A Basic Overview of Transegoism

A General Overview of the Principles of Transegoism
“C.E.’s Another Heaven,” by Gale Titus.
Although this explanation of the tenets of Transegoism is quite basic, there is an even shorter, more basic explanation that can be found here. Transegoism can also be explained in one sentence: it…

Реклама

Homos Orate — Man Who Prays

The Science of Homo-Sapien
“Candle Lighting,” by Petr Kratochvil.
Science gave our species the name, homo sapiens: Man who knows or man who is wise.
We are the only surviving species of our genus, homo.
 
Struck Blind
Last March I had an experience reminiscent of Saint Paul…

THE RECURRENT LARYNGEAL NERVE

recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-3201-250x300Article by Richard Goode.

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Goode is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.

In a comment on Tim’s article, The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP? Kiwi Dave says:

«Our recurrent laryngeal nerve inefficiently loops round our hearts instead of directly connecting to the brain stem; this, like cleft palates are a consequence of our fish ancestry.»

This is evidence worth talking about.

giraffe-recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-600x406The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (voice box). It branches from the vagus nerve in the chest cavity before it loops around the aorta and then back up to the larynx. Why doesn’t it take a more direct route? That it takes this circuitous detour is cited as evidence of evolution.

Wikipedia describes the nerve as follows:

«The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve’s route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.»

If we (and the giraffes) did indeed evolve from fish, then the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve has a simple explanation. Its course is less simple to explain if we (and the giraffes) are products of special creation. Thus, the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is not merely evidence of evolutionism, but evidence for evolutionism.

I have a question. How difficult would it be to genetically re-engineer a giraffe (or a human) so that the recurrent laryngeal nerve passes directly from the brain to the larynx?

[socialpoll id=»6924″]

THE METAPHYSICS OF THE MIRACULOUS

the_parting_of_the_red_seaArticle by Mark I Rasskazov, Editor in Chief.

My metaphysical model is monism, which means that I believe that there is one reality, and that everything in it is subject to a single set of physical laws (the Standard Model of Physics — until something better comes along).  Now, most monists do not believe in miracles.  Why?  Because the term «miracle» typically denotes something which is supernatural — i.e., something which defies the laws of physics; something which requires that we appeal to metaphysical dualism: the idea that there are two planes of existence; a physical one, and a separate one, a spiritual one, which can override the physical.

The majority of people who believe in the existence of a Deity (or deities) accept some dualistic metaphysical model.  I believe in God, and I accept a monistic model.  I also believe in miracles.  Is this a contradiction?  No; but I’ve had to manipulate the concept of «miracle» somewhat.

It has been said: «That which seems miraculous is actually merely the unexplained.»

I consider that statement to be accurate.

I add one twist:

That which is, admittedly, physically explicable, yet is clearly not coincidental must be considered to be miraculous.

The Ten Plagues of Egypt can be explained as a severe natural disaster.  Does that mean that it is coincidence that it happened to occur just as the time was right for the Israelis to leave?

The parting of the Red Sea in the book of Exodus has been explained as being the result of comet activity.  Does this mean that it is coincidental that it occurred just as it began to look like the children of Israel had their backs against the wall?

When the Israelis arrived at the Promised Land, on two separate occasions, the walls of a city they were attacking spontaneously crumbled at a strategically advantageous moment.  This could have easily been the result of seismic activity.   Coincidence?

I think not.

What I think is that this entire universe is a magnificent machine, which operates in a flawless, albeit brutal and bittersweet manner.

God does have love for mankind.  That’s not to say that He’s very nice.  He’s not.

God’s miracles are physical events that He has set into motion long beforehand.

In that sense, inasmuch as God is sovereign, every waking moment that you experience is a clear and present miracle.

Do not squander the beautiful and terrifying miracle that is your life.

RUSSELL’S TEAPOT REFUSTES ATHEISM

to-600x480Article by Tim Wikiriwhi.

Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.

Abiogenesis.

It has always amazed me that the atheist world is so enthralled with Bertrand Russell’s «Celestial Teapot» as a supposed logical argument against the credibility of belief in God. This argument is routinely deployed by atheists in debates with theists, and so it was on a discussion I am having on face book about Science and belief in the after life. The important place Russell’s Teapot (and it’s mate, the «Flying Spaghetti Monster») play in the great controversy between faith and skepticism warrants that I write this article about it. I don’t know why Russell’s argument is so revered by atheists, as it only takes a small amount of contemplation to realize that His argument is actually a refutation of blind faith in atheistic evolution, not belief in God.

Let me explain.

Here is the argument in question:

«If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.   But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.  If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.» —Bertrand Russell

The reason we ought to doubt the existence of a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars is simply because we know that teapots are the product of mind over matter; i.e., unless mankind, or some other intelligence formed a teapot out of China and placed it in that orbit that there is no way nature could produce such an object via it’s blind and/or unguided forces!

The Theory of Evolution. The Illusion of Design.

This is an argument from design, and it makes a mockery of evolutionary theory because atheist evolutionists believe that something far, far more complex than a china teapot in orbit can and has been made by the pure blind and unguided forces of nature; I refer to the spectacle of life on Earth! For Atheists to believe life could possibly be the result of blind chance, and yet balk at the idea of a «celestial teapot» being formed by pure chance exposes their absurd credulity.  According to their theory, there ought to be all sorts of objects in space which have a quirky resemblance to designed artifacts…teapots?  Not a problem!

(I am reminded of The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, when it mentions the existence of “Casinos, all of which have been formed by the natural erosion of wind and rain…”  Hilarious!)

Well, we all know there very much is a problem: nature does not work like that! Russell’s argument is actually a very poor argument given the nature of what he was attempting to disprove; i.e., religious belief.

MakingLife-600x526It is also a great testament to the duplicity of atheists who balk at the idea of a celestial teapot, yet will look at you square in the face and tell you they believe life started by accident! That is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel!  He has, in fact, furnished theists with a great argument against atheism; for it would be much easier to believe in a «celestial teapot» than in the spontaneous generation and evolution of life.  Not to appreciate this is to be pig-headed indeed.

For more evidence of intelligent design:

Read about Biomimicry… Plagiarizing God’s designs.

Read about Paley’s other Watch.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is currently running for mayor of the city of Hamilton, NZ, as the Libertarianz Party candidate.

TAKING EVERY THOUGHT CAPTIVE

beautiful-sunriseArticle by Barbara Cornell.

Syndicated from Barbara Cornell’s personal blog.

I’ve often thought that intelligence is a double-edged sword. Being smart probably gives a person greater opportunity for success (defined in this instance as «happiness»), but at the same time it raises the threshold for happiness. The smarter you are, the more chances you have to attain the things that will make you happy, but you have to attain more of them in order to be happy.

One of the reasons this is true is becoming more apparent to me the older I get, because unlimited mental capacity seems to be one of the first things to suffer. When I was 23, there was literally nothing anyone could say to me that I couldn’t grasp immediately (faster than they could say it) and there was no line of reasoning that I couldn’t leap-frog to the end of faster than the intermediary steps could be specified.

These things are no longer true.

For example, just today I encountered the concept of «prions.»

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion)

I never heard of these dudes before today, but they are basically proteins responsible for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (like mad-cow disease). Somehow these things aren’t … alive … exactly … (which is why they cannot be killed via normal sterilization procedures such as heat or radiation) but neither are they strictly chemical … exactly … (which is why they can be affected by vaccines similar to those which prevent viral infections, even if none has to date been developed that is completely effective.)

Now there was a time when I would have chased that rabbit down its hole until I cornered it and claimed that sucker as mine. But now, I know that such might be possible but it probably isn’t worth the effort. Now I’m content to say, «It’s something that isn’t exactly alive but isn’t exactly not alive either.»

With age comes wisdom that it’s better not to concern myself with it. Maybe I could «claim» those things, but I have other issues that are better uses of my resources.

It seems that wisdom dictates this is true of a lot of things.

You know these things. They are «the things I cannot change» for which I strive to have «the serenity to accept.»

«Accepting» things doesn’t necessarily mean finding in yourself the ability to say they are right. It’s directing your thoughts to things that are better uses of your energy.

Take every thought captive, allow only those which are good for you to roam your mind.

«I trusted him, and he wronged me, and it makes me so mad.» But you’ve decided he is still your friend, and he’s asked forgiveness (or he never admitted he was wrong). Let it go. Stop it in its tracks before it gets started.

«But if that happens, then this will happen and then … I dunno what then, but it will be bad.» You’ve done everything you can to prevent it, and now it’s just wait and see. Take it captive. Give it no quarter in your heart or your mind.

Whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, excellent. Think on these things.