There are some important issues regarding science and religion that would prepare teenagers for adulthood, but schools are afraid to discuss them.

If you want to jump to the section on science, click here

How does a "religion" differ from a cult, organization, social club, or business? For example, Scientology, the Mormons, and the Jehovah's Witnesses are considered as "religions" in America, but many people in Europe, consider them to be "cults". What about the television evangelists? Are they religious leaders, cult leaders, or con artists? If cults are bad, why don't we just prohibit them?

Some people consider a religion to be a philosophy; a set of beliefs to live by. For example, many Christians believe they are following the philosophy of Jesus Christ. However, if religion is a philosophy, then anybody can be any religion they please simply by following the philosophy, but this is not true according to some Jews. For example:

• One of my high school English teachers was impressed by Jews, so she went to the local synagogue and asked to become a Jew. However, they told her that they didn't want her. She told us that the Jews must be a very great people because she didn't meet their standards.

Since the Jews at that particular synagogue were determining who becomes a Jew, that synagogue was a discriminatory social club, not a philosophy.

• Some Jews believe a person must have a Jewish mother to be a Jew. These people consider Jews to be a race, not a philosophy. These Jews do not accept Sammy Davis Jr. as a Jew.

How can a philosophy have a leader?

Christians believe that they are following the philosophy of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, nothing Jesus said was documented while he was alive, so his philosophy must be interpreted from poorly translated versions of the Bible that were written long after his death.

The frustration of trying to interpret the various confusing Bibles has resulted in people gathering around self-appointed experts who claim to know what the Jesus meant. These people create "organized religions", or "churches". They become the dictator of the organization. They determine the philosophy of Jesus, and they suppress discussions. There is no free speech within an organized religion.

The members of an organized religion naively assume that they are following the philosophy of Jesus Christ, but they are actually following one person's interpretation of one or more Bibles. This is why Christianity has thousands of different variations of the philosophy of Jesus.

Most organized religions are under the control of an arrogant dictator of questionable mental health. Each of them claim to have 100% correct religious beliefs, and that everybody else is an ignorant, misguided fool. The end result is that the members of organized religions are constantly fighting with one another over whose religion is correct.

The organized religions are also exploiting their members for money and using them to promote political causes. For example:

• In 1987 Oral Roberts told his followers that God threatened to kill him if he does not raise $8 million in two months.

• John Hagee tells his followers that God wants the Christians to support Israel.

• The Mormon Church pushes their followers into giving them 10% of their income.

The philosophy of Jesus never changes, and it cannot change because Jesus is dead. However, the dictators in control of organized religions have modified it many times. For example, a century ago Catholics were told that they should not eat meat on Friday, and a few decades ago Catholics were told that it was okay to eat meat on Friday. The Catholic Church is treating its members the same way young children treat pet dogs; namely, jerking them around, but the abuse is not as extreme as with Scientology, so most people don't notice.

“No, doggie! Jesus says turn to the left! No,wait... Jesus says turn to the right.”

Organized religions are just intelligent cults

The difference between a cult and an organized religion is subtle; it is like the difference between a coloring book for children and a Time magazine. Adults consider coloring books to be simplistic entertainment for children. However, some of us consider a Time magazine to also be silly entertainment, with the addition of sexual titillation and anti-Muslim, pro-Israel propaganda.

Coloring book • Time magazine The same thing for different mental levels

As mentioned in Part 1 of this series of articles, most people are ordinary, and a lot are dumb. There are also a lot of people with mental problems.

Each person selects the publications and religion that he approves of. From each person's point of view, his particular selections are intelligent, but other people may consider his magazines to be idiotic, and his religion to be a cult.

A cult is simply an organized religion that appeals to people who are below average intelligence and/or suffering from above average mental disorders. Because the members have such low quality minds, the cult leaders can exploit their followers to such an extreme extent that majority of people can see the exploitation.

If the majority of people see the exploitation in a particular organized religion, then it is a "cult". If the majority cannot see it, it is a "religion". It is similar to how the majority of Americans approve of alcohol, so alcohol is considered an adult beverage, but they do not approve of marijuana, some marijuana is considered a dangerous drug.

It's not easy to prohibit cults because the difference between a cult and an organized religion is a difference of degree. For example, are the television evangelists "preaching the philosophy of Jesus" or "exploiting people for money"? How are the evangelists different from the leaders of the Catholic or Mormon churches? How are the police supposed to know when a person has crossed the line from being a religious person to being a con artist? Has Oral Roberts or the Pope crossed that line? Should either of them be arrested?

Only a few of us who can see that all of the organized religions -- without exception -- are exploiting their members. However, the organized religions that are designed for the more intelligent people are more subtle with their exploitation.

There is evidence that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by Zionists. If the accusations are true, then instead of following the philosophy of Jesus, the Catholics are following "false prophets" who are trying to sabotage, manipulate, and destroy them. Didn't Jesus warn people about this problem?

If the Catholics would follow the philosophy of Jesus, they would ignore the Catholic Church.

I have some information about the infiltration of the Catholic Church, although I cannot guarantee that Jim Condit, Jr.'s information is accurate or honest:
VaticanInfiltration.html

Organized religions are provided with special tax advantages, and they are treated as if they are beneficial additions to society. However, all throughout history the organized religions have been abusive, militant dictatorships that manipulate and exploit their members, influence government officials and schools, and encourage fights between different religions.

Schools are currently avoiding the issue of religion, but schools should not be intimidated by organized religions. Instead, schools should explain to children that when they join an organized religion, they are following a dicatorial human; they are not following Jesus, or whoever their prophet is. And when they give money to an organized religion, they are giving money to its dictator, not to Jesus, God, or whoever their prophet is.

"Organized science" is not much better than a cult

Most scientists are working for a company or government agency, and as a result there is pressure on them to distort their theories to fit their employer's desires. For example:

• The scientists who work for companies that develop pesticides always discover that their pesticides are safe.

• Some scientists are promoting a "carbon tax" to stop "global warming". (I have my opinions on global warming here)

• Some scientists are promoting the theory that fire caused the World Trade Center buildings to disintegrate.

We must find a way to prevent scientific research from being influenced by political groups, organized crime networks, and businesses. 

Religious people and scientists share the attitude that peace and prosperity is just around the corner. The difference between these people is:

• Many religious people believe that the world's problems will soon be solved because Jesus will return.

• Many scientists believe that the world's problems will soon be solved because some amazing technology will be developed.

Consider the promise that fusion reactors will provide us with so much cheap energy that we will be able to clean up the environment, recycle our garbage, and build beautiful cities with beautiful gardens and wonderful trains.
 

If a group of scientists announced tomorrow that they figured out how to make low-cost fusion reactors, everybody would start the process of replacing existing power plants with fusion reactors. This would cause the price of electricity to drop, which in turn would cause the price of almost every product and service to drop.

What would people do in response to the reduction in the price of electricity and other items? Would Israel stop fighting with its neighbors? Would all nations destroy their weapons and become friendly with each other? Would people stop burglarizing houses? Would alcoholics put down their bottle of wine? Would fat people start to lose weight?

It is widely assumed that a low cost source of electricity will solve our problems, but our problems are not due to high electricity prices. Our problems are due to selfish, destructive, and neurotic human behavior.

An economical fusion reactor will lower the price of material items, but prices are dropping right now due to continual improvements in technology. This is why the price of computers, television sets, cameras, and other items are dropping in price.

Part 1 of this series pointed out that most people are using the existing technology to titillate themselves. There is no reason to believe that people would use future technology any differently.

If economical fusion reactors were developed, most people would continue to behave in the exact same manner that they behave right now. The lower energy prices would enable them to purchase more and larger television sets, automobiles, boats, houses, jewelry, and swimming pools. Militaries would react to the lower prices by creating more military weapons. The end result would be more pollution and even more destructive wars.

The fantasy that cheap energy will allow us to build nicer cities and recycle our garbage is especially absurd because building better cities and recycling garbage requires engineers, technicians, carpenters, plumbers, and other skilled workers. Unfortunately, most of the population has no desire to learn a skill. As long as the majority of people prefer to gamble, drink, and watch television, the world will remain just like it is right now.

The fantasy that fusion will save us from our problems is a modern version of the fantasy that nuclear fission would save us. In 1945 a collection of articles about atomic energy was published in a paperback book called The Atomic Age Opens. The most amazing prediction was that energy would become so cheap that there would be no need for war. According to this theory, war was due to a lack of resources, and nuclear power plants would provide every nation with so much energy that everybody would have as much food and material items as they wanted, so there would be no desire for war.

Nuclear reactors turned out to be very expensive and dangerous, but even if they had been inexpensive and safe, they would not have saved us from anything.
 

Our problems are due to the crummy behavior of humans so the only way to eliminate the problems is to improve the behavior of humans.

Pollution, for example, is not due to a lack of cheap energy. Our ancestors could have been designing clean factories and practicing farming techniques that don't require pesticides, but they were not interested, just as people today are not interested.

When the fluorescent light bulb was developed, it could have been designed to be recycled rather than discarded in the trash, which spills the mercury into the environment. Even the incandescent bulb could have been designed to be recycled. Unfortunately, most people refuse to recycle light bulbs. Most people resist doing "work" during their leisure time. They consider work to be bad; they want to "play".

Scientists like to think of themselves as more intelligent than religious people, but many of their attitudes are similar. Instead of reassuring us that Jesus will soon return to save us, the scientists reassure us that their upcoming technology will save us. However, expecting solar cells or robots to save us is as stupid as hoping that Jesus will save us.

Some people complain that religion requires people have "faith" rather than use "logical thinking", but the Big Bang theory is just a variation of the Creation theory. The primary difference between these two theories is that the Creation theory claims that some god created the universe, whereas the Big Bang theory claims the universe spontaneously created itself. We should refer to the Big Bang theory as the Spontaneous Creation theory.

The Spontaneous Creation theory doesn't explain anything because it implies that before the universe created itself there was.... what? Nothing? How many trillions of years was there nothing before the universe decided to create itself? What triggered the Spontaneous Creation if there was nothing in existence? Or, if there was something in existence to trigger the event, where did that substance come from?

Scientists assume that molecules in a pool of water happened to bump into each other in the proper manner to create a living creature. The only way they can explain such a miracle is through statistics. For example, if a monkey could press keys on a keyboard at random, and do it forever, eventually it would accidentally produce the document you are reading right now.

Some people assume that it is easy for molecules in a pool of water to create living creatures and, therefore, life exists all over the universe. However, you don't have to know much about statistics to realize that the creation of life from molecules is one of the most unlikely events that we can conceive of.

Therefore, if life got started from molecules bumping into each each other in the proper manner, we should consider that this extremely unlikely event may have happened only once in the entire history of the universe.

If there were no organized religions to encourage arrogance and hatred, and if scientists weren't under pressure to lie to us, then science and religion would be able to coexist, at least as of 2007.

Many people consider religion and science to be opposites, and that we must choose between them. This is especially true in regards to the concepts of evolution and creation. Most people believe you must pick one or the other.

However, science cannot disprove the possibility that there is a God, or that God created life. It is actually possible to believe both creation and evolution. Specifically, you can believe that God created life, and he gave it the ability to evolve.

There is no reason for religious people to become defensive or angry with science. The information about DNA and natural selection does not conflict with a belief in God. Rather, it merely explains why some of us have blue eyes; why an albino occasionally appears; and why farmers can breed certain plants together, but not other plants.
 

This is a question that schools try to avoid, but why shouldn't children be encouraged to think about this? Who is harmed by this question? Schools should prepare children for adulthood, not be frightened of organized religions.

If God created the universe, that implies that before God created the universe, there was only God. What was God doing during that time? Is God some type of entity that was drifting in empty space in complete darkness? Since he had not yet created any stars, it would have been cold and black. How long did he float in darkness before he decided to create the universe? Where did the empty space come from that God was floating in?

What is God made of? If he is not made up of atoms, what else is there that can be used to construct an intelligent entity?

Neither religion nor science can explain the universe.

The less we know, the more we think we know

The less we know about an issue, the more likely we are to assume we know a lot. We have to learn a certain amount about a subject before we realize that we don't know very much about it.

For example, when I was a child I noticed that a candle creates an incredibly black soot when an object is put into a certain portion of the flame. I also noticed that black ink is actually dark purple. I came to the brilliant conclusion that carbon would make a much better pigment for black ink. I wondered why the adults couldn't figure this out.

When you know almost nothing about chemistry, everything about chemistry seems simple. You have to learn a certain amount before you realize you don't know much of anything, and that the universe is much more complicated than you ever imagined.

Many scientists can't figure out if the Holocaust stories are accurate, or if Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, or whether the levees in New Orleans were blown open with explosives or by hurricane Katrina, but they think they know what happened billions of years ago!

Did you know that some scientists discovered skeletons of prehistoric creatures that went extinct millions of years ago, and then somebody found one of them alive? This has happened so many times that there is an expression for it, "living fossil".
 

To most of our ancestors, the "universe" consisted of whatever they could see with their eyes. The universe seemed very large to them, but when telescopes were created, people discovered that the universe was so big that it was beyond comprehension.

Telescopes showed that the stars were not points of light in the ceiling around the earth. Rather, some of the stars turned out to be the size of our own sun; some turned out to be galaxies, and some were clusters of galaxies. There are galaxies everywhere in the universe.
A large photo full of galaxies is:
perimeno.ca/pics/Deep%20Space.jpg

Most of the galaxies are so far away from the Earth that we can get a good photo of only a tiny percentage of galaxies.
The photo below is at the page of Hubble photos here.

There appear to be trillions of galaxies, each with billions of stars. The quantity of stars, and the total amount of energy that they create, is staggering.

Neither religion nor science can explain the phenomenal size of the universe.

Why would God create so many galaxies and so many stars? He certainly didn't do it to entertain you or I. We cannot even see most of the stars.

If all God wanted to do was to decorate the earth's sky with stars, he could have achieved the same effect by creating just one galaxy with a few thousand stars, and he could have put the earth in the middle of it.

The location of the earth within our galaxy is also odd. Why would God put the earth at the edge of our galaxy rather than at the center?
 

Neither science nor religion can explain whether the universe has a fixed size, or if it is infinite. Furthermore, neither possibility makes any sense.

If the universe is infinite in size, that means that the enormous area of the universe that we see with our telescopes is actually just a tiny, insignificant portion of the complete universe!

How can the universe be infinite in size? Do you realize how large infinite is?

However, it doesn't make any sense for the universe to be finite because that requires there be an edge to the universe, and that implies that there is something on the other side of the edge. What could possibly be on the other side, and how large is that area?
 

Each of us has limits on what we can do with our body and mind, and we should consider the possibility that even the most intelligent human is incapable of understanding what this universe is, and how it came into existence.

If you find this concept difficult to understand, consider an event that occurred in my high school physics class. This was a California public high school, so the physics class was easy; this was not European level physics.

The physics teacher decided to quickly review some math concepts in case we had forgotten them over the summer. As he was reviewing trigonometry, he mentioned that as an angle approaches 90 degrees, the sine of the angle becomes 1.0.

A student raised his hand and said that he didn't understand why the sine of 90 degrees is 1.0. The teacher explained the concept in more detail. When he finished, the student responded that he still did not understand. The teacher once again tried to explain it.

I don't remember how many more times this student asked, but it was about the fourth time that some students in the class started groaning, and the teacher moved to another subject.

Watching that student struggle to understand something that some of us find rather obvious made me wonder how many things that I struggle to understand are obvious to somebody else. For example, a year or two after that event I was reading an article about X-ray diffraction in Scientific American -- before the magazine degraded into what it is today -- but even though I tried to understand it, if somebody were to give me an X-ray diffraction photograph, I would have absolutely no idea how to make sense of the pattern. Was I simply lacking in the necessary education to understand it? Or is X-ray diffraction beyond my abilities? I still don't know.

This is an x-ray diffraction photo. Can you figure out what the material is by analyzing the pattern of white dots? (the black circle in the center is not part of the pattern) Answer: the material is tungsten

How do we know that the human mind is intelligent enough to understand the universe? For all we know, there are some aspects of this universe that are beyond the mental ability of every human.

If there is a God, and if he were to show himself to us and explain all the details of the universe, even the most intelligent human might have to raise his hand and complain, "But I don't understand, could you explain that again?" And God could explain it again, and again, and again, but it is possible that none of us would fully understand.
 

Religious beliefs have been changing continuously throughout history. Every religious person believes that he has the correct beliefs, but it's not possible for millions of conflicting religious beliefs to be correct.

If there is a God, and if he cared what we think about him, wouldn't he tell all humans what to think? Why would he leave us in a state of ignorance and confusion?

The most sensible explanation to this mystery is that if there is a god, he doesn't care what we think about him.

If there is a god, and if he judges us, he would most likely judge us according to our behavior, not according to our opinions about religion or the universe.

Many of our ancestors assumed that heaven was in the clouds, and that thousands of dead people were living together in heaven.

That primitive concept of heaven doesn't make sense today because we know that the clouds are not solid objects, and there is nothing in them.

The biggest problem with that concept of heaven is that today we realize the earth is very large, and there are lots of different races of people; lots of different languages and religions; and the languages and religions change through time.

Therefore, if God loves all humans, and if heaven is available to all humans, that means heaven is a mixture of people from ancient Rome, medieval Denmark, and modern Brazil. Heaven would be a mixture of Buddhists, atheists, Hindus, and Protestants.

How are billions of people of different races, religions, and languages living together in heaven? Do they learn some common language in heaven?
 

Many scientists believe that their research exposes religion as the nonsensical assumptions of ignorant people. Ironically, as of 2007, our scientific knowledge about the universe provides a more sensible explanation of what heaven is, thereby giving even more credibility to the concept of God and heaven. Specifically, the trillions of galaxies could be "heaven".

In Genesis there is a remark that God created humans in his own image. If that means that we have some of the same personality characteristics that God has, then we can explain heaven by looking at what we do with the animals and plants. Specifically, we enjoy creating gardens, aquariums, terrariums, and zoos. What if God likes to do this, also?

There are trillions of galaxies, so there may be trillions of planets. God may use those planets as terrariums. God may routinely select plants, animals, and humans from the Earth and put them on one of the planets. Later he may take another bunch of plants, animals, and humans and put them on another planet.

On one planet there might be dinosaurs and primitive plants. Another planet might have Romans from 2000 years ago, along with some of their plants and animals from their area. He may even stabilize their DNA and fix their genetic defects before putting them on a planet.

God may have already filled up all of the planets in the Milky Way galaxy, and is now putting people on planets in a nearby galaxy. With trillions of galaxies, he will be able to do this for a very long time.

The Earth may be the only planet that provides life for heaven. Furthermore, God may not have directly created any particular species of animal. Rather, he may have created one or more simple creatures with the ability to evolve into different forms. The Earth may be a breeding ground where God allows these creatures to evolve and interact in a chaotic manner. This provides an endless variety of life.
 

Outer space is dangerous to both living creatures and inanimate objects because of the X-rays, gamma rays, atomic particles, and meteors. Satellites have short lifetimes in outer space because of the constant bombardment.

There is no indication that interstellar travel is possible. If we were to send a rocket from the Earth to the nearest solar system, it might encounter so many atomic particles and meteors that it is destroyed before it arrives. Keeping a person alive during that journey would be even more difficult than protecting electronic circuits.

Perhaps God put vast distances between the stars in order to prevent interstellar travel and communication.
 

When we pick flowers to make bouquets for our home, we pick only a few of the flowers and leave the others outside to die. Perhaps God is doing the same with us. Perhaps he picks some of us for his bouquets and leaves the others to die on the earth.

How would God decide which of us to take for his bouquets? Would he judge us by whether we go to church? Would he care whether we call him a “him” or an “it” or a “she”? Would he give special preference to a person who donates money to a church or sacrifices an animal? Would God care whether we believe in his existence?

Perhaps God selects people in a similar manner as we select animals for a zoo. We don't care whether an animal worships us, or whether an animal even undertands that we exist. The only animals that we don't want are the ones that cannot coexist with other animals or plants.

Perhaps God cares only about our interaction with people, animals, and plants. God may consider all human religions and all of our scientific theories about the universe to be hopelessly simplistic and inaccurate. God may not care whether we consider ourselves religious; he may care only about how we behave. God may even consider the people who follow organized religions to be mentally incompetent; there may be more atheists in heaven.
 

After we create a garden, zoo, or terrarium, we let the animals and plants live as they please. We influence them only when we see problems developing.

God may do the same with the earth. Rather than take control of the earth, he may allow everything to interact in a chaotic manner. He may influence the earth only when he worries that life is headed towards destruction.

However, his influence may be too subtle for us to detect. For example, perhaps he creates a natural disaster or a disease to alter the course of life. A more bizarre possibility is that he can put thoughts into our minds without us realizing it, thereby causing some of us to change the course of life while creating the impression that the changes are due entirely to humans.

There is a characteristic about our universe that can be stated in different ways:

• No object can exist without adversely affecting other objects.

• The existence of one object interferes with the existence of other objects.

• In order for one object to exist, some other object must be destroyed.
 
 

Once you understand this concept, you'll understand:

• There is no way to preserve an object forever.

• No object can remain in its original condition; as soon as an object is created, it begins to deteriorate.

• If new objects were not being created all the time, the universe would have destroyed itself long ago. The universe is constantly recycling its basic components. Energy is lost in the process, so eventually this recycling will stop, but there is so much energy available that it will go on for a long time.
 

Every animal eats other animals or plants. Large animals accidentally kill small plants and animals by stepping or sitting on them.

Plants also interfere with the existence of other plants, and they interfere with animals. For example, trees interfere with grass and flowers, and that interferes with the animals that eat grass or pollinate flowers.

In order for one creature to live, another must die; the death of one creature provides life to another.
 

This concept also applies to an inanimate objects. Inanimate objects interfere with one another. An object cannot exist without hurting another. Because of this, it is impossible for a museum to preserve an object forever.

Some items deteriorate so slowly (eg, rocks) that they appear to be stable, but some items deteriorate so quickly that museums must go to extreme lengths to reduce the deterioration, such as paper documents.

Paper is rapidly affected by certain molecules in the atmosphere, and more slowly by radiation and atomic particles. In order to preserve a paper document forever, we would have to isolate the paper from everything else in the universe. The only way to do this would be to take the paper to the edge of the universe, and then push it beyond the edge so that it is all by itself.
 

When a cat eats a mouse, the mouse dies, but the cat lives. When a piece of paper deteriorates, the paper is destroyed, but the carbon dioxide will be used by plants, and the other molecules become part of something else. There would be no life if there was no death; there would be no creation if there was no destruction.

DNA is a molecule inside our cells, but as soon as it is created, it begins to deteriorate. Unless you can understand this concept, you will not understand evolution.
 

Many animals produce their own vitamin C. Human bodies are capable of producing some amino acids and vitamins, but if you were a God, and you were designing humans, wouldn't you give humans the ability to produce all of the vitamins, amino acids, and other important molecules that we need to stay alive? In such a case, we would be able to eat whatever we wanted with no regard to its vitamin content. No human would ever die from scurvy or suffer from rickets. This would be especially useful in primitive societies that don't know what a vitamin is.

Imagine for a moment that every human had the chromosomes necessary to produce all the vitamins and other molecules that we need to live. In such a case, we could survive on any food source, including a diet of 100% sugar, or 100% ice cream.

If all humans had such chromosomes today, would those chromosomes still be functioning dozens of generations from now? Yes, if we ate only sugar, but no, if we continued to eat the variety of food that we eat today.

If we regularly ate food that had vitamin C, our body would not need to produce vitamin C. As a result, when a baby was born with a defect in the chromosome that allowed for the production of vitamin C, he would not suffer. Rather, he would pass on his defective chromosome.

Eventually another baby would be born with a different defect in the chromosomes that produce vitamin C, but just like the previous baby, he would not suffer.

Through the generations, the defects would accumulate in the chromosomes that produces vitamin C, but nobody would notice because there was vitamin C in their food.

In order for a chromosome to remain functional, there must be selective pressure to weed out the defects. The moment the selective pressure drops below whatever its maintenance level happens to be, the chromosome starts accumulating defects.
 

Animals that are herbivores have a very large appendix, and it holds bacteria that digests cellulose. However, the appendix in humans doesn't seem to have any function. It often becomes infected during old age, and it can be removed without any apparent effect on our health, so it doesn't appear to serve any useful function to us.

The appendix won't make any sense to you unless you understand the concept of deterioration. Imagine going back in time to when our ancestors were animals, and when the appendix was a functioning organ. The animals were having lots of babies. If a baby animal was born with a slightly defective appendix, it would have been slightly less likely to survive. However, at some point in time our distant ancestors began eating less cellulose.

As the quantity of cellulose decreased in their diet, the appendix became less important. When one of the chromosomes that created the appendix was damaged, the baby that had the defect was no longer at a disadvantage. He was able to live successfully and pass on his defective appendix. Eventually another chromosome that made up the appendix would be damaged, but the baby with the defect would also survive and pass on its particular defect.

Like a sheet of paper slowly turning yellow, the appendix chromosomes accumulated defects. In order for the appendix to remain functioning in humans, there must be a selection of the people with the properly functioning appendix chromosomes.
 

The little toe no longer needs to be functioning on a human, and as a result, defects in the chromosomes that produces it are starting to accumulate. The only way we can stop our little toe from becoming even more defective is if we restrict reproduction to the people with the better toes.
 

Many people who believe that menstruation is unique to humans because we are special. However, menstruation is better explained as the side effect of an increasingly intelligent female who compensated for the accumulation of defects in her uterus.

If we could go back in time, we would find a point at which our female ancestors were not having this menstruation problem. At that point in time, if a woman was born with a defect that caused an excessive leakage of fluids, she would have been at a disadvantage compared to the other women. She would have been less appealing to both the men and the women, and she would have been more likely to get bacterial infections.

However, there was a point at which our ancestors became so intelligent that the women born with defective uteruses compensated for the defect by cleaning themselves. This allowed their defective chromosomes to be passed on to their children. Eventually another defect occurred, but again the women compensated for it.

Today the chomosomes that create the human uterus have so many defects that virtually every woman is suffering from bleeding, pain, and/or emotional disorders every month.
 

Most people assume that human babies are helpless because humans are special, but this is also the result of genetic deterioration.

If we could go back in time we would find that there was a point at which human babies were much more active, like those of the animals. They would be able to immediately grab onto their mother, for example.

If an animal were to give birth to a defective baby that could not grab its mother for a day or two, it would very likely die. However, when our ancestors reached a certain level of intelligence, they compensated for their defective babies by giving it special care. They allowed the defective baby to survive, which allowed it to pass its defective chromosomes to its children.

Eventually another defect occurred, causing the baby to become even more helpless, but again the mothers compensated for it. Eventually the defects accumulated to the point that we see today in which babies are helpless for months.
 

When some portion of our body is defective, such as our appendix, that means that there is not enough selective pressure on that item to remove the defects as fast as they occur. The opposite of this concept is also true. Specifically, if something is functioning properly, that means there must be significant selective pressure on that item.

A good example of this concept are the enzymes in our saliva. It is commonly assumed that these enzymes start the process of digestion. However, these enzymes are destroyed by the acid in our stomach, so they provide insignificant digestion. Furthermore, these enzymes are produced all the time, even when we are not eating.

Obviously, the part of our mouth that produces these enzymes is working extremely well, and that means there must be significant selective pressure on humans in order to maintain this particular characteristic. What could possibly be causing such selective pressure? How would a person be less likely to survive and/or reproduce if his mouth was not producing these enzymes? Does his digestive system really need that minimal digestion?

The most likely explanation is that these enzymes are not meant for digesting food but to clean our teeth and mouth. The people who have defective mouths will suffer from tooth decay and bad breath. The bad breath is not nearly as bad as the tooth decay.

Today the selective pressure for our mouth is disappearing. We have dentists, mouthwash, and toothbrushes to help keep our mouth clean. It no longer matters if our teeth are straight, or even if we have teeth. It no longer matters if we have bad breath. We can compensate for these problems, thereby allowing people with defective mouth chromosomes to reproduce. Through the generations these defects will accumulate. Eventually every human will have a seriously defective mouth.

Bad eyesight is no longer selected against, either. Defects in the chromosomes that create our eyes will slowly accumulate.

Animals don't have problems with their noses dripping mucus, and neither did our distant ancestors, but when humans became intelligent enough to clean their noses, defects in the chromosomes that produced our nose began to accumulate. Today a lot of people have problems with excessive mucus. This condition will get worse now that we have Kleenex tissues, drugs, and surgery to correct these defects. Eventually everybody will have major problems with their nose.

Our sense of taste and smell was vital long ago because it helped humans determine what was safe to eat. Today it doesn't matter whether we can taste or smell properly. Defects in the chromosomes that allow us to smell and taste will accumulate defects. Eventually humans will not be able taste or smell their food, and they will eat only to recharge their stomach.

Natural selection has resulted in animals and humans that struggle to keep themselves and their children alive regardless of how hopeless their situation appears to be. This emotion helped people survive thousands of years ago, but today it's causing people to prolong their suffering.

Thousands of years ago people died rather quickly while they were still in fairly good health, but today most people will end their life after many years of pain and misery, often in a convalescent hospital or wheelchair.

The final years of life for most people will be the most miserable time of their lives, and they will be a financial and emotional burden on their family. Most people's final memories will be of laying in a hospital bed, or of pushing themselves around in a wheelchair, or wondering when the nurse will change their diapers.

A brief visit by a family member, or a friend -- somebody famous -- might bring momentary pleasure into their dreary lives, but it doesn't stop the sadness, the pain, the loneliness, or the realization that life is over, and they are dying a slow, miserable death.

As medical technology becomes more advanced and less expensive, this situation will reach incredible levels of absurdity. For example, we can already keep a person's body alive after his brain has died, and eventually we will be able to affordably keep a body alive even after the liver and other internal organs have died.

We have only two options for death:

a) Waste our final years in pain and boredom.

b) Choose to end our life while we are still enjoying life.

The difficulty of killing ourselves requires that we set up a program to allow other people to do it for us. Unfortunately, the majority of people cannot cope with this concept.

If you were God, wouldn't you design a human embryo to look like a human? After a human egg was fertilized, wouldn't you have the egg divide up into cells that immediately take on a human shape?

This "embryo" has only 14 cells, but it has a human appearance. One cell will continue developing into the head, another into a hand, and another into a foot.

However, a fertilized egg develops into a hollow ball of cells, which then becomes a fish-like creature, complete with a tail. An amazing aspect of life is that almost every creature looks identical at this particular stage of development.

Can you figure out which is these embryos is a rabbit and which is a human? More embryos are here: embryo-comparisons.jpg

After a while the tail disappears, and the creature starts looking like an animal that lives on land. Eventually it starts to resemble human.

The process by which fertilized eggs develop into a dog, a rabbit, a pig, and a human is evidence that all creatures evolved from a hollow ball of cells that floated in the water. This creature evolved into a fish-like creature, which eventually evolved into a creature that walks on land.
 

The very first creatures would have reproduced when pieces of themselves broke off, similar to the way yeast reproduces. However, these early creatures were very crude, so occasionally fragments would break off that didn't have the necessary material to survive, and occasionally fragments would break off that were missing half of their genetic material.

If a fragment that was missing half of its DNA combined with another fragment that was missing half of its DNA, it would have been able to form a living creature. This mixing of DNA would have had a tremendous advantage over other reproduction methods because it would create a lot of variety. The more variety, the faster a creature will evolve, and the more variations they will evolve into.

Natural selection began refining the process so that these creatures were deliberately producing fragments that contained half of the necessary genetic material. These fragments were coming from more than one spot on the creature's body. To make the process more useful, the fragments from one area should combine with fragments from a different area or from a nearby creature. Eventually this process was refined so that one part of the creature was producing eggs, and the other area was creating the more mobile sperm.

Males developed from defects that prevented them from producing eggs, and females developed from defects that prevented them from producing sperm. This particular type of defect had a tremendous evolutionary advantage, so it rapidly dominated the planet.
 

Men have nipples because there is only one blueprint for every animal. That blueprint contains both male and female organs.

Men also have a seam running along our penis and scrotum. If we had been female, that seam would have opened up into a vagina.
 

We think of male and female as being completely separate creatures, but there is only one human. The difference between a male and female is subtle. As a result, the slightest genetic mistake can cause a male to become feminine, or a female to become masculine. There are also people born with both sexual organs (hermaphrodites).

By the way, there is evidence that some hermaphrodites are caused by toxic chemicals. Here is one report of it happening to polar bears:
news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337581.ece

How many of the defects that you and other people are suffering from are due to toxic chemicals or uranium? If we put more emphasis on keeping the environment clean and less emphasis on titillating ourselves, we might be much healthier and happier.
 

Because there is only one blueprint for a human, it is theoretically possible to have identical twins in which one is female and one is male. This may never happen in real life, but if we had the technology, we could take a fertilized egg that is supposed to be a male, split it so that it becomes identical twins, and then replace one of the Y-chromosomes with a second copy of the X-chromosome. This would be a great way to determine the differences between males and females.

Individual animals are in competition with other animals, and groups of animals are in competition with other groups. The struggle for competition has caused many animals to form hierarchies. The leader of a group of animals doesn't make any significant decisions for the other animals. Rather, the main purpose of the hierarchy is to determine which of the males reproduces the most often.

The competition for survival has resulted in male animals that compete to be the most important male. The competition is extremely simple, such as sheep banging their horns together. These competitions identify which of the males are in the best physical and mental health.

If a female did not care which male she reproduced with, she would likely end up reproducing with one of the ordinary males. If another female had a preference for the dominant male, she would produce higher quality offspring. Her offspring would be most likely to survive in the next generation. Eventually this would result in females that have a preference for the dominant males.
 

If an inferior male animal were to cheat the simplistic process that they use to determine dominance, such as by sabotaging the dominant male by biting one of eyes while he sleeps, then the sickly male would end up getting the females, and eventually it would cause the destruction of the entire group.

Some male animals try to impress females by offering them food or a nest. If one of the males figures out how to cheat the process, such as by stealing food from another male, then the dishonest male will successfully reproduce, and that would also eventually cause the destruction of the entire group.

The competition for survival favors the animals with the talent to survive, not the talent to cheat. This concept has important implications to humans, as will be explained in Part four. The craving women have for dominant males is also very significant in society today because so many of the dominant males are entertainers, criminals, and men who inherited their money.
 

We have no evidence that there is a God, and if there is a God, there is no indication that he is male or female, or that he looks like a human, or that there is only one god. However, religious people tend to assume that there is only one God, and that he is a man, and that he is an older man, not a young man.

This is probably because humans and many animals form hierarchies with one older male at the top. Females are submissive to males, and they are strongly attracted to the dominant male, and that would explain why women are more interested in religion and the concept of a male God.

There is constant deterioration of DNA. However, some of the deterioration is not critical. For example, if a defect occurs in the chromosomes that cause skin pigment, the result might be freckles, or a skin blemish.

However, some chromosomes are crucial to our development and health. There are some chromosomes that cannot be damaged or else the fertilized egg will never develop into a living creature.

Certain chromosomes must be functioning properly or we won't remain alive, but other chromosomes can be extremely defective without much of a problem, especially today with all the technology we have to compensate for defects.

For example, people today can be born blind, extremely ugly, lacking in teeth, or extremely neurotic. As long as their heart is beating, and their digestive system is working, they can survive today.

When we don't restrict reproduction, the first qualities to vanish will be the most advanced, such as our intelligence, and all nonessential qualities, such as a nice visual appearance, pleasant body ordors, attractive teeth, and a desirable personality.
 

Humans are the only animal that suffers during birth, but it's not because humans are special, or because the human brain is so large. It's because for thousands of years it has no longer mattered if birth is painful. The other women offer assistance in helping the baby come out, and if the woman suffers from the birth, other people will help feed and care for her. Eventually every woman will require a Cesarean operation.
 

Animals don't have to wash themselves. Their body is capable of keeping itself reasonably clean. There are still some humans who have pleasant body odors, but the development of baths, perfumes, and other technology has been allowing people with stinky bodies to successfully attract a spouse. Eventually all humans will be so stinky and have such repulsive skin that they will have to take frequent showers and use lots of creams, perfumes, and cosmetics to mask their defects.
 

Children are irresponsible. They have no idea where their food comes from, and they have no concern about the future. During our teenage years our personality changes and we start to become responsible and self-sufficient.

The chromosomes that cause this transformation are deteriorating just like other chromosomes. Children born with defects in these chromosomes will not properly develop into adults. Rather, they will remain in a partially juvenile state. For example, they may remain somewhat irresponsible; they may giggle like children when they see sexual organs; they may have tantrums like children; and they may want to play with toys (eg, cars, boats) to an abnormal extent.

Thousands of years ago the immature adults would have had problems surviving and successfully reproducing, but today they have little or no problem.
 

People with strange personalities were not very successful thousands of years ago. Today it doesn't make much difference if a person is capable of forming stable relationships, or whether he enjoys life. All sorts of strange and psychotic people are successfully reproducing. Some of them are reproducing more than normal people because they have many different spouses.
 

The competition for survival kept human DNA in good working condition all throughout history. Our ancestors produced more babies than could possibly survive, so the children with the worst genetic qualities died before they became adults. Of the children who survived to adulthood, those with the most serious mental and physical problems were the least successful at attracting a spouse and raising children. Nature was cruel, but there was no other option in that era.

Today we use technology to prevent nature from doing its job. Almost every baby born will survive and reproduce successfully. Unfortunately, either nature or humans must restrict reproduction or else our DNA will deteriorate and humans will degrade into freaks. The degradation occurs at a much more rapid pace than evolution.

Furthermore, once a genetic quality is gone, it cannot be brought back. Rather, it would have to be developed all over again by random changes. That is an extremely slow process.

If a society averages only two children per couple and allows all of the children to reproduce, that society will degrade genetically. In order for a society to remain in good genetic health, they must average more than two children per couple, and they must restrict reproduction to weed out the defective chromosomes.

In order to go beyond merely maintaining their genetic health and actually evolve into something more advanced, they must produce even more children and be even more selective about who reproduces.
 

Technology is bringing the human race into a new era whether we like it or not. The animal-like behavior that was acceptable for thousands of years is now destroying us. Humans must start the process of restricting reproduction.

Unfortunately, the majority of people don't seem to have the intelligence to understand these issues, or the personality to deal with them. Instead, most people behave like dumb animals who use the technology to titillate themselves.

People can complain that genetic deterioration is a ridiculous theory, but nothing can stop it from occurring. The societies that don't deal with this issue will degrade into retards regardless of how often they pray to God or criticize this theory.