Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Apocalypse, tomorrow?

The fate of our the human race, of Earth, and of the Universe is a topic interesting to everyone. How is it going to end? You look on Wikipedia and see all sorts of theories usually in the distant future and involving the word "Big." (Big Freeze, Big Crunch, etc.) That's what science thinks will happen, they think that the Universe will just burn out and many think it will just start over. As for humanity, the gereral concensus is that we will have evolved beyong recognition by the time these events occur, or will be totally extinct. Neither are very comforting or bright. The oscilliating universe theory is particularly interesting, however. Though not even modern scientists put stock in it, it is vastly interesting to imagine what a past universe may have been like, and also what a future one may be. According the the oscillating universe theory, the Universe goes from Big Bang to Big Crunch, expanding, and then collapsing to expand again. It must be endlessly fascinating for science fiction writers to image an intelligent species of a past universe, resembling us, that foresaw the Big Crunch, and tried to preserve their species through, but failed. We would have no way of knowing if any such civilization existed; every trace would have been destroyed. It is a bit tragic, really, which is probably part of what is so fascinating about it.

However, it seems nearly impossible to have any belief in a theory about the end of the universe put forth by mere human scientists. With limited information about our surroundings, we make wild conjectures about the state of the universe after unfathomable lengths of time. This seems to be more imagination than science.

Of course, there are the long-standing apocalyptic scenarios relating to the end of mankind, like nuclear war, disease, meteorites, starvation, and so on. These are possible but also seem somewhat unlikely to annihilate every last human being everywhere. So, how then can it all end? It seems only logical to me, at least, that if the Universe was created, it must be destroyed. To this end, it seems also logical that the Universe will only last so long as it serves the purposes it was created for. When the Last Day does come, it won't be because every scrap of matter in the Universe has finally been sucked up by a huge black hole, it will be because the time of man is over, giving way to God's rule on Earth. This is invariably a much more acceptable end for us. It answers the same questions as above, but in a satisfactory way, and does not conflict with anything, proven or unproven, about the universe. Why would God not shut down the whole system when it outlived its usefulness? Surely, he would. There is no purpose in a forever oscillating universe, it expands and contracts to infinity. As I said before this might be an interesting sci-fi topic, but in this case, the "reality" of science is what makes good fiction, not the "fiction" of God and Judgment.

Monday, October 22, 2007


Why is it that no matter what clever quote you hear, no matter what profound maxim is decreed, someone can produce a counter-example or invalidiation that causes you to lose all belief in it? It seems as thought that, to believe anything at all, one must ignore every invalidiation, but that means one must then believe everything. What are we to do then? For example, the Declaration of Independence is considered by many Americans to be a profound and correct document. They cling especially dearly to the statement,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is not true at all! Every person is different and some are better at certain things than others, as such no one is equal. Second, Life is certainly not unalienable, for when someone is killed that person has been alienated of life. Why then, do we continue to believe so strongly in the profound words above? Only because, in my view, we ignore the invalidations we may have heard or construed ourselves.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Microeconomics: The Solution to Poverty?

I have heard tell that something is revolutionizing the fight against poverty: microeconomics. The principle is simple: Most poor people internationally require only a few hunred dollars or in most cases even less to get off the ground. As such, microlenders lend these poor people just what they need on an individual basis, and they as often as not have the initiative and the integrity to turn a profit and pay back the loan. These people then are able to pull themselves out of poverty and they can begin lending from a real bank, and expanding their prosperity. The risk of the banks lending such small amounts is low, because if it is not repaid there is no great loss, and corrupt third-world governments are passed over in this process, the aid goes straight to the population. Can it work? Many would say it already is; it is taking effective root all over the world, but it is untried as a long-term solution. Only time will tell I suppose.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Humans and Dinosaurs?

There are numerous "evidences" for humans and dinosaurs coexisting, chief among them the prevelance of dragon myths. What do you think? Do these claims have any merit? Although some of these claims have been discounted as hoax, other long-standing mysteries are very neatly explained by this assertion. Honestly I don't know, both arguments are very compelling.

If it is true that humans lived with dinosaurs, it should be noted, Young Earth Creationism would have a new advantage, however, scientific dating methods continue to place dinosaur fossils at 65 million years old.