the creation, using reason to do it!
A further problem is that the advanced information and distillation of concurrence with what is there, from sites of potential action, is not seen to happen. DETERIORATION is the direction Sanford has shown, for the race serviced by skill-lessness (the concept is as ludicrous as the word is ugly), for that equipment whose mechanics are certified as never having taken any course, or without the wit to grasp the teaching if they had, and as having no power to correlate materials, even if they stared them in the face. This is known fallaciously as science, rare in these parts in terms of methods. Indeed, to call this science is almost too like an attempt to be facetious to take seriously. It is anti-science, dismissal of its methods. But let us contrast the method of science.
In this case, you look at what is happening, and make theories about it to explain, rather than NOT look at it and make theories NOT to explain in logical terms, anything at all. That, by contrast with scientific method, is the nature of propaganda; and just as the best of a deteriorating series of second and third generation items, is not the same as an improvement on the original, but implies the slowing down before utter ruin, by selection of the least spoiled, so using an instructor from successive generations of students, each one having no access to the original or the meanings, can lead only to a wayward wandering devoid of the first principles back of the original. Improvement ?
It is not as if spoliation through lack of skill is not the way of slackness and loss. Maintenance never loses its place in this world; not sloppy carelessness, let alone total lack.
appeal in terms of
intelligence, agility, ability, skill,
if set at NOUGHT as
a means of shaping
is merely a work of perversity.
On the contrary, you would in science need to look for the most rationally inclined, conceptually aware, correlatively sensitised, heavily inter-connected capacities to grasp the type of thing and work at that level. Assuming these things to be nought is the opposite of scientific method. Finding no parallels is another contradiction. NEVER being able to induce DNA to form in workable form even for one single cell, with a complexity as Denton points out, like that of New York city as a start, is a third blitzkrieg on scientific method. Having no grounds for the stoppage of the vast output in DNA and required, and related matters, and none for its starting in the first place, no evidence or structure of understanding to account for this two phase creative wonder from the first, so silent at the last, is what ?
It is merely a further extension of the dreamy vagueness and entire dispersion of that workable logic that is found in effectual, investigative scientific method (cf. Scientific Method ...). This enforced absence at this level, which has been so vacuous and so popular for so long, has become one of the worst vested interests in romance where it does not belong, and confusion where it provokes folly in the minds of those receiving this animus (cf. Lewontin, cited in The Splendour of the Biblical Coverage ... Ch. 3).
You might be able or happen to fool some people with the monstrous, but when it comes to the outworkings of linguistic power in the DNA and other related complexities and directions, protections and ancillary mechanisms and motors needed even for the formation of protein, you cannot fool what is neither there nor apt, so that it could be fooled. The coded patterns and their products simply do what they are made to do, like versatile but limited soldiers with some provisions in equipment for meeting emergencies.
This proceeds along the lines of traceable programs, with provision for the purging of errors in the flush of copies required for life; and when it departs from the internalised flexibilities which enable endurance of a type in the most apt form in any given case, you leave the graded and coded apparatus and its potential (like air-conditioned turned on in a car). Then you are moving beyond what is found: toward altering what is outside these functional limits of kind, impacting ineptly, merely readying for damage by what has no preparation to respond in its own crafted limits. It is one thing to remedy errors; to create what has them, is quite another.
what lacks ALL logic in its intensely logically oriented
and organised construction,
will be schematically helped by what is defined
as lacking the same qualities in action, in origin,
is the best agency, or an effective one,
for the construction of new works
at the level beyond even the highest evidences of constructive genius
with profound labour on the part of man,
in his own lower level of work, is what ?
It is like saying that walking in a sandstorm is the best way to protect sensitive lungs, or that being exposed to more snake bites is the best remedy for a strike which already is destroying by its finding of a weakness.
The world is not like that, so that one may ask, Can you please SHOW me any writing of new information (not shifts within program of what is already there), which is effective in creation of at least a human cell, and that with the capacity to be vastly linked with others by the nature of your FINDING ? But it is not found, and the situation merely continues its mockery of mentality, its derisory attitude to intelligence, its basing system in non-system and conceptual equivalence in what has no mind.
The empirical, therefore, parallels the rational in this empty extravaganza called evolutionism, and it flees away with the empty breathing of man who wants by reason to account for its arrival from what lacked it, and for that matter, the entry of being as well. Life does not begin even possibly with nothing, the absence of all features, modes, methods, future, potential, past and so forth. Nor does absence have the same results as relevant presence, nor does the necessity as in life for multiply organised equipment find its factory resource for effective action at the start, by talk now, but by being there then, when the staggering prescriptions for creation were written.
We do not find its origin in the sand, before this in turn had found the laws for its atoms and molecules, for pressure and force and the array of variables which underlie any system which is placed in the contention battle as the source of life. The contrary is rather like saying that the best way to account for Einstein is to find this level of work in a tiny babe, and just sit back and watch. However it is even this which is not found at all. Waving of the hands does not create the waves in the sea, and talk of man does not attain one atom!
Rationally, empirically and in terms of scientific method, this use of the bag of nothing from start to finish, nothing at all, or nothing relevant, or nothing comparable, or nothing capable, is just a matter of much ado about nothing. Here there is nothing in the way of rational defensibility available; or for the source of logic or the course of actual derivation of construction language for workably logical apparatus.
In the case of those brought into adoption of such theories as those of evolutionism, who are advisedly looking beyond 'nature' that made itself before it was there to do it, then one may ask:
If you want God to do it, admit it.
If you want some sort of 'god' to work on a supposed mindless basis, show it in present or past operation, so that it becomes rational. It is the same. You have only the notoriously complexities of DNA.
If you have a hand-folding Creator, it adds nothing.
If you want more creative donations at this level out of Him, in some sort of continuing parade, or indeed for any other reason, show it. Let it happen. If you have an always creating facility, let it produce, whatever it be, outside the God of creation. IF not, however, if you cannot and do not produce this 'principle' that works away, then let us be evidential and acknowledge that the Bible stated that He had started and finished that particular thrust of divine creative power: He had started it, done it and concluded that action. That is why it started; that is why it stopped; that is why we have such a prodigy of creative writing, and manufacturing magnificence to this day in life.
If your 'god' could not or would not, then you are back with the rest. If however the Creator did write it, then you are at creation, where not omission of less backward pieces in life, is the mode of 'progress', but back of what happens, there is what is logically required: namely the formulation, formation and function of what is in one gigantic articulation of processes, which was made and made to work.
Here is consistency with the empirical (it started, stopped), the rational (it came because what was adequate was always there), it never ceased being there (if that left nothing, then the future would be nothing, but it wasn't); and it is thus a matter of the everlasting God, the Creator. Again, if you grow weary of reason, and try to escape into irrationality, then you forfeit all argument and retire, defunct to the point, hors de combat.
Show anything, but not vapidity and vaporous postulations, gaining everything, in one way or another, from nothing to the point.
Teaching this kind of nonsense to children (that literally, for it has no reason) is an intrusion to stultify and lead to outrageous behaviour, seemingly without ground or with irrelevant dreams; yet what do you expect but what you have got in the last 150 years of mis-emphasis and miseducation ? Why not expect frustration with the mental pit you are digging, you who carry on in this way, on the part of those thrown into it, with preference given professionally and academically to those who 'dream the dream'. It is as Jeremiah predicted Chs. 2 and 23, where false prophets found man born from a tree or stone (perhaps a slight improvement! but the same principle). He revealed that in the times near the end of the Age, this sort of false prophecy, false revelation, false talk and extravanganza of confusion would reach its climax,
This also, it has done.
You will never take God by surprise, for He not only knows man, but made Him, and understands him in all his ways. Nothing eludes Him, just as nothing is gained by those who try to distance or deny Him. Nothing that is, except the fruits of delusion. Define that term, delusion ? why yes, it is extensive misunderstanding that leads to misapplications resulting in confusion, contradictions, unrealism and disorientation, and hence ultimate failure.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is noted by Kelly in the cited article, as regularly calling those who do not subscribe to these views, countermanding billions of cells in their organisational commands within the living human body, 'bigots'. He notes that very recently this Premier,
in refusing the
limits on this indoctrinative process
told of his intention to self-fund the unlimited version in his State,
so avoiding the Commonwealth's move
to give parents the right to decide whether their children be fluidised,
or attempts be made in that direction!
The State OWNERSHIP of children implicit in these rulings is a direct rejection of the Almighty God reliance noted in the Constitution's Preamble, as it effectually transfers the ownership of production of each child, and all the intellectual property and orders in its DNA, to name but one component, to the Government: that is, to those who did not make it, or even in this case, participate in its engendering. Language algorithms are not found to make themselves, the implicit symbol-significance detailing being a mental entity, so that 'nature' not surprisingly does not show itself at work in this way; only revealing that it has no longer injections of this type, but once had them in massive quantities. These are what evidence attests of the time when what IS capable of so outdistancing man, DID make him, the normal and necessary referent for this, being 'God', as shown in SMR, TMR and often in this site. See also Deity and Design, Designation and Destiny Section 2 and 8 esp., including Mini-Messages with Maxi-Point Ch. 6, on logic, design and derivation, definition and degeneration.
The Pre-amble to the Constitution of course is not legally binding in a legislative sense, but it IS culturally indicative for comparison and consideration 1901-2016, of the transmutation in this land becoming more conspicuous. Thus a 'nature' of no known origin for many, is often in effect seen as arising too late to make itself, not being there, but needing to be produced, so that it might be productive. Tangles in dreamy irrationality become common in this get-rid-of-the-Maker, riddle-riddance convulsion.