View allAll Photos Tagged Freethinker
Back of the T-shirt, blue selfportrait drawn on transparent paper, newspaper clips, cotton self dyed
Auf dem blauen Boden in der blauen Spiegelküche: Rückseite Baumwoll T-Shirt, blaues Selbstporträt auf Transparentpapier gezeichnet, Baumwolle selbstgefärbt rot, Nähnadel, Kreuzstich, Zeitungsausschnitte TAZ Die Tageszeitung 10./11. Jänner. Stofffarben
#CharlieHebdo #charlie #hebdo #JeSuisCharlie #jesuischarlie #ParisShooting #NousSommesCharlie
Part of: "an apple a day keeps the doctor away - An ENSO (Japanese: circle, Japanisch: Kreis) a day .... " Aktion Kreis Tagebuch A circle diary - Start of the 365-days Project: 1. September / 11. Jänner 2015 - Tag 2 der 6 Tage Aktion mit einem getragenen T-Shirt // Prokrustes
DMC-G2 - P1870877 - 2015-01-11
#CharlieHebdo #charlie #hebdo #JeSuisCharlie #jesuischarlie #ParisShooting
auf dem blauen Boden in der blauen Spiegelk Küche: recycling eines Baumwoll Leiberls weiß, Stofffarben: blau rot schwarz, Schuhabdrücke, Etikett: Crown TAZ 10./11. Jänner
Part of: "an apple a day keeps the doctor away - An ENSO (Japanese: circle, Japanisch: Kreis) a day .... " Aktion Kreis Tagebuch A circle diary - Start of the 365-days Project: 1. September / 10. Jänner 2015 - Tag 1 der 6 Tage Aktion mit einem getragenen T-Shirt // Prokrustes
DMC-G2 - P1870864 - 2015-01-10
Overcast day, but I found it to be an interesting floral display.
HILL COUNTRY
"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.
Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.
But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.
In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area
evry-daily-photo.blogspot.com/
Christmas Storm
Storm warning on radio airwaves
You, freethinker, you wander.
Immaculate loneliness,
Dream far from midsummer nights,
A walk against the wind
In the freezing blizzard…
Ice crystals dance on a sonata,
While you quicken your step in the snow
Justyne Nayam
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a parody religion following the principles of Russells Celestial Teapot.
It is putting into practice what Russell did write about
They use the flying spaghetti monster instead of a teapot
If you don`t know this religion,please ask wikipedia, or ask google (keywords: "spaghetti monster" "pastafarian") and you will find informations in your language.
Part of: "an apple a day keeps the doctor away - An ENSO (Japanese: circle, Japanisch: Kreis) a day .... " Aktion Kreis Tagebuch A circle diary - Start of the 365-days Project: 1. September - Tag 6 der 6-Tage Aktion mit einem getragenen T-Shirt // Prokrustes
#CharlieHebdo #charlie #hebdo #JeSuisCharlie #jesuischarlie #ParisShooting #atheism #freethinker #SpaghettiMonster #russell #teapot #teekanne
DMC-G2 - P1870925 - 2015-01-15
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Genevan philosopher, writer and composer.
RE: There numerous facets to J-J Rousseau's ideas, not all of them make sense and not everything he said was followed by himself - throughout his books - reading some of his chaotic manuscripts you might immediately notice the discrepancies.
Homepage of the Brights: the brights net
Blue like the sign of the Brights. But still there is darkest Middle Ages in our time. So the blue is overlaid by bloody brown "Caput Mortuum". Headlines: Reyhanhe Jabbari still sentenced to be hanged. / Catholic mother stops yoga lessons at an elementary school, because Yoga has a spiritual background and is not catholic. Although these lessons are intended solely as relaxation and movement training.
Mutter stoppt Yoga an Volksschule, weil dieses spirituelle Hintergründe habe. Obwohl Yoga als reines Entspannungs- u. Bewegungstraining unterrichtet wird.
Todesurteil für Reyhaneh Jabbari nach wie vor nicht aufgehoben.
auf blauem Leintuch: aufgefaltetes Papiersackerl vom Thalia, Tuschestifte blau und braun, Rohrer`s Antiktusche Caput Mortuum, schwarzer Fineliner, Zeitungssauschnitte: heute und Österreich
Part of: "an apple a day keeps the doctor away - An ENSO (circle, Kreis) a day .... " Aktion Kreis Tagebuch A circle diary - Start of the Project: 1. September // color: blue - caput mortuum - blau // esoterik entlarvung, Tiefstes Mittelalter versus Freidenker
DMC-G2 - P1850600 - 2014-10-09
But there's a lizard with a human face / He says he's standing for democracy / And every wealthy man has earned his place / As did the undeserving in their poverty / He told my brother that he wasn't a man / He broke my sister down again and again / His fathers stole and wrote the laws of the land / And now he flips the coin of power with all of his friends / Deciding who is fit to go out and die / And who is black enough to be left behind / And who will model their exceptional lie / And just how many they can murder at the borderline / I knew a woman with a scale in her hand / They bound and gagged her with the lies of the land / She couldn't tell what she was measuring / So they tilt the scale to meet their own personal ends / Saying, "I'll shoot your son if he's out of line" / "I'll rape your daughters underground where I hide" / "And I can murder anytime that I like / Cause I'm protected at my left and my right" / "I got a side that says I'm only a man / Another side that puts the gun in my hand" / "I'll trade your product of environment / For any alibi for consequence" (Algiers)
© Mauerpark, Berlin, 2020, Florian Fritsch
Excerpt from brainproject.ca:
Free Thinker
The much studied, yet little understood human brain is the most complex system known to us. Composed of more than a billion neurons making countless connections, one cannot underestimate our unlimited human potential. The butterfly goes through countless changes to become the free and beautiful creature it is. Symbolic of renewal, expansion and growth, the swirling butterflies in Free Thinker remind us to forgo limiting thoughts, to transcend our challenges, to reach for our highest potential.
Brain Scan
PET, MRI and CT scans can use colour and shades to help detect brain activity to help us understand conditions we all might have. In PET scans, red stimulates high activity and cool colours show low activity.
Genius Tomorrow
Artist Tanya Besedina dedicates her project to a loved one who was diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum disorder, as well as many, many others who are suffering from the same problem.
The wonderful person who is being honoured has the most unique view of the world and keeps surprising those around her every day with her unexpected talents.
At dawn, the evolution of the world appeared to me
Biomaterials in dialogue with our cells, intra-ocular implants, stem-cell tissue re-creation, organ substitution with the use of technology like 3D printers, neuro-prothesis, a brain-computer interface implanted in the human body.
If our brain becomes a machine, what will happen with our emotions? What do we lose by enhancing the human? How will we preserve a definition of who we are? What would become of individual and collective thought, of beauty, of creativity?
Overlooking the rainy airport runway of Rochester, NY, my mind turns to the riot of colors of the flowerbeds of the Hortus Botanicus at Leiden, The Netherlands. These beds of about 50 meters length and perhaps three wide, lead from the main gate to the sumptuous and well-labeled finery of the greenhouses.
Densely planted - as this photo shows - with pansies and tulips they are almost brighter than the sun, which shone only weakly when this shot was made.
Pansies and tulips: such a fortuitous combination. A sadly romantic love story from Persia associated with our tulip; and the pansy puts the mind to work (as indeed Shakespeare testifies through the mad words of Ophelia). Farhad de Stone-Cutter was madly in love with Shirin the Princess of Royal Blood. Their's was all the more a perfect and passionate love because it had to go unrequited, and both lost their lives violently; from their blood drops sprang up red tulips. The yellow ones of this picture are age-old symbols of hopeless, unrequited love.
The 'pansy' in English is thought to derive from the French 'penser' (=to think). In warmer weather the pansy droops its face-shaped flower as if in deep thought. Thus it has become a symbol for free-thinkers and humanists, perhaps most eloquently evoked by D.H. Lawrence's booklet of poems "Pansies" (1929 - his "More Pansies" was published posthumously). Like "Lady Chatterly's Lover", the poems were quickly banned by the authorities as to racey for even mature readers; the public, of course, must be protected!
The pansy has also been associated with another French word 'panser' which can mean to dress or bandage a wound. The wound of love, maybe, as in our Persian tale?
Regardless, this display dispells some of the wet darkness of this airport.
Carmel was also home to Charles Greene, of the now-legendary Arts and Crafts architectural firm Greene and Greene.
Built in 1923, this studio is of used brick which Charles had acquired after a hotel in nearby Pacific Grove had been demolished.
As the photos below show this was clearly a beloved creation with no detail too small
These exterior facade bricks were set in a modified Flemish cross bond with flare headers. The arched, intricately carved, teak front door is held by a frame of brickwork set in a garden-wall bond design.
The windows are arched bottle-glass..
For more on the Charles S. Greene House and Studio see talesfromcarmel.wordpress.com/
Christopher Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011) was an essayist, journalist, writer and one of the foremost free thinkers of our times. I greatly admired him, and together with the late comedian Bill Hicks, he strongly influenced how I think and view the world. Hitchens died from pneumonia, a complication of his esophageal cancer last week. I will miss him...
Watch and listen to him in action here (English only), but you may be shocked.
HILL COUNTRY
"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.
Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.
But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.
In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area
I happened to notice this old building tucked into the urban sprawl just south of Milwaukee. Being nosy I checked it out. It was a meeting house of the Freethinkers, a group that included Christians as well as atheists and agnostics. Below is the sign in front of it and a shot of the tiny cemetery next to it. If you're interested you can read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painesville_Chapel
HILL COUNTRY
"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.
Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.
But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.
In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area
Source: tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ryh02
Bluebonnets
Lupinus texensis
Lupinus texensis Hook.
Texas Bluebonnet, Bluebonnet, Texas Lupine, Buffalo Clover, Wolf Flower
Fabaceae (Pea Family)
USDA Symbol: LUTE
USDA Native Status: L48 (N)
Source: www.wildflower.org/gallery/species.php?id_plant=LUTE
Bluebonnets have been loved since man first trod the vast prairies of Texas. Indians wove fascinating folk tales around them. The early-day Spanish priests gathered the seeds and grew them around their missions. This practice gave rise to the myth that the padres had brought the plant from Spain, but this cannot be true since the two predominant species of bluebonnets are found growing naturally only in Texas and at no other location in the world.
As historian Jack Maguire so aptly wrote, "It's not only the state flower but also a kind of floral trademark almost as well known to outsiders as cowboy boots and the Stetson hat." He goes on to affirm that "The bluebonnet is to Texas what the shamrock is to Ireland, the cherry blossom to Japan, the lily to France, the rose to England and the tulip to Holland."
The ballad of our singing governor, the late W. Lee O'Daniel, goes, "you may be on the plains or the mountains or down where the sea breezes blow, but bluebonnets are one of the prime factors that make the state the most beautiful land that we know.
Source: Aggie Horticulture
Texas lupine has larger, more sharply pointed leaves and more numerous flower heads than similar lupines. Light-green, velvety, palmately compound leaves (usually five leaflets) are born from branching, 6-18 in. stems. These stems are topped by clusters of up to 50 fragrant, blue, pea-like flowers. The tip of the cluster is conspicuously white.
This is the species often planted by highway departments and garden clubs and is one of the six Lupinus species which are the state flower of Texas.
Source: Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
Estatua de Miguel Hidalgo in Centro Atlixco.
The statue was erected in 1954.
Hidalgo's sculpture is a tribute to the Father of the Nation and was erected to commemorate his role in the Mexican Independence movement.
Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla (1753-1811) was a Mexican priest, teacher, and freethinker. He is known as the Father of the Homeland for being one of the starters of the Mexican independence movement.
16 September, 1810—the date now celebrated as Mexican Independence Day—Hidalgo issued the “Grito de Dolores” (“Cry of Dolores”), calling for the end of Spanish rule, for racial equality, and for redistribution of land.
The speech effectively launched the Mexican War of Independence (1810–21) from Spains 300 year rule.
The revolution began in force in 1810 under Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, who had some victories but was eventually captured and executed in 1811.
Hidalgo was succeeded by José María Morelos y Pavón, who was also captured and executed in 1815.
The 11-year battle that resulted in Mexico's independence culminated on August 24, 1821, when Spain signed the Treaty of Córdoba, which formally recognized Mexican independence.
Russell`s 4th commandment from his Decolague:
"When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavour to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory."
8th Commandment
"Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter."
Das 4. Gebot aus Russells Dekalog:
"Wenn dir jemand widerspricht, und sei es dein Ehepartner oder dein Kind, bemühe dich, ihm mit Argumenten zu begegnen und nicht mit der Autorität, denn ein Sieg der Autorität ist unrealistisch und illusionär."
8. Gebot:
"Freue dich mehr über intelligenten Widerspruch als über passive Zustimmung; denn wenn die Intelligenz so viel wert ist,wie sie dir wert sein sollte, dann liegt im Widerspruche eine tiefere Zustimmung."
#CharlieHebdo #charlie #hebdo #JeSuisCharlie #jesuischarlie #ParisShooting #atheism #freethinker #russell #teapot #teekanne #gebote #dekalog #decalogue
Part of: "an apple a day keeps the doctor away - An ENSO (Japanese: circle, Japanisch: Kreis) a day .... " Aktion Kreis Tagebuch A circle diary - Start of the 365-days Project: 1. September / 13. 1. 2015 - Tag 4 der 6 Tage Aktion mit einem getragenen T-Shirt
DMC-G2 - P1870897 - 2015-01-13
HILL COUNTRY
"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.
Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.
But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.
In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area
15 cm sfh 13 was a heavy field howizer used in ww1 and the early stages of ww2. The gun was a improvement of the 15 cm sfh 02 with a longer barrel and a shield. 3500 guns wereand produced from 1913-1918 and used in self propelled mounts in ww2
Marble Falls
History
Marble Falls was founded in 1887 by Adam Rankin Johnson, a former Indian fighter and Confederate general, known as "Stovepipe" Johnson for his Civil War escapades, which included duping the Union army in Newburgh, Indiana, with fake "cannons," constructed from stovepipes and wagon wheels. Johnson had viewed the natural Marble Falls during his pre-war days as a Burnet County surveyor, and had dreamed of building an industrial city, powered by the tumbling Colorado River, not to be confused with the river of the same name in Colorado and Arizona. Despite a "friendly fire" incident which blinded him near the end of the Civil War, General Johnson followed through with his dream, facilitating the construction of a railroad to nearby Granite Mountain in 1884, then (with ten partners, including one son, one nephew and two sons-in-law) platting the townsite and selling lots, beginning July 12, 1887. Johnson built a fine home, a college (soon to be home of the "Falls on the Colorado Museum") and a large factory near the falls. The town grew to a population of 1,800 within ten years.
Marble Falls made history in 1917 by electing Ophelia Crosby "Birdie" Harwood as the nation's first woman mayor, three years before women were allowed to vote.
When the Max Starcke Dam was completed in 1951, the marble falls which had given the town its name were submerged under the new Lake Marble Falls. While the town's economy struggled through the drought of the 1950s, a new economy based on tourism and retirement began to grow in the 1970s. During the last thirty years, Marble Falls has grown into the retail and entertainment center for the Highland Lakes area, and continues to attract tourists, retirees and new businesses.[8]
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Falls,_Texas
HILL COUNTRY
"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.
Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.
But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.
In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area
The night collection with the Utrecht lights created in wonderful collaboration with Michel Verhoef.
BUURKERKHOF. Title: The Sun Shines in and around the Buurkerk.
Artist: Gabriel Lester
The final artwork of Trajectum Lumen is located at Buurkerkhof. Artist Gabriel Lester has designed a magical connection between the oldest parochial church of Utrecht, and its surrounding square. Through playful use of light, two light sculptures create an illusion of stained glass, thus forming a radiant beacon. It is a worthy conclusion to this creative exploration of Utrecht's vibrant past.
Gabriel Lester is an artist, director, author and freethinker. With a background in film, his art is often based on narrative structures. His location-based works always aim to prompt a dialogue between passers-by and their surroundings.
For framed prints, canvas and acrylic prints: jenny-rainbow.artistwebsites.com/featured/trajectum-lumen...
Taken May 2014 in the Texas Hill Country near Burnet
HILL COUNTRY
"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.
Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.
But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.
In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area
#CharlieHebdo #charlie #hebdo #JeSuisCharlie #jesuischarlie #ParisShooting #atheism #freethinker #russell #teapot #teekanne #gebote #dekalog #decalogue
Part of: "an apple a day keeps the doctor away - An ENSO (Japanese: circle, Japanisch: Kreis) a day .... " Aktion Kreis Tagebuch A circle diary - Start of the 365-days Project: 1. September / 14. 1. 2015 - Tag 5 der 6 Tage Aktion mit einem getragenen T-Shirt // Prokrustes
DMC-G2 - P1870924 - 2015-01-14
They were libertarians - Sie waren Libertäre
Discrimination against Atheism, freethinkers, has a long tradition and is still going on.
Freedom of Thought Report 2013:
"The non religious are discriminated against, or outright persecuted in most countries of the world.
In 13 countries you can be put to death for expressing atheism.
In 39 countries the law mandates a prison sentence for blasphemy."
Because of a kiss a lesbian couple was thrown out of a well known traditional coffeehouse in Vienna.
In 10 countries: death penalty for homosexuality.
In many more countries homosexuality is illegal.
Interesting point: in some of these countries it is not illegal for women, only for men.
T-shirt inside out, selfportrait on transparent paper upside down, newspaper clips, cotton self dyed
Auif dem blauen Boden in der blauen Spiegelküche: Innenseite Baumwoll T-Shirt, Rückseite Selbstporträt auf Transparentpapier, Baumwolle selbstgefärbt rot, Zeitungsausschnitte. Stofffarben, Nähnadel
#CharlieHebdo #charlie #hebdo #JeSuisCharlie #jesuischarlie #ParisShooting #atheism #freethinker #homosexuality #lgbt #lesbian
Part of: "an apple a day keeps the doctor away - An ENSO (Japanese: circle, Japanisch: Kreis) a day .... " Aktion Kreis Tagebuch A circle diary - Start of the 365-days Project: 1. September / 12. Jänner 2015 - Tag 3 der 6 Tage Aktion mit einem getragenen T-Shirt // Procrustes, Prokrustes
DMC-G2 - P1870879 - 2015-01-12
Street Art by Eme Freethinker & Pen Chill, Mauerpark Berlin, Ende Mai 2020.
v.li.n.re:
- Girls Just Wanna Have Fun - Batgirl. Art by @Eme_Freethinker.
- One Love - Bob Marley. Art by @Eme_Freethinker.
- ONE LOVE - Bob Marley. Art by @Eme_Freethinker.
- Comic-Aliens mit Ufo. Art by @Pen_Chill.
- I CAN'T BREATHE #GeorgeFloyd #IcantBreathe #sayhisname. Art by @Eme_Freethinker.
- BASQUIAT. Art by @Eme_Freethinker + @Pen_Chill.
Foto: Bernd Sauer-Diete
In recent years there has been a relentless and vociferous campaign by militant atheists intent on attacking and ridiculing religion. Numerous books have been written on the subject and, it seems, at every opportunity the secular establishment and media seeks out atheists or secular humanists to give what amounts to a jaundiced attack on religion.
For the most part, the opinions they express are the same old, worn out slogans we have heard over and over again, and can only be described as ideological propaganda.
We are all familiar with the atheist slogans such as: 'religion is irrational nonsense'.
Or that: 'believing in God is no different from believing in Santa or fairies.'
Or that: 'there is no evidence for God'.
Or that: 'religion is just a crutch for weak-minded people'
Or that: 'religion is outdated, superstitious nonsense',
Or that: 'religion is just for ignorant, unintelligent, backward people who know nothing about science'
Or that: belief in God is 'just a lazy way of filling gaps in knowledge'.
Or that: believing in God is 'like believing the Earth is flat'.
Or that: Christians 'believe in an old man in the sky with a beard'
Or that: Christians 'believe in a sky fairy'.
Or that: Christianity/the Bible was 'invented by ignorant, bronze age, goat herders'.
Or that: Belief in a God 'is just a delusion'.
Or that: Christians have 'an imaginary, invisable friend'.
Etc. etc.
As we will show later, such slogans are either ignorant nonsense, or devised as deliberate, ideological propaganda.
If you remember, several years ago, atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, decided to ramp up their anti-religious propaganda effort with slogans on buses. It originated in Britain, but spread to several other countries.
It was known as the Atheist Bus Campaign.
The Atheist Bus Campaign, set out to convince you that a loving creator God does not exist, that you have no prospect of eternal life and that all you can look forward to is eternal oblivion.
Atheists have no evidence to back up that assertion. In fact logic, natural law and the basic principles of the scientific method rule out their naturalistic alternative to a creator as impossible.
They invent all sort of bizarre scenarios to replace a supernatural first cause (God), they even try to present their fantastical, naturalistic replacements for God as 'scientific'. Please don't be taken in by it.
Their naturalistic replacements for God are illogical, they all violate natural laws and the basic principles of science.
Atheism is rightly referred to as the no-hope philosophy.
Their ultimate goal and pinnacle of their short life is - eternal oblivion.
And, quite perversely, they want to convince you that is all you can look forward to.
Please don't be dragged down with them into that depressing pit of hopelessness.
The Good News is that they are entirely wrong, and furthermore, it is not just an opinion. It can be satisfactorily demonstrated by logic, natural law, and the basic principle of the scientific method ......
Read on .... and you will understand, why atheists can never replace God, however much they try.
Their Atheist Bus Campaign is deceitful because atheists have no logical or scientific grounds for claiming "There's Probably No God", in fact, the evidence of applied logic and natural law, is completely the contrary. The atheist claim that there's probably no God is just an unsubstantiated opinion based only on their own ideological beliefs.
You may wonder why they inserted the word 'probably'? Obviously, they knew that if they were challenged to present evidence for the truth of their advertisement and had to defend it in court, they would be unable to do so. Science and logic can be used to prove they have no alternative to a supernatural first cause, and they know it.
For atheists to propose that believing there is no God, is somehow a reason to stop worrying and the recipe for an enjoyable life, is perverse in the extreme.
For most sane people it would be the opposite - a road to depression, hopelessness, and a feeling that this short existence is worthless. It will all end in oblivion, and you might as well never have lived.
Thankfully, atheists are demonstrably wrong, there is every reason for hope - as we will show - a loving Creator definitely does exist. Your life is not a few short, stressful and worthless years leading to eternal oblivion. You are a unique, valuable, person, specially created out of supreme love, every human life is of infinite value right from the moment of conception. Humans really are special and not just intelligent apes, or a mere collection of atoms, as atheists would have you believe You can live forever in eternal bliss - that is the gift of life the loving Creator of the universe offers you, and it is all offered for free.
Please don't be fooled ... people who think for themselves (the REAL freethinkers), are able to see right through the atheist hype and propaganda. Ignore the relentless bombardment of atheist propaganda, such as the atheist bus campaign. Seek out and learn the real truth and the truth will set you free.
Please read on and you will understand ......
Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.
Consider this ....
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.
The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!
The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.
So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?
Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....
So,
1) If the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND -
2) Where did the law of gravity come from?
AND -
3) How can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?
"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
4) How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.
5) What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND -
6) Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.
So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist cabal, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.
The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.
And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..
Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.
So, atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!
Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?
Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!
That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.
So, now you know the truth about the best substitute for God that atheists have ever come up with.
IMPRESSED? I think not!
Why is it ATHEISTS that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?
According to their claims, atheists are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
Whatever happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion?
That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.
Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes.
That is such an important principle, it is actually the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for adequate causes of ALL natural events. According to science, a natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion, you are abandoning science and you violate the basic principle of the scientific method.
What about the first cause of the universe and everything?
How does that fit in?
Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all NATURAL entities and occurrences. The first cause HAD to be an autonomous entity, it HAD to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, NON-CONTINGENT ... i.e. it was completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence. When we talk about the first cause, we mean the very first cause, i.e. FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means that nothing, nor the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater, in any respect, than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.
We know that the first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is NOT contingent and that is why it is called a SUPERNATURAL entity, the Supernatural, First Cause (or Creator God). All natural events and entities ARE contingent without exception, so the first cause simply CANNOT be a natural thing.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. Which means .... the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion. And the real enemy of science is atheism, not religion.
An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible. They claim that, in this way a first cause, is not necessary. And that matter/energy is some sort of eternally existent entity.
So is it a valid solution?
Firstly .....
Matter/energy cannot be eternally existent in a cycle with no beginning).
Why?
Because all natural things are contingent, they have to comply with the law of cause and effect, so they cannot exist independently of causes. The nearest you could get to eternally existent matter/energy would be a very, long chain of causes and effects, but a long chain is not eternally existent, it has to have a beginning at some point. At the beginning there would still have to be a non-contingent first cause. So a long chain of causes and effects simply pushes the first cause further back in time, it can't eliminate it.
Secondly ....
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous, atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Once again atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.
A variation of the cyclical universe is the argument proposed by some that the universe just is?
Presumably they mean that the universe is some sort of eternally-existent entity with no beginning - and therefore not in need of a cause? Once again an eternally self-existent universe is not possible for the same reason outlined above.
In addition ....
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us the universe certainly had a beginning and will have an end. The energy potential of the universe is decreasing from an original peak at the beginning of the universe. Even the most rabid atheists seem to accept that. Which is why most of them believe in a beginning event, such as a big bang explosion.
So the question is how did it (the universe) begin to exist, not whether it began to exist?
Which takes us back to the question of the nature of the very first cause.
It can only be one of two options,
an uncaused, natural first cause
OR
an uncaused, supernatural first cause.
An uncaused, NATURAL first cause is impossible.
Thus the only possible option is a supernatural first cause, i.e. God.
Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ” what laws existed prior to the beginning of the universe.
Sorry, the atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible ….
And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
We know that natural laws describe the inherent properties of matter/energy. Which means wherever matter/energy exist, the inherent properties of matter/energy also exist - and so do the natural laws that describe those properties. if the universe began, as some propose, with a cosmic egg. or a previous universe, those things are still natural entities with natural properties, and as such would be subject to natural laws. So the idea that there were natural events leading up to the origin of the universe that were not subject to natural laws is ridiculous.
The atheist claim; that we just don't know, is not valid, and should be treated as the silliness it really is.
The existence of the law of cause and effect is essential to the scientific method, but fatal to the atheist ideology.
SO ....
Is the law of cause and effect really universal?
Causation is necessary for the existence of the universe, but ALSO for the existence of any natural entities or events that may have preceded the creation of the universe.
In other words, causation is necessary for all matter/energy and all natural entities and occurrences, whether within the universe or elsewhere.
ALL natural entities are contingent wherever they may be, whether in some sort of cosmic egg, a big bang, a previous universe or whatever.
Contingency is an inherent character of all natural entities, so it is impossible for any natural entity to be non-contingent.
Which means you simply CANNOT have a natural entity which is UNCAUSED, anywhere.
If, for example, matter/energy was not contingent at the start of the universe, or before the universe began, how and why would it be contingent now?
Why would nature have changed its basic character to an inferior one?
If matter/energy once had such awesome, autonomous power - if it was, at some time, self-sufficient, not reliant on causes for its operation and existence, and not restricted by the limitations causes impose, it would effectively mean it was once an infinite, necessary, self-existent entity, similar to God.
Now if matter once had the autonomous, non-contingent powers of a god, why would it change itself to a subordinate character and role, when it became part of the universe?
Why would it change to a role where it is limited by the strictures of natural laws. And where it cannot operate without a preceding, adequate cause?
To claim matter/energy was, at one time, not contingent, not subject to causes (which is what atheists have to claim) – is to actually imbue it with the autonomous power of a god.
That is why atheism is really just a revamped version of pagan naturalism.
By denying the basic, contingent character of matter/nature, atheism effectively deifies nature, and credits it with godlike powers, which science clearly tells us it doesn’t possess.
Thus, if anyone dismisses causality, they effectively deify matter/nature.
Which means they have chosen the first of the 2 following choices …
1. Atheism ... the unscientific, illogical belief in a natural, uncaused god (of matter or nature) which violates natural laws - which science recognises restrict its autonomy?
2. Theism ... the logical belief in an uncaused, supernatural God, which created matter and the laws that govern matter. And therefore does not violate any laws, is not contingent, and thus has completely unrestricted autonomy and infinite powers?
Which one would you choose?
Which one do scientists who respect natural laws and the scientific method choose?
The great, scientific luminaries and founders of modern science, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur etc., in fact, nearly all of the really great scientists and founders of modern science, had no doubts or problem understanding that choice, and they readily chose the second (theism), as the only logical option.
So, by choosing the second - a supernatural first cause – rather than meaning you are anti-science or anti-reason or some sort of uneducated, superstitious, religious nut (as atheists frequently claim) actually puts you in the greatest of scientific company.
To put it another way, who would you rather trust in science, such scientific giants as: Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Von Braun, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel, Marconi, Kelvin, Babbage, Pascal, Herschel, Peacock etc. who believed in a supernatural, first cause?
OR,
the likes of: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Daniel Dennett etc. who believe in an uncaused, natural, first cause?
No contest!
We can see that atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, and all the while, they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.
The question of purpose ....
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.
Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?
Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.
So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.
The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.
A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.
It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.
Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific propositions:
1. A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.
2. A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).
3. That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.
4. That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
5. That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
6. That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.
7. That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.
8. That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).
9. That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.
10. That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.
11. That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.
12. That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.
The claim of atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when seriously challenged to justify their dogmatic rejection of a Supernatural First Cause, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Of course, whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.
That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins et al need to face is that they are in no position to attack what they consider are the bizarre beliefs of others, when their own beliefs (which they fail to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.
What about Christianity and pagan gods?
Atheists frequently try to dismiss and ridicule the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.
Do they have a good point?
Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
Idols of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
They are rejected as false gods by the Bible and by logic and natural laws.
They are considered gods by people who worship things which are 'created' rather than the Creator, which the Bible condemns.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
For example, the pagan belief in the creative powers of Ra (the Sun god) is similar to the atheist belief that raw energy from the Sun acting on sterile chemicals was able to create life.
So atheist mythology credits the Sun (Ra) with the godlike power of creating life on Earth. And thus, atheism is just a revamped version of paganism.
Just like paganism, atheism rejects worship of a Supernatural, First Cause, and rather chooses to worship created, natural entities, imbuing them with the same godlike powers, that theists attribute to the Creator.
There is nothing new under the Sun ... We can see that atheism is just the age old deception of ancient paganism, revisited.
The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity.
The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists.
If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.
The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But apparently, atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.
Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?
The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.
The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?
This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.
There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.
Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent on material objects existing within it, for its own existence.
What about nothing? Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing? Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if the first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause is that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore can never have been ‘nothing’.
What about the idea that the first cause created everything material from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material entities.
The uncaused, first cause cannot be material, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.
Continued in next comment.
Librepensador y escritor español / Spanish freethinker and write
Generacion del 98 / 98's Spanish Writers Generation (19th Century)
Siglo XIX / 19th Century
Sencillo y Gruñon / Natural & Grumpy
The Bluebonnet House: The Story of the Iconic Hill Country House
texashillcountry.com/bluebonnet-house-iconic/
History
Marble Falls was founded in 1887 by Adam Rankin Johnson, a former Indian fighter and Confederate general, known as "Stovepipe" Johnson for his Civil War escapades, which included duping the Union army in Newburgh, Indiana, with fake "cannons," constructed from stovepipes and wagon wheels. Johnson had viewed the natural Marble Falls during his pre-war days as a Burnet County surveyor, and had dreamed of building an industrial city, powered by the tumbling Colorado River, not to be confused with the river of the same name in Colorado and Arizona. Despite a "friendly fire" incident which blinded him near the end of the Civil War, General Johnson followed through with his dream, facilitating the construction of a railroad to nearby Granite Mountain in 1884, then (with ten partners, including one son, one nephew and two sons-in-law) platting the townsite and selling lots, beginning July 12, 1887. Johnson built a fine home, a college (soon to be home of the "Falls on the Colorado Museum") and a large factory near the falls. The town grew to a population of 1,800 within ten years.
Marble Falls made history in 1917 by electing Ophelia Crosby "Birdie" Harwood as the nation's first woman mayor, three years before women were allowed to vote.
When the Max Starcke Dam was completed in 1951, the marble falls which had given the town its name were submerged under the new Lake Marble Falls. While the town's economy struggled through the drought of the 1950s, a new economy based on tourism and retirement began to grow in the 1970s. During the last thirty years, Marble Falls has grown into the retail and entertainment center for the Highland Lakes area, and continues to attract tourists, retirees and new businesses.[8]
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marble_Falls,_Texas
HILL COUNTRY
"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.
Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.
But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.
In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area
Source: tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ryh02
Bluebonnets have been loved since man first trod the vast prairies of Texas. Indians wove fascinating folk tales around them. The early-day Spanish priests gathered the seeds and grew them around their missions. This practice gave rise to the myth that the padres had brought the plant from Spain, but this cannot be true since the two predominant species of bluebonnets are found growing naturally only in Texas and at no other location in the world.
As historian Jack Maguire so aptly wrote, "It's not only the state flower but also a kind of floral trademark almost as well known to outsiders as cowboy boots and the Stetson hat." He goes on to affirm that "The bluebonnet is to Texas what the shamrock is to Ireland, the cherry blossom to Japan, the lily to France, the rose to England and the tulip to Holland."
The ballad of our singing governor, the late W. Lee O'Daniel, goes, "you may be on the plains or the mountains or down where the sea breezes blow, but bluebonnets are one of the prime factors that make the state the most beautiful land that we know.
Aggie Horticulture
The universe from nothing?
The law of cause and effect tells us that every natural entity/event/effect requires an adequate cause. Which means an uncaused, ‘natural’ first cause is impossible, according to this fundamental principle of science.
Of course, this fact is fatal to atheist beliefs, because it rules out every conceivable, naturalistic, origin scenario.
One of the ways atheists try to get round the problem of a first cause is by saying - that the universe created itself from ‘nothing’ by natural processes.
If you think the notion that something could arise from nothing, by natural processes, is a crazy idea which defies logic and common sense, you are perfectly correct.
But atheists become extremely indignant at that accusation, and usually retort that anyone who thinks the idea is crazy is just plain ignorant. They accuse them of not understanding science, or what is really meant by 'nothing'.
So just what do atheists mean by their idea of nothing?
Incredibly, it turns out that the ‘nothing’ that atheists call nothing, isn't really nothing at all, but a definite ‘something’, i.e. space/time.
Confused or what?
So we have to ask - why do atheists perversely insist on referring to SOMETHING (i.e. space and time) which clearly ISN'T nothing - as NOTHING? They could, for example, just say that the universe created itself from a pre-existing, natural entity.
The answer is plain and simple … it is an obvious smokescreen.
Why would they need such a smokescreen?
Atheists know that people can easily accept the idea of an eternal nothingness, because ‘nothing’ in its true sense of the word (meaning NO - THING) doesn’t need a first cause. It simply means non-existence of everything.
And that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t need a cause.
Therefore, for atheists to claim the universe arose from 'nothing' means they can avoid having to explain ... what caused that which they believe existed before the universe?
However, the atheist’s ‘nothing’ actually turns out to be part of the existing material realm.
The atheist’s nothing is … ‘space’, and space is NOT nothing. Space is the medium which is around and between cosmic bodies in the existing universe.
In our universe, there is no such thing as empty space, even though it may look empty. We know that ‘space’ contains light, radio waves, gravitational forces, cosmic rays etc. Space is an integral part of the material universe, and is just as dependant on a first cause as the cosmic bodies it surrounds.
Therefore it is evident that the confusion between ‘space’ and ‘nothing’ is deliberate. The real nothing, that every sensible person understands as nothing, is totally different to the atheist idea of 'nothing'.
The space/time that atheists refer to as ‘nothing’ in their “UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING” scenario, apparently also contains energy and gravity.
Hence, the atheist ‘nothing’ turns out to be - not nothing at all, but a definite SOMETHING … And furthermore, it is an integral part of the material realm.
This means that, like all material things, – space (the atheist's 'nothing') cannot be non-contingent or eternally self-existent.
And that is the absolute crux of the matter.
It means that atheists are back to square one with the impossible problem of explaining a 'natural' first cause, because they still need to explain what CAUSED their 'nothing' (space) to exist, which is exactly what they were trying to avoid?
So there is no such thing as ... the universe from nothing. When you hear atheists proposing the universe arising from nothing, you will know what they are really proposing is the universe arising from 'something' which is itself already an integral part of the universe. In other words, it doesn't explain anything at all about a first cause of the universe. It is useless as a credible explanation of origins. It is just another atheist myth that has been debunked.
Why God must exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@
THE QUANTUM EFFECTS, SMOKE AND MIRRORS TRICK ...
What about the idea presented by some atheists that the answer to the origin of the universe lies in quantum mechanics and the so-called 'God' particle?
It is common sense that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with the origin of the universe.
The reasoning of those who propose quantum effects as a possible origin of the universe seems to be that, if something is impossible, just propose that it could happen - little by little -and that makes it plausible. If you make something as small, as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
It is a similar reasoning to that applied to the origin of life and progressive evolution.
But what makes anyone think it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?
Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size or lack of complexity doesn’t alter that.
Nevertheless, some atheists apparently still think …. that, although people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?-
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That should sound much more plausible to the public.
We could even find a particle which we could nickname the ‘God’ particle. Problem solved - apparently!
People will at least think that, even if we haven’t solved it completely, we are well on the way to solving it.
And, of course, if anyone still stubbornly insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a scientifically illiterate and gullible public, in awe of anything claimed to be scientific, to swallow that.
However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but some atheists loved it and, predictably, the secular, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God, because it is clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So those atheists who try to persuade people that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shoot themselves in the foot....
The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.
An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.
The very first cause of the universe cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains. The end result - the universe - cannot be greater in any respect than that which ultimately caused it. The properties of the first cause of the universe must at the very least, be equal to every property that exists in the universe.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.
Furthermore, quantum effects are not uncaused. They are part of a caused, contingent universe and are just as reliant on causes as the universe itself.
So those atheists who think they can replace God with quantum mechanics are entirely wrong, they are interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
The nickname the God particle actually originates from a book by Lederman.
Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs, an atheist, was reported to be displeased and stated in a 2008 interview that he found it "embarrassing" because it was "the kind of misuse... which I think might offend some people” Science writer Ian Sample stated in his 2010 book on the search that the nickname is "universally hate[d]" by physicists and perhaps the "worst derided" in the history of physics, but that (according to Lederman) the publisher rejected all titles mentioning "Higgs" as unimaginative and too unknown.”
____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.
The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
We all have own personal roads to TRAVEL, its only when we FOLLOW someone else's ROAD that we deviate from our own JOURNEY. BE STRONG and Travel Your Own Road.
Off Beat Poppy Parker™
The City Sweetheart Collection 2018
Any well-read gal of the 60s knew about author Lance Steinberg’s mind-altering poetry and Poppy Parker was fascinated by his ideas! Steinberg’s poignant texts appealed to a whole generation of teens and freethinkers of the time, bringing forth deep introspection and reflections about the state of things in 1960s America, often leading to dreams of better days ahead and peace in the world! As she recounts in her memoirs, one of Poppy’s most humbling moments was the day she finally got to meet him in person and he was just as starstruck with her as she was with him, both laughing over how they followed each other’s careers without knowing. That day, Poppy Parker knew she had made it in the world when Lance invited her to join him at an impromptu reading of his work at one of New York’s hippest underground clubs! Poppy felt right at home in that crowd and loved every moment of it!
"I content we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
(Stephen F. Roberts).
"Ich behaupte, dass wir beide Atheisten sind. Der einzige Unterschied ist, dass ich an einen Gott weniger glaube als du. Wenn du begreifst, warum du alle anderen möglichen Götter ablehnst, wirst du verstehen warum ich deinen Gott ablehne."
text of the flyer: Turkish, English.
Deutsch: Abschrift der Rückseite, siehe Kommentar.
Rechnung: Tabak Trafik Nancy Friedenthal, Westbahnhof Europaplatz
Part of: "an apple a day keeps the doctor away - An ENSO (Japanese: circle, Japanisch: Kreis) a day .... " Aktion Kreis Tagebuch A circle diary - Start of the 365-days Project: 1. September // colour blue + red = violet Farbe blau + rot = violett
panasonic DMC-GH3 - lumix
#rose #symbol #mythologie #mythos #religion #god #glaube #esoterik #flyer #mengenlehre #klammer #leer #blau #blau #red #rot #unterwegs #spaziergang #rundgang
COW CREEK
COW CREEK (Burnet County). Cow Creek rises eight miles southeast of Burnet in southeast central Burnet County (at 30°40' N, 98°09' W) and runs southeast for twenty-one miles to its mouth on Lake Travis, a mile above Lago Vista in Travis County (at 30°29' N, 98°01' W). The creek, which is intermittent in its upper reaches, traverses generally flat to rolling terrain with local escarpments and steep slopes and benches. Local soils of shallow clay and sandy loams support juniper, live oak, mesquite, and grasses.
Source: tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/rbclt
HILL COUNTRY
"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.
Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.
But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.
In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area
The Temple of Peace, located near the main entrance of Toowong Cemetery, Brisbane, was erected in 1924 by local dissident Richard Ramo. Its dedication took the form of a pacifist rally.
Like all Australian communities, Brisbane was profoundly affected by the impact of WWI. Of the 330,770 Australians who embarked for overseas service in WWI, 58,961 died and 170,909 were wounded, went missing or became prisoners of war. This meant that around 69% of embarked personnel became casualties - or 21% of eligible Australian males. To date, no previous or subsequent war has had such an impact on Australia in terms of loss of life; almost every community in every Australian state lost young people. Even before the end of hostilities, memorials were being erected by Australian communities to honour local people who had served and died. These memorials were a spontaneous and highly visible expression of national grief; substitute graves for the Australians whose bodies lay in battlefield cemeteries in Europe and the Middle East.
WWI memorials took a variety of forms in Australia, including honour boards (from 1915), stone monuments (including obelisks, soldier statues, arches, crosses, columns or urns), tree-lined memorial avenues, memorial parks, and utilitarian structures such as gates, halls and clocks. In Queensland the soldier statue was the most popular choice of monument, while the obelisk predominated in southern states. Australia's first permanent WWI memorial to honour the men from a particular community was unveiled at Balmain, NSW, 23 April 1916.
The Temple of Peace, a unique and highly unusual monument, appears to commemorate the deaths of Ramo's three natural sons on active service in World War I, along with the more recent suicide of his adopted son and poisoning of his dog. Since its dedication in 1924, the monument has become widely known and its claims have been accepted at face value. Extensive research since 2001 has revealed significant inconsistencies between the monument's claims and genealogical and military service records related to Ramo and his family. Dr. Judith McKay's 'Brisbane's Temple of Peace: war and myth-making', (which forms the basis of this entry), further explores and discusses the Temple of Peace, Ramo's family background and possible motivations behind its construction.
The monument bears inscriptions recording the deaths of Ramo's three soldier sons: Victor, killed at Messines at the age of 33; Henry, died of wounds in Belgium at the age of 29; and Gordon, killed at Gallipoli at 18. According to contemporary accounts of the dedication, the ashes of two of the sons had been recovered and re-interred here. The monument also has the sarcophagus of Fred Borell, Ramo's adopted son, who committed suicide at the age of 27; the inscription reads, ‘A misguided love brought me to an early grave'. The monument also commemorates Pup, Ramo's faithful dog, which had been ‘maliciously poisoned'. A statue of Pup sits atop Fred's sarcophagus. At its base Ramo added the words, ‘All my hope lies buried here'.
Significantly, the Temple of Peace bears none of solemn inscriptions normally associated with war memorials. As Ken Inglis observes in his definitive study of Australian war memorials, these were often of ancient origin, including Biblical or apocryphal, or incorporated patriotic verse. In place of these, Ramo added words expressing his own anguish and generally denouncing war, calling on the world's workers to unite in brotherhood.
Ramo is said to have designed the monument himself and undertaken most of its construction, labouring nine months on the project. This was apart from the help of Brisbane monumental mason WE Parsons with the marble and stone work. Parsons was responsible for another rather irreverent war monument: an extraordinarily relaxed soldier statue, standing pipe in hand and rifle slung from one shoulder, on the Beaudesert War Memorial, which had been unveiled a few years earlier, in 1921.
The monument is essentially a mausoleum, defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as ‘a stately and magnificent tomb'; at the time of its dedication it was likened to an Indian temple, reflecting its curious mix of architectural styles.
The Temple of Peace was described in a newspaper at the time as:
... an elaborately conceived and executed rectangular structure of stone, plaster, and marble, standing about 12ft [3.6m] high. Four corner columns support a canopy, and surmounting this there is an urn. ... A low, pillared marble balustrade is erected on two sides, and the end opposite the entrance steps is entirely enclosed. At the sides of the canopy wooden slabs are inscribed with the names of the three soldier sons of the builder, and with that of his adopted son. At the enclosed end ... is a poem exhorting the nations of the earth to cease from warfare. ... The mausoleum is adorned with ferns hanging from the canopy, and with ornaments in plaster and gilding. Over the steps is a little metal dove.
Ramo's edifice was dedicated on 6 December 1924 in the presence of a large pacifist gathering. The dedication was organised by the Australian Rationalist Association and addressed by its national President, Harry Scott Bennett, who urged those present to not only honour the dead but also promote international fraternity and reject war as an evil of modern capitalism. A trembling Ramo responded by paying tribute to his departed sons and calling for an end to the ‘cursed slaughter of war'.
The coffin bearing the Borell's remains was borne in procession from the Anglican section of the cemetery, where it had been interred a year earlier. The coffin was draped in a red flag and, as it was placed in the monument, the Labor Band played the socialist anthem the ‘Red Flag'.
Absent from the proceedings were any of the religious or military rituals often to be seen at the unveiling of war memorials. The monument's radical and highly orchestrated dedication, together with its subversive features and inscriptions, make it unique among Australian war memorials. As Ken Inglis writes, ‘The count of anti-war memorials is small' and this is ‘a monument like no other anywhere'. Its nearest equivalent, he states, is a pair of plaques erected in Melbourne's Trades Hall in 1918 to commemorate opponents of conscription.
As well as being a strong anti-war expression, the monument appears to be the work of a devoted father mourning the loss of his sons. In this regard, the documentary evidence indicates otherwise. Richard Ramo was born Karl Paul Richard Retzlaff in Prussia in 1863. Migrating to Australia in 1887, he worked as a cabinetmaker and gilder and in 1890 in Sydney married a fellow Prussian, Auguste Elise Seidel, a servant. Between 1891 and 1896 the couple had three sons, all born in New South Wales: Percy, Cecil and Gordon; there was no Victor or Henry, as claimed on the memorial, Gordon is the only son verified. Ramo was naturalised in 1905, at which time he changed his surname from Retzlaff, but his sons adopted different variations of both names.
Two of Richard Ramo's sons did serve in World War I. Gordon, who used the name Redcliff, was a Private in the 19th Battalion and was killed at Gallipoli on 1 November 1915. Cecil, who used the name Raymo, was a Sapper in the 5th Divisional Signal Company and, though wounded, managed to survive the war and went on to serve in the next war. The third son Percy, who used the name Redcliffe, did not serve and spent the war years in Sydney.
Ramo's claim that his son's ashes were recovered and re-interred in the Temple of Peace is inconsistent with Australian and British military practice at the time. Other fallen Australians, like their comrades from other parts of the British Empire, were buried (not cremated) beside the battlefields in which they fell and eventually in the cemeteries of the Imperial War Graves Commission.
The service record of Gordon, the son who died at Gallipoli, provides evidence of Richard Ramo's fractured relationship with his family. A statutory declaration by Percy Ramo stated that Ramo had deserted his sons at an early age and that Gordon, the youngest, had become a ward of the state. It is also known Ramo's wife Elise spent time in a Newcastle mental asylum, losing contact with her surviving sons; according to Ramo's great-granddaughter, he had his wife ‘put away' after years of cruelty and abuse. Other evidence indicates Ramo also is also likely to have suffered from mental health issues. By 1918, Ramo, estranged from his family, had moved to Brisbane where he bought a hairdressing salon at 180 Roma Street. In July 1923 he sold this for a second-hand shop two doors away, where he also lived.
Richard Ramo's adopted son, Ferdinand (Fred) Christian Borell was born in Queensland in 1896. The son of German immigrants Carl Heinrich Borell and his wife Auguste Anna, née Mutzelburg, he grew up on a farm near Laidley. Fred Borrell was a blacksmith by trade and first met Ramo as a hairdressing client. In 1922, when Ramo was ill and needed assistance, Borell began working and residing with Ramo, and was ‘adopted'. Their relationship deteriorated after Borell had an affair with a neighbouring married woman. This led to a showdown, after which Borrell seized a revolver and shot himself. He died on 28 November 1923 and was buried at Toowong Cemetery two days later. A six day inquest followed, attracting much press attention.
The final victim commemorated in Ramo's monument, Pup, his poisoned dog, is not mentioned in accounts of the dedication, so is possibly a later addition. According to Ramo's former neighbour in Petrie Terrace, where he lived at the end of his life, he kept a pack of dogs.
The motivations behind Richard Ramo's decision to to erect the Temple of Peace remain unclear; Ramo, scarcely literate, left no papers. Queensland, along with the rest of Australia, experienced significant volatility and instability in the years following World War I, marked by industrial strife and social, political and ideological conflict. The sanctification of war, expressed most visibly through the erection of war memorials, was not supported by all members of the community. Ramo was certainly a pacifist and socialist, though the precise nature of his beliefs remains unknown.
The monument's inscriptions suggest that he was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World [IWW], or Wobblies; or at least familiar with its propaganda. This was a revolutionary movement that began in the United States in 1905 and soon spread elsewhere. Committed to overthrowing capitalism through industrial action, the IWW sought to unite the world's workers and was implacably opposed to World War I, which it saw as pitting workers against one another in the cause of imperialism and profit. Though the IWW was never as strong in Queensland as in the south, it had a sizeable following in the north among meat and sugar workers and miners, and was involved in the 1916 Shearers' Strike and the 1919 Red Flag Riots. Ramo came to Queensland just as the IWW was at its strongest; its numbers swelled by exiles from the south, where federal legislation banning dissident groups was enforced. Such groups were subject to persecution, so their members and activities were rarely recorded, hence it is impossible to prove Ramo's involvement.
Though the Australian Rationalist Association played a major role in the dedication of Ramo's monument, it is unlikely that he was a Rationalist. The association, a group of freethinkers and socialists, was established in London in 1899. Formed in Queensland a decade later, its members tended to be middle-class intellectuals who held discussions but did not engage in militant propaganda. Though sympathetic for a dissident like Ramo, they would have had little in common with him.
The Temple of Peace is located close to two other major war memorials at Toowong Cemetery: the Cross of Sacrifice and Stone of Remembrance. Replicas of structures found in British battlefield cemeteries across the world, they were the first such memorials to be erected in Australia, to honour the many soldier burials within the cemetery-men who had died upon return from service. The memorials, affirmations of imperial loyalty, were erected by the instigators of Anzac observance, the Queensland Anzac Commemoration Committee, with the assistance of the State Government, and were to become a focus of future observance. They were unveiled on Anzac Day 1924 by Governor-General Lord Forster, with Christian rites and official pageantry, before a crowd of 3000. These memorials would have been under construction just as Ramo was planning his monument.
Whether the siting and form of Ramo's monument was a deliberate pacifist response to the official structures nearby is uncertain; it remains as an impassioned anti-war landmark in its context.
How Ramo, a hairdresser turned second-hand dealer, had the means to erect such a monument which, in its day, would have cost almost as much as an ordinary worker's dwelling, is unknown. He funded another monument in Toowong Cemetery: that of his former hairdressing assistant Albert Willcock (in portion 4, near the Temple of Peace). More curiously, Ramo's name appears on this and other monuments as monumental mason (the Innes and Herd monuments in portion 8) and these share similarities with the Temple of Peace, namely the eccentric ornament.
Richard Ramo remained in Brisbane until his death in 1951 at age of 87. He was cremated and his ashes were added to the Temple of Peace.
Alterations have been made to the mausoleum over time. The enclosing of the sides above the balustrade with leadlight panels, is likely to have been undertaken before Ramo's death in 1951. After falling into disrepair and damage from vandals, the mausoleum was restored in 2009 through funds partially donated by the Queensland Government, the Brisbane City Council, the Friends of Toowong Cemetery and raised from the community. Transparent protective panels were added to all elevations at this time.
Source: Queensland Heritage Register.
Quantum effects, the smoke and mirrors trick ….
Atheists would dearly love to debunk the Law of Cause and Effect, and all the other natural laws that are fatal to their ideology of naturalism.
(The atheist 'religion' of naturalism requires a NATURAL, first cause of the universe, which the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws definitively rule out as impossible).
Of course, they know they can never succeed, because by undermining the Law of Cause and Effect, they effectively undermine science itself. The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of scientific research. The scientific method relies on seeking and discovering causes for EVERY natural event. The concept of an uncaused, natural event or entity is an anathema to genuine science.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws".
Although intelligent atheists are well aware that they can never debunk laws, which definitively rule out a natural origin of the universe as impossible - nevertheless, they attempt to give the impression, to the public, that a natural, first cause of everything is scientifically feasible, and that laws of nature are not a serious obstacle.
One way atheists try to convince the public to accept their naturalist ideology, is by proposing that the quantum world is very different from the world we see around us. And in that mysterious, quantum world virtually anything can occur, regardless of natural laws which generally describe what is possible in the universe.
This apparent air of mystery gives atheists carte blanche to propose various, bizarre, origin scenarios, which would normally be ruled out as impossible or as just crackpot fantasies.
If challenged, to scientifically justify such imaginative scenarios, they usually reply; ‘with quantum effects, no one knows what is possible’. In this way, opposition to any extraordinary hypothesis can be effectlively silenced. And to dispute, whatever origin scenario they choose to invent, may seem pointless.
However, it would be entirely wrong to accept this.
Science does not progress in a straightjacket, especially one imposed for ideological reasons. We are perfectly justified in rigorously challenging the idea that quantum mechanics or effects are a possible, natural answer to the origin of the universe. And that quantum effects can give credence to the belief that everything naturally arose from nothing, without an adequate cause, or purpose.
So, what is the truth?
We can state quite categorically that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.
Why?
It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing, and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause. Micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception. There are NO exceptions.
Atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something'.
The atheist mentality seems to be that, if something is deemed impossible, just propose it could happen; little-by-little, and it becomes plausible, especially to a credulous public.
Presumably, if you make it as small, make it sound as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
This is a similar, little-by-little approach that atheists have applied to the origin of life, and it is precisely how they have managed to get most people to accept microbes-to-human evolution, through beneficial mutations.
However, we need to ask ...
What makes atheists think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Would it be easier, or more credible, for a grain of sand to come from nothing than for a boulder?
Of course, it wouldn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size, or lack of complexity, doesn’t alter that.
It seems that atheist thinking is something like the following:
Although people may realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That could seem much more plausible.
What if we could even find such a particle - a sort of ‘god’ particle?
We could claim a supernatural, first cause (God) has been made redundant.
The first cause problem would be solved - apparently!
At least, people would believe that; even if the problem of everything coming from nothing, without a cause, hasn’t been solved completely, 'science' is well on the way to solving it.
If anyone suggests this is nonsense; that the first cause must an infinite Creator. We can accuse them of trying to fill gaps in 'scientific' knowledge with a god. The good old, the god-of-the-gaps argument.
Finally, if anyone is stubborn enough to insist that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t come from absolutely nothing, we can retort that the ‘nothing, we are referring to, is not the same ‘nothing’ that the scientifically illiterate think of as nothing, but ‘something’ which only appears to be nothing, i.e. space/time.
Physicist Michio Kaku wrote:
"In quantum physics, it was a Higgs-like particle that sparked the cosmic explosion [the Big Bang]. In other words, everything we see around us, including galaxies, stars, planets and us, owes its existence to the Higgs boson."
Kaku, M. The Spark That Caused the Big Bang. The Wall Street Journal. Posted on online.wsj.com July 5, 2012.
However, a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved the idea, and predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that, not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
Why?
A simple, sub-atomic particle simply CANNOT be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is simple and microscopic, have shot themselves in the foot....
The little-by-little approach, which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution, also doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.
FACT!
An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause (the Law of Cause and Effect).
The very first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means EVERY property and quality it contains, including: information, life, intelligence, consciousness, design, love, justice, etc. etc.
Always remember this very important, and common sense, fact:
Something cannot give what it doesn't possess.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, they are definitely NOT an adequate cause of the universe. And, neither are any of the other natural, origin scenarios proposed by atheists. They all fail in this regard.
What about the atheist claim that, because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused?
Quantum effects, may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous.
As for a direct cause of quantum effects, it can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance. So just because, in some instances, causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there are ever no causes.
So, atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
To give the impression to the public that they could be, is just a smoke and mirrors trick deliberately intended to deceive.
The 'God particle', Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers, the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe."
Why are laws of nature so important in this debate?
Laws of nature are both descriptive and prescriptive.
Laws of nature describe the behaviour, operation, potential and LIMITATIONS of natural things based on their inherent properties. They enable us to make predictions based on those properties. The only way that laws of nature could ever be invalid is, if the inherent properties of natural things they apply to, are changed.
The insurmountable problem for atheists is that, although they might try to invent fantasy scenarios where the properties of nature are different, and therefore not subject to most established laws. There is no possible, fantasy scenario which can negate the law of cause and effect. The law which is most fatal to atheist naturalism is the very law that cannot possibly be negated, under any circumstances.
Why?
Because the law of cause and effect is in a unique category, different from all other laws of nature. It is not just a fundamental principle of science, it can also be regarded as the premier law of the universe and creation, because it applies to ALL temporal things, not just nature or natural entities. It doesn’t matter what different properties natural things may have, they can never evade the law of cause and effect. It isn't based on the properties of things, it doesn't depend on any particular properties, only on a temporal character, nothing more.
And that is a FACT, which cannot be denied.
The ONLY exception to the first part of this law – every effect must have a cause – is that which is not temporal (that which has no beginning), i.e. INFINITE, not subject to time (time is a chronology of temporal/temporary events).
The second part of this law – an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s – applies to everything that exists, even to an infinite entity. An infinite entity cannot cause an effect greater than itself.
Thus, the law of cause and effect definitively rules out ALL natural or temporal entities as a possible, first cause.
The first cause of everything natural/temporal, MUST BE a single, infinite (uncaused, eternally self-existent and omnipresent), entirely autonomous, supernatural cause which is greater, in every respect, than everything else that exists (which it has caused).
That is the first cause we call the Creator or God.
What about a singularity?
Is a 'Singularity' the first cause of everything, as some atheists maintain?
A singularity (meaning single event) is described by atheists as a one-off event where the laws of nature didn't apply.
A natural event, not subject to laws of nature, used to be called – magic! Until, atheists started calling it ‘science’.
Quote:
"This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there." Stephen Hawking, The Beginning of Time.
However, even if you want to believe in the fantasy of a 'singularity', it makes no difference to the fact that a natural cause of the universe is impossible.
A singularity doesn't negate the law of cause and effect, because, as I have already explained, that law pertains to ALL temporal entities. And it always applies, even if the laws of physics don't apply.
Conclusion:
It doesn't matter what natural, origin scenarios are proposed, none of them can ever qualify as the first cause of the universe. An origin of the universe by purely, natural processes is ruled out as IMPOSSIBLE.
The Bible rightly tells us to worship and honour the Creator, and not to worship the created.
Pagans honour and worship the created by crediting nature/material entities with godlike powers.
Atheists honour the created, rather than the Creator, because they elevate the effects (nature, matter/energy) to a godlike status and deny their cause.
The new, atheist naturalism nonsense is simply the old, pagan naturalism nonsense re-invented.
____________________________________________
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
ATHEISM REFUTED.
There are only 2 basic options for the origin of the universe .... an uncaused, supernatural first cause of the universe OR an uncaused, natural first cause of the universe. If you categorically reject the former (as atheists do), you have no option but to accept the latter by default. It is an intellectually dishonest cop-out to say atheism is merely a lack of belief. A genuine lack of belief would be classed as agnosticism, which is a neutral position. It is a 'don't know' or 'fence sitting' position. A 'don't know' position is not one which would specifically single out to reject, attack and ridicule just one side of the argument, i.e. the concept of a supernatural, first cause, as atheism does.
Atheists cannot simply deny, attack and vociferously ridicule the concept of - a supernatural, first cause, without being expected to justify the only alternative - a natural, first cause. That cannot be regarded as intellectually credible or rational.
We see that atheists dogmatically reject supernaturalism and are zealously on the side of naturalism (a naturalistic origin and explanation for everything). That is not a neutral, 'don't know' or objective position. It is not merely a lack of belief. It is a positive and subjective belief in naturalism. And hence a belief in a natural cause of the universe, and everything that exists or has ever existed.
What is religion?
It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from absolutely nothing.
The incredible fantasy promoted by some high profile, atheist 'scientists' - that the universe was able to create itself from nothing - is merely a cynical and unscientific attempt to evade the scientific law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.
A child can understand that something CANNOT create itself. For something to create itself, it would have to pre-exist its own creation in order to do the creating. In which case, it already exists and has no need to create itself. And, if something already exists, it is not 'nothing'.
It is an insult to the intelligence of the public that such illogical and unscientific nonsense - as the universe creating itself from nothing - can be presented as 'science'. Nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by high profile scientists.
However, if you believe in the only, truly, credible possibility - that something has always existed with (godlike) powers capable of producing all the wonderful, amazing qualities we see in the existing universe - information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness etc. (science tells us; an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s) - then you believe in a god. The only remaining question is - which god?
Religion seeks to answer that question.
So how do we know that atheism false and that God MUST exist?
Firstly ...
We know that the universe has not always existed, we know it had a beginning and it is 'running down' from an original peak of energy potential at its beginning. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy) confirms that. So we know the universe had an origin.
Secondly .....
What about matter itself?
Can matter have always existed? The simple answer is no.
Matter/energy and all natural entities and events are contingent, they rely on causes for everything. Because they are contingent they cannot be eternally self-existent or necessary entities. They do not contain within themselves the reason or cause of their own existence. As contingent entities, they are entirely reliant on that which causes and maintains them. They cannot exist or operate in any way without causes, Thus they must have had an original cause at some stage, even if the chain of causes and effects is very long, it had to have a beginning at some point.
A basic principle of the scientific method is that we can expect to find an adequate cause for every natural occurrence. All scientific research is based on that premise ...
“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Dr. Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183.
To propose a non-contingent (uncaused), natural occurrence or entity as the originator of the universe (as atheists are forced to do), is unscientific fantasy.
Thirdly ....
A supernatural first cause (God) is not a contingent entity. It is not natural, and is not bound by natural laws which govern matter and all natural events. In fact, as the first cause of matter/energy, it is also the author of the laws that govern matter/energy. It cannot be subject to laws it has created.
As the very first cause, it also cannot have had any preceding cause, so we know it cannot be a contingent entity.
Why? Because ...first means first, not second or third. If something is first, nothing preceded it. It must have always existed and must have had within itself the means of its own existence. It could not have relied on anything else for its existence. So the supernatural, first cause (a creator God) has to be eternally, self-existent and necessary.
It also has to have the powers and ability to create everything else that exists in the universe. As the original cause, it has to be an adequate cause of everything ...of all causes and effects that follow it, forever. That means - it has to have the powers, properties and qualities sufficient to create: time, matter/energy, natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness and every characteristic that humans have. Because we, as a mere effect of the first cause, cannot be greater than that which ultimately caused us.
So God is the non-contingent, self-existent, necessary, supernatural, first cause of everything in the universe.
That is the logical conclusion of the understanding and application of natural laws.
ATHEIST BELIEF IN A NATURAL FIRST CAUSE VIOLATES NATURAL LAW.
THUS ATHEISM IS ILLOGICAL, AND ANTI-SCIENCE.
Essential characteristics of the first cause.
Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.
What about polytheism, can there be more than one God or Creator.
It is patently obvious there can only be one supernatural first cause.
The first cause is infinite - and logically, there cannot be more than one infinite entity.
If there were two infinite entities, for example, A and B. The qualities and perfections that are the property of B would be a limitation on the qualities and perfections of A. and vice versa, so neither would be infinite.
If A & B had identical qualities and perfections they would not be two different entities, they would be identical and therefore the same entity, i.e. a single, infinite, first cause. So there can be only one infinite being or entity, only one supernatural, first cause and creator of the universe.
So when atheists keep repeating the claim - that there is no reason to believe the monotheistic, Christian God is any different from the multiple, gods of pagan religions, it simply displays their ignorance and lack of reasoning.
Does the first cause have to be a supernatural one, or is it (as atheists claim) just a desperate attempt by ignorant people to fill a gap in scientific knowledge, by saying - God did it?
What does 'supernatural' mean? It means something which cannot be explained by science, natural laws or by natural processes.
The origin of the universe cannot be explained by genuine science, natural laws or by natural processes. And that is an undeniable FACT.
Why?
Because EVERY possible explanation by natural processes violates both the fundamental principle of the scientific method - the Law of Cause and Effect - and other natural laws.
Hence, the first cause, by virtue of the fact that it cannot be explained by science or natural processes, automatically qualifies as a supernatural entity.
To insist that the first cause must be a natural entity or event is to invoke a magical explanation, not a scientific one. The only choice, therefore is between a supernatural first cause or a magical first cause? A natural event that is purported to defy natural laws and scientific principles can only be described as MAGIC. And that is exactly what atheists propose. They cynically dress up their belief - that nature can evade natural laws - as science, but science certainly cannot envisage a causeless, natural event or entity, science cannot look for non-causes.
No one has ever proposed a natural explanation for the origin of the universe that does not violate the law of cause and effect and other natural laws. But, whenever they are challenged about this fact, they always make the excuse that the laws of nature/physics somehow DID NOT APPLY to their proposed, natural origin scenario.
The most, well known case of this excuse is the alleged 'Singularity' which, it was claimed, preceded the Big Bang. Remember it was claimed to be a "one-off event where the laws of physics did not apply." A natural event that defied natural laws! - That used to be called 'magic', before atheist 'scientists' hi-jacked science with their religion of naturalism - the All Powerful, autonomous, Mother Nature.
Excuses aren't science. A natural event that violates natural laws is by definition, not possible. There are no ifs, buts or perhaps, natural things are bound by natural laws, without question. Natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities. And the whole essence of science is the fact that every natural entity/event is contingent - has to have an ADEQUATE CAUSE.
The idea of 'laws not applying' to a natural event, is not science. It is just fantasy.
If the origin of the universe is inexplicable to science, within the accepted framework of normal, natural processes and natural laws, then it is a supernatural event.
You cannot claim something as a natural event that violates natural laws. For that reason it is inexplicable to science.
In fact. to claim that something natural can defy natural laws is anti-science.
Those who believe such nonsense are enemies of science.
ALL NATURAL explanations for the origin of the universe violate the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws.
Conclusion: the atheist belief in a natural explanation for the origin of the universe (that Mother Nature did it) is impossible - according to science.
The argument, often used by atheists, that we don’t know what natural laws existed at the beginning of the universe is a desperate attempt to evade the fact that natural laws are fatal to a natural origin (or natural, first cause) of the universe. It is a nonsensical argument because natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities, those properties don’t change.
However, even if we accept the possibility that natural laws could have been different at (or prior to) the beginning of the universe, it is irrelevant to the Law of Cause and Effect. That law is an exception.
Why?
Because the Law of Cause and Effect is in a different category from all other laws which are based solely on the inherent properties of natural things. In fact, it is better described as an eternal truth, rather than a law.
It is a unique and overriding principle of existence, different from other physical laws which are just pertinent to natural entities. Science (which deals exclusively with natural things), quite rightly, accepts the principle of causality as a natural law, and the scientific method is based on it being true.
We know the Law of Cause and Effect cannot be different, or non-operational under any circumstances. That is a fact, because it necessarily applies to ALL temporal things.
Unlike other laws, it is not based on any particular, physical properties of nature, it is based only on the temporal character of nature.
Natural things are all temporal and therefore can never escape from that overriding principle.
Everything with a temporal character is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect, wherever and whenever it exists. There cannot be an exception to this, and that is why we can rely 100% on the scientific method, which depends on exploring causes.
So, even if the argument that we don't know what laws existed at the beginning of the universe is correct, it doesn't and can't apply to the principle of causality.
The principle of causality had to exist at the beginning. It is an eternal principle and truth, which can never be different, under any circumstances.
FACT: If something is temporal, then it is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, it is not possible to propose a natural origin scenario that can escape the Law of Cause and Effect. All natural entities and occurrences are temporal and therefore are all subject to cause and effect.
The only thing not subject to a cause is the first cause, because the first cause is not temporal, it is infinite and eternally self-existent.
The first cause doesn’t violate the law of cause and effect, because it is only a cause and not an effect. The law states that every effect requires a cause, not that everything requires a cause.
Everything, other than the first cause is an effect, is contingent, and owes its existence to causes, which ultimately originate with the uncaused, first cause (God).
Atheism is debunked ... and God MUST exist.
___________________________________________
____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.
The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
Which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?
You may think this is a stupid question -
Because ...
Atheism is claimed by atheists and the popular media as the rational, scientific viewpoint. While Christianity is portrayed as an irrational, outdated, backward enemy of science.
Many of us have been conditioned to believe this.
But is what they say actually true?
The answer may surprise you.
What does science itself have to say?
1. The First Law of Thermodynamics says - there is no natural means by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite - that matter/energy created itself, from nothing, by natural processes.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the First Law.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 1
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that both the energy potential and order of the universe is decreasing from an initial peak.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite - that energy potential naturally increased of its own accord to a peak, followed by a subsequent, continuing development of order.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Second Law.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 2
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
3. Law of Cause and Effect says – every natural effect/event has a cause.
Christians fully accept this law, without reservation.
Atheists refuse to accept this law, and claim the opposite – a natural, first cause of the universe that was uncaused.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject the Law of Cause and Effect.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 3
Atheism 0
__________________________________________
4. The Law of Cause and Effect also says – that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The cause must always be adequate to produce the effect.
Christians fully accept this aspect of the law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the opposite – they propose that the universe originated from an uncaused, natural, first cause, which would obviously be inadequate to produce the effect.
i.e. they propose a natural cause of the universe [such as a (Big Bang) explosion or quantum effects] which would be grossly inferior to the totality of all the properties/qualities that exist in the universe.
Therefore, with regard to origins, atheists reject this aspect of the Law of Cause and Effect.
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 4
Atheism 0
_________________________________________
5. The Law of Biogenesis says – only life begets life, it cannot arise by purely natural processes from sterile matter.
Christians fully accept this well-established law, without reservation.
Atheists claim the exact opposite – they claim that life on Earth, and possibly, even on other planets, did arise by natural processes from sterile matter.
The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.
Regardless of the facts, atheists stubbornly refuse to accept the well established, Law of Biogenesis and, quite perversely, have invented their own (unscientific) law which they call ‘abiogenesis’ to replace it.
Abiogenesis (which has no evidence to support it) says the complete opposite of the Law of Biogenesis. It says that matter/energy is inherently predisposed to create life of its own volition when environmental conditions are conducive.
Unsurprisingly, atheists cannot explain where this alleged predisposition of matter to produce life comes from? Ironically, this predisposition for life is fatal to the atheist idea of a purposeless universe? A classic, catch 22 situation.
Therefore, with regard to the origin of life, atheists reject the Law of Biogenesis
_________________________________________
SCIENTIFIC, CREDIBILITY SCORE:
Christianity 5/5
Atheism 0/5
_________________________________________
So, which is more scientific - atheism or Christianity?
Christianity fully accepts all natural laws, without reservation.
Atheism disregards or rejects any natural laws (or evidence) that contradict the atheist belief in naturalism.
Atheist (pagan-revivalist) naturalism credits natural entities with god-like, non-contingent, autonomous powers, which (according to science) they clearly don't possess.
This means ....
Christianity is more scientific than atheism.
_________________________________________
Conclusion ...
Christianity is compatible with science.
Atheism is an irrational, outdated, backward, enemy of science.
_________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.
The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183
HILL COUNTRY
"Hill Country" is a vernacular term applied to a region including all or part of twenty-five counties near the geographical center of Texas. In the geomorphological sense, the Hill Country represents in large part a dissected plateau surface. It is bordered on the east and south by the Balcones Escarpment, on the west by the relatively undissected Edwards Plateau, and on the north by rolling plains and prairies. The elevations range from less than 1000 feet in the south and eastern areas of the Hill Country and generally rise toward the north and west to reach more than 2500 feet in Schleicher and Kerr counties, with most areas ranging between 1400 and 2200 feet. Lying in the transition zone between humid and semiarid climates, the Hill Country experiences both wet and dry years; at Fredericksburg eleven inches of precipitation was recorded in 1956 and forty-one inches the next year. The vegetation originally consisted of a parklike, open forest dominated by several types of oak, giving way in places to expanses of shinnery, to prairie, or to dense juniper (colloquially called cedar) brakes. Both mesquites and junipers have expanded as the environment has been disturbed. In the cultural sense the Hill Country has been a meeting ground of Indian, Spaniard, Mexican, hill southern Anglo, and northern European. The Apaches and their successors, the Comanches, left little imprint but did retard Spanish colonial activities in the region. As early as 1860 the partition of the Hill Country between the two groups that were to dominate it—hill southern Anglos and Germans—had been accomplished.
Between 1840 and 1850 significant numbers of settlers, mostly southern mountaineers, had been attracted to the Hill Country, particularly to Williamson, Hays, Comal, and Gillespie counties. Settlers from the mountain states of Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri composed the largest nativity groups within the rural, immigrant, Anglo-American population of these counties. The initial settlement of the remaining Hill Country counties occurred in the decade before the outbreak of the Civil War, as migration into the hills continued on a larger scale. According to a count of the 1860 manuscript census the leading states of origin for the Anglo-American population were still Arkansas and Tennessee. In the 1880 census the trend remained the same, supporting the claim that migration from the Ozark, Ouachita, and Appalachian states was largely responsible for the settlement of the Hill Country.
But the southern mountaineers were not solely responsible for the peopling of the Hill Country. Germans, mainly hill Hessians and Lower Saxons, introduced in the middle 1840s by the Society of Nobles (see ADELSVEREIN), occupied a corridor stretching 100 miles northwestward from New Braunfels and San Antonio through Fredericksburg as far as Mason, along the axis of an old Indian route known as the Pinta Trail, later called the Upper Emigrant Road. The towns of Fredericksburg, Comfort, Boerne, and Mason all bear a strong German cultural imprint, as do numerous neighboring hamlets and farms. By 1870 the population of Gillespie County was 86 percent German, Comal 79 percent, Kendall 62 percent, and Mason 56 percent. Each river valley in the German-settled portion of the Hill Country developed its own distinctive subculture, particularly in the religious sense. The Pedernales valley in Gillespie County is a Lutheran-Catholic enclave abounding in dance halls and ethnic clubs; the Llano valley in Mason and western Llano counties is dominated by German Methodists, who avoid dancing, drinking, and card playing; and the Guadalupe valley of Kendall County is the domain of freethinkers who maintain the only rural stronghold of agnosticism in Texas. Other European groups in the Hill Country include Silesian Poles, who settled at Bandera in the 1850s; Alsatians, who spread up from the Castroville area, following streams such as Hondo Creek; and Britishers, who came as sheepraisers to Kerr and Kendall counties. Blacks are largely absent in the Hill Country, though a few tiny freedmen colonies, such as Payton Colony in Blanco County, occur. Hispanics form a relatively small minority throughout the Hill Country.
In the late 1970s a study was made to determine the extent and intensity of the Hill Country as a perceptual region. Almost three-quarters of the people in the region so designated identified "Hill Country" as the popular name for the area