Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Is the Sodium Chloride Level in the Oceans Evidence for Abiogenesis?

Answers Research Journal 3 (2010): 159-164.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/sodium-chloride-abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman
September 1, 2010


AbstractThe percentage of salt in human body fluids and seawater is often used to provide evidence that life originated abiogenetically in the sea. This paper examines this assumption and finds the evidence shows that the levels of salinity in seawater and human blood are markedly different. The data and the evidence do not provide support for the theory of the chemical origin of life in the sea.
Keywords: abiogenesis, myths of evolution, origin of life, chemistry of life
Introduction

What is known as common table salt is a mineral required for life. Salt is a chemical compound called “halite,” consisting of two elements, sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl). Sodium is an alkali earth metal, and chlorine is a halogen gas. All alkali earth metal-halogen compounds are known as salts, but what we know as table salt will be discussed here.

Halite is a colorless brittle mineral commonly found on land and dissolved in many bodies of water (Fenton 1953; Pellant 1992). The sodium in salt in its ionized form is a positively charged cation. The ionized chloride forms a larger, negatively charged anion. The size difference between Na+ and Cl- facilitates achieving a well-packed salt crystal. Due to both the chemical properties of salt and the chemical properties of water, salt dissolves rapidly in water, breaking down into separate sodium and chloride ions. If the chemical properties of salt were different, NaCl would not be capable of carrying out its functions in the body that are necessary for life.
Salt and Evolution

Since Anaximander and Empedocles, most evolutionists have held that all animals (includingHomo sapiens) evolved from life forms that originated by chemical evolution in water and later moved out of the water onto dry land (Spetner 1997). To support this view, evolutionists note that the tissues in our bodies are constantly moistened by a briny solution that they claim is similar to the salt and mineral level (salinity) found in oceans and many salt lakes of the past. Evolutionists often claim that this observation is evidence of our ancient evolutionary ancestry. The common Darwinian teaching is when a
wriggling worm had evolved into backboned fish, blood had many of the functions it has in our own bodies today. In fact it is doubtful whether many genuinely new molecular features have appeared in earth’s living matter since that time; it has been more a matter of the exploitation of capabilities which were already present in primitive form in the first vertebrates. The animals of the sea adapted themselves to its temperature, to its currents, its tides, and to the substances dissolved in it. In their own private internal circulations the range of salts remains somewhat the same as in the primitive sea-water in which their basic cellular natures evolved. Prick your finger and suck the flowing blood. It’s faintly of the sea, with a richer underlying taste (Hackett 1973, p. 40).

Note that Hackett did not provide evidence that the range of salts remained somewhat the same as the level in the oceans as life evolved. More directly, Glasser states that the
fluids in our bodies mimic the primeval seas in which life began. The concentrations of sodium, potassium, and chloride in our bloodstreams, the calcium, magnesium, and zinc in our cells are precisely the same as those that existed in earliest seas. We retained those ancient seas within us, and the chemical battles fought at the beginnings of life are in reality the same battles being fought today. The battlefields may have shrunk from tidewater inlets to a few cubic centimeters of blood, from ocean fronts and shallow bays (Glasser 1997, pp. 22–23).

Nor does Glasser provide information on the sources of his conclusions or cite any empirical research. Another good example of this line of reasoning, found in a human evolution text, is as follows:
One human characteristic, a chemical one, harks back to our ancestry in the ocean. If all organic material and water is removed from a sample of human blood plasma, leaving only the mineral salts, the remaining material will be found to be closely similar to the salt produced by the evaporation of sea water. That is, the percentages of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iodine, chlorine, and other minerals in human blood salt coincide with those of sea water. Our ocean-living ancestors developed cells adapted to the chemical environment of sea water. When they left the ocean, they took a part of the environment with them in the form of a fluid that bathes the cells; later it was incorporated into a blood stream (Lehrman 1961, p. 138).

Lehrman also does not provide documentation for his conclusion.

Berg (1959, pp. 169–170) notes, “The most important arguments in favor of the hypothesis that life originated exclusively in the ocean” are, first, “the similarity between the salt composition of the body fluids of land animals and that of the waters of the ocean.” He then adds that the “similarity in the salt composition of the waters of the ocean and that of the body fluids of land animals could be accounted for” only by evolution (Berg 1959, p. 170).

The salt evidence idea has even been repeated by a former U. S. President as well as a Presidential candidate. John F. Kennedy stated that humans may have a love of the sea “because we all came from it,” and, he claimed, it is a “biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean.” He also concluded that, for the same reason, we have salt not only in our blood but also in our sweat and tears (Kennedy 1963, p. 684). Former Presidential candidate Al Gore, although more careful in his wording, advocated the same erroneous idea when he stated that “our blood even contains roughly the same percentage of salt as the ocean, where the first life forms evolved” (Gore 1992, pp. 99–100).

John Morris relates another example of this idea being taught as fact by evolutionists:
Evolutionists have a bank full of stories used to support evolution which sound good on the surface. . . . I first heard this one in a junior high school assembly during a “Mr. Wizard” film. The wise and believable professor in the film convinced his young assistant that evolution had to be true by showing how similar human blood is to seawater. The fact that the same chemicals (such as salt) are in each “proves” man’s relation to all of life, which originated in the sea. But as with many of the evolutionary tales, this one doesn’t stand up to scrutiny (Morris 2004, p. 4).

Although I have found numerous references in the popular scientific literature, using the BIOSIS data base’s 15,889,702 records, accessed March 12, 2010 through OhioLink, I could not find a single empirical study in scientific journals that supported the ocean salt/human blood connection. This common assumption is an icon of evolution that lacks scientific support. As Morris notes, although the sea water-blood salt “argument for evolution seldom appears in modern textbooks” its former “prominence in textbooks from 1940–1970” ensures “its continuance by those who learned it then. It’s indelibly imprinted in evolutionary folklore” (Morris 2004, p. 4). Reasons for dropping the idea from textbooks include the popularity of non-ocean abiogenesis theories, such as the clay theory of Cairns-Smith (1985, pp. 74–76) and the latest theory, the hydrothermal vent abiogenesis idea of Nick Lane (2009) and others.
The Origins of Sea Salt

Salt is an important component of many rocks found in the earth’s crust. As rain dissolves the salt, it is carried into brooks and streams—and eventually into the oceans. This process is a major source of the ocean’s high salinity level. In addition various forces in the earth slowly push the salt crystal rock up toward the earth’s surface, allowing water to dissolve it to produce brine (a water mixture of about 35% salinity). Some lakes, such as the Great Salt Lake in Utah and the Dead Sea, located between modern-day Israel and Jordan, are as much as 25% to 27% saline (Hopkinson 1968, p. 55).

When the fountains of the deep (Genesis 7:11) subterranean sources of water were released at the time of the Flood, they likely carried to the earth’s surface many tons of pulverized crustal material containing large amount of salts and other minerals. Hydrothermal vents also no doubt have carried many minerals, including sodium chloride, into the ocean water from below the earth’s crust. Volcanic gases and rock decompositions are also major sources of sea salt. These sources are still supplying salt to the oceans today, and the amount of NaCl added annually is enormous: “Streams carry 2.5 billion tons of dissolved substances to the sea. These are soluble substances leached from rock during chemical weathering” (Skinner and Porter 1987, p. 371).

The salts dissolved in water are used by aquatic animals to form structures such as their skeletons, which are constructed out of seawater elements including silicon, calcium, and phosphorous. Some salt settles to the sea floor, but much is carried away in the form of salt spray in the air, causing the top part of many automobiles located near the oceans to rust.
Element: Blood / Seawater
Sodium 3220 / 10800
Chlorine 3650 / 19400
Potassium 200 / 392
Calcium 50 / 411
Magnesium 27 / 1290
Phosphorus 36 / 0.09
Iron 1 / 0.004
Copper 1 / 0.001
Zinc 1.1 / 0.005
Chromium 1.1 / 0.0002
Bromine 4 / 67
Fluorine 0.1 / 1.3
Boron 1 / 5
Selenium 0.9 / 0.0001


Table 1. The element composition of blood and sea water (in mg per liter) (after Batten 1997, p. 24).
Comparisons of Blood Salt Levels and Sea Salt Levels

Although similarities between human blood and seawater are often used as evidence that life first began in the sea, Tables 1 and 3 show the salinity and other mineral levels in human blood aremarkedly different from those of sea water today. Table 2 shows the reference range, and levels outside of those ranges creates health problems. Levels below the range produces a deficiency and levels above the range causes toxicity concerns. Another problem is, although both blood and seawater
contain many of the same salts, [the] concentration of dissolved particles in blood is verydifferent from that in seawater. The primary constituents of both are sodium and chlorine (which together make up common salt, NaCl), but seawater has three times as much sodium and five times as much chlorine per unit weight [as blood] (Morris 2004, p. 4).

Furthermore, seawater contains about eight times as much calcium and fifty times as much magnesium as blood, and blood has about two hundred times more zinc, two hundred and fifty times more iron, and one thousand times more copper. All of these (and many other elements) are common minerals found everywhere in both organic systems and inorganic rocks. Although found in both blood and seawater as well as inorganic clay, the fact that the suite of these minerals is so different in blood compared to seawater argues against the claim that enough similarity exists to support abiogenesis (Morris 2004, p. 4).

In addition, the amount of dissolved salts and minerals in seawater today depends on the water source because it is likely that the salt and mineral content of past seas varied significantly from area to area. In general, a ton of water from the Pacific Ocean today will yield about 79 pounds of salt, and a ton from the Atlantic Ocean yields about 81 pounds. When one compares these values to the Dead Sea yield—about 500 pounds of salt per ton of water—it is apparent that the levels are very different, depending on the location. Nor is the saltiness of a single body of water uniform, but varies according to where the sample is taken.
1. Normal Values
Sodium in serum 135–145 mEq/L
Sodium in urine 40–220 mEq/24 hours
Chloride in serum/plasma 95–110 mmol/L
Chloride in urine 110–250 mmol/24 hours
Chloride in sweat 5–40 mmol/L
2. Abnormal Values
Serum/Plasma Less than 90 mmol/L and greater than 115 mmol/L
Urine/Sweat Less than 20 mmol/L and greater than 60 mmol/L


Table 2. The standard reference ranges of sodium and chloride for humans (after Segen and Stauffer 1998, pp. 70–71, 284–285).
Mineral Variations in Life Forms

To produce a valid result, human blood cannot be compared to modern-day seawater salt content but should be compared to ancient seawater salt levels at the time when life supposedly arose and the precursors of blood first evolved. The reason is
the ocean’s salinity increases each day, as rivers dump their dissolved solids into it. Evolutionists propose (without evidence) a steady state for the ocean, but wouldn’t the concentrations have changed throughout its over (supposedly) three-billion-year history? Maybe the differing concentrations between blood and seawater better prove evolution. (Morris 2004, p. 4).

To determine if the salt concentrations in our cells were “precisely” the same as those that existed in the earliest seas, science must be able to determine what the concentrations once were, a very difficult task. Furthermore, all animals including birds and insects would be expected to have somewhat similar concentrations of these chemicals.

Another problem that needs to be dealt with by the evolutionists making the claim that life originated in the sea is that sodium ion concentrations in red blood cells also varies widely in animal species, even within different breeds in the same species (Albritton 1952). The fact is the salt content of many internal fluids of various living things can vary enormously. Thus, to argue for the validity of the salt-life similarity theory one can simply select the animals that fit the sea origins theory and ignore others animals, including humans, that do not fit the salt-life similarity theory. The correct comparison is to evaluate a wide variety of animals and attempt to draw conclusions for a large set of data.

Nor is there a relationship between the presumed level of evolution from one-celled life forms to humans of any land animal and the amount of salt ions in its body tissue. Some seawater animals have salt and mineral levels that are very similar to their environment, others do not. Table 3 shows that, in general, only marine invertebrates have concentrations of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and chloride that are similar to seawater. With the exception of marine invertebrates, the NaCl ion concentration of most life forms is quite different from that of either salt or fresh water.
Na
(mM)K
(mM)Ca
(mM)Mg
(mM)Cl
(mM)
“Average” Sea Water 470 10 10 54 548
Marine Invertebrate
Starfish Asterias 428 10 12 49 487
Marine Vertebrate
Sculpin Myoxocephalus 194 4 3 2 177
Terrestrial Invertebrate
Cockroach Periplaneta 161 8 4 6 144
Freshwater Invertebrate
Crayfish Cambarus 146 4 8 4 139
Freshwater Vertebrate
Salmon Oncorhynchus 147 9 3 1 117
Terrestrial Vertebrate
Human Homo 142 4 5 2 104
Fresh Water average,
North America 0.39 0.04 0.52 0.21 0.23


Table 3. Ion concentrations in sea water, fresh water, and body fluids of animals representative of different habitats (after Harris 1996, p. 276).

A further problem for the life originated in the sea theory is the ion content of sea water, rather than supporting life, is extremely toxic to most life forms (see table 1 for the element composition of sea water compared to blood). The fact is, the “salt concentrations of today’s oceans would literally destroy any living creature if it were not for the sophisticated membrane pumps that keep the salts from entering the organism’s cells” (Glasser 1997, pp. 45–46). Thus, any “warm pond” origin of life theory—aside from the other problems it has—must deal with the fact that, because salt is so toxic to life, the salt concentrations in the ancient seas must have been significantly less than that existing today for life to evolve.

Some scientists deal with the toxicity problem by concluding that when life was formed the ion content of seawater was markedly less than today. This belief, though, is pure conjecture—even estimates of salt levels in seawater from only a century ago are often highly speculative. Nevertheless, note the confidence of the following declaration:
This is no mere speculation . . . the sodium and potassium in our bloodstreams, the concentrations of dissolved salts and the cobalt, magnesium, and calcium that are maintained in our cells are precisely the same as the concentration of those dissolved salts in the waters of the oceans existing over 3.5 billion years ago. The acids in our tissues are maintained at the pH of seawater during the Precambrian era (Glasser 1997, pp. 45–46).

Many scientists conclude that little evidence exists for the conclusion that the worldwide ocean salinity level has recently significantly increased. In fact, in some local areas evidence indicates that salinity has increased (Stott et al. 2004).

However, Austin and Humphreys (1990) conclude from an inventory of the known and conjectured processes that add and remove sodium ions to and from the oceans that only 27% of the present sodium ions delivered to the oceans can be accounted for by known removal processes. Conversely, some evidence indicates that the oceans’ sodium concentration is not being maintained today in a steady state as supposed by many Darwinists but, instead, seems to be increasing with time. The present rate of increase estimated by Austin and Humphreys is about 3 × 1011 kg/yr. Austin and Humphreys (1990) conclude that use of different equations containing minimum input rates and maximum output rates allows for the ocean’s maximum age of far less than 62 million years.

Conversely, some evidence exists that, as a whole, many minerals are now being reabsorbed at about the same rate that they are added. Excess amounts of many minerals often result in activation of mineral sinks. The best-known example is carbon dioxide. Another example is excess potassium and sodium are absorbed by clay particles, and large amounts of these minerals are used by animals for biological metabolism, especially as biological ions. If the seawater content of these minerals increases, biological organisms that use the minerals may increase.

Thus, a paradox emerges: theories regarding the sea origin of life require less salinity than currently exists, yet the only evidence for this conclusion is the assumption that the sea was far less salty in the distant past. Creationists who have investigated this found that there is no firm reason to assume a steady state, but that the opposite may be true: the data indicate the oceans are gaining in salinity rather than losing. This imbalance of salinity input to output is important in both sides of the debate.

The finding that salinity is increasing may lend some support to the abiogenesis theory, but it causes problems with the old-earth view. The imbalance indicates that the sea should contain much more salt than it does today if the 4.6 billion evolutionary model were true. Others argue that this problem is one more reason why it is difficult to extend current influx and removal rates backward (see Wheeler 1999). Consequently, for the evolutionary argument to be viable, evolutionists must compare modern blood to the salt concentration of the ancient sea, a very difficult problem.
Summary

It is commonly claimed in the popular evolutionary literature that the sea salinity level today is similar to that in cells and, therefore, this is evidence of abiogenesis and evolution. However, in a specialized computer search of over 15 million scientific articles, using the BIOSIS database accessed through OhioLink on March 15, 2010, I was unable to find a single article that scientifically supported this claim. The literature simply does not provide evidence for the supposition that the salinity level in the oceans gives credence to the abiogenesis theory of life’s origin in the sea. As Batten concludes:
The mineral concentrations in human blood plasma and/or serum and seawater are quite different. They are not at all similar (see table). The chlorine and sodium contents of blood are only about 20% to 30% of seawater whereas the iron content is 250 times greater. Compared to seawater, blood has little magnesium but 9,000 times as much selenium. The data . . . contradict the evolution-from-seawater idea. Lehrman and others are quite wrong in saying that the percentages of minerals in human blood salt coincide with those in seawater. There is little similarity. Even the blood of sea creatures such as crabs is quite different [compared] to seawater (Batten 1997, pp. 24–25).

Darwinists claim the fact that salt is necessary for life is a result of our having evolved in a sea environment. Creationists usually conclude that salt is common in the earth’s crust and in seawater because salt is required for our health. In the first case, the level of salt in life and the sea is similar because we are a product of nature. In the second case we live in a world created for us to meet our needs, thus nature was created to fit our requirements.

Given the evidence, the reason that sodium chloride is abundant is for the benefit of life as a result of design by the Creator has more credence than the claim that the putative similarity of the salinity of human blood and seawater is evidence that life originated in the sea by abiogenesis.
Acknowledgments

I want to thank Bert Thompson, Ph. D., Wayne Frair, Ph. D., Helen Setterfield and John Woodmorappe, M. A., for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
References

Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys. 1990. The sea’s missing salt: A dilemma for evolutionists. InProceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Vol. 2, ed. R. E. Walsh and C. L. Brooks, pp. 17–33. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvanian: Creation Science Fellowship.

Batten, D. 1997. Red-blooded evidence. Creation 19, no. 2:24–25.

Berg, R. L. 1959. Some conditions for the appearance of life on Earth. In The origin of life on earth, ed. F. Clark and R. Synge, pp. 169–188. New York: Pergamon.

Cairns-Smith, A. G. 1985. Seven clues to the origin of life: A scientific detective story.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fenton, C. L. 1953. Riches from the earth. New York: John Day.

Glasser, R. 1997. The light in the skull: An odyssey of medical discovery. Boston: Faber & Faber.

Gore, A. 1992. Earth in the balance. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hackett, E. 1973. Blood, the biology, pathology, and mythology of the body’s most important fluid. New York: Saturday Review Press.

Harris, L. 1996. Concepts in zoology, 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins.

Hopkinson, B. 1968. Salt: The fifth element. Mankind 1, no. 9:53–79.

Kennedy, J. F. 1963. Public papers of the Presidents of the United States. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Lane, N. 2009. Life ascending: The ten great inventions of evolution. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Lehrman, R. 1961. The long road to man. New York: Basic Books.

Morris, J. D. 2004. Does the similarity of human blood to sea water prove life originated in the ocean? Back to Genesis #182, 4 February.

Pellant, C. 1992. Rocks and minerals. New York: Dorling Kindersley.

Segen, J. and J. Stauffer. 1998. The patient’s guide to medical tests. New York: Facts on File.

Stott, L., K. Cannariato, R. Thunell, G. H. Haug, A. Koutavas, and S. Lund. 2004. Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch.Nature 431:56–59

Skinner, B. J. and S. J. Porter. 1987. Physical Geology. New York: Wiley.

Spetner, L. 1997. Not by chance! New York: Judaica Press.

Wheeler, T. 1999. Examining a creationist’s argument concerning ocean salt. Reports of the national center for science education 19, no. 5:17–19.
ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2014 Answers in Genesis. All rights reserved. Consent is given to unlimited copying, downloading, quoting from, and distribution of this article for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not compromised in any way. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal. The views expressed are those of the writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Answers Research Journal Editor or of Answers in Genesis.

The Secret War in Libya

By Eric Draitser, ICH, January 23, 2014

The battles currently raging in the south of Libya are no mere tribal clashes. Instead, they represent a possible burgeoning alliance between black Libyan ethnic groups and pro-Gaddafi forces intent upon liberating their country of a NATO-installed government.

On Saturday January 18th, a group of heavily armed fighters stormed an air force base outside the city of Sabha in southern Libya, expelling forces loyal to the government of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan, and occupying the base. At the same time, reports from inside the country began to trickle in that the green flag of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was flying over a number of cities throughout the country. Despite the dearth of verifiable information—the government in Tripoli has provided only vague details and corroboration—one thing is certain: the war for Libya continues.

Libya’s Prime Minister Ali Zeidan called an emergency session of the General National Congress to declare a state of alert for the country after news of the storming of the air base broke. The Prime Minister announced that he had ordered troops south to quell the rebellion, telling reporters that, “This confrontation is continuing but in a few hours it will be solved.” A spokesman for the Defense Ministry later claimed that the central government had reclaimed control of the air base, stating that “A force was readied, then aircraft moved and took off and dealt with the targets…The situation in the south opened a chance for some criminals…loyal to the Gaddafi regime to exploit this and to attack the Tamahind air force base…We will protect the revolution and the Libyan people.”

In addition to the assault on the airbase, there have been other attacks on individual members of the government in Tripoli. The highest profile incident was the recent assassination of the Deputy Industry Minister Hassan al-Droui in the city of Sirte. Although it is still unclear whether he was killed by Islamist forces or Green resistance fighters, the unmistakable fact is that the central government is under assault and is unable to exercise true authority or provide security in the country. Many have begun speculating that his killing, rather than being an isolated, targeted assassination, is part of a growing trend of resistance in which pro-Gaddafi Green fighters figure prominently.

The rise of the Green resistance forces in Sabha and elsewhere is merely one part of larger and more complex political and military calculus in the South where a number of tribes and various ethnic groups have risen against what they correctly perceive to be their political, economic, and social marginalization. Groups such as the Tawergha and Tobou ethnic minorities, both of which are black African groups, have endured vicious attacks at the hands of Arab militias with no support from the central government. Not only have these and other groups been the victims of ethnic cleansing, but they have been systematically shut out of participation in Libyan political and economic life.

The tensions came to a head earlier this month when a rebel chief from the Arab Awled Sleiman tribe was killed. Rather than an official investigation or legal process, the Awled tribesmen attacked their black Toubou neighbors, accusing them of involvement in the murder. The resulting clashes have since killed dozens, once again demonstrating that the dominant Arab groups still view their dark skinned neighbors as something other than countrymen. Undoubtedly, this has led to a reorganization of the alliances in the region, with the Toubou, Tuareg and other black minority groups that inhabit southern Libya, northern Chad and Niger moving closer to the pro-Gaddafi forces. Whether or not these alliances are formal or not still remains unclear, however it is apparent that many groups in Libya have come to the realization that the government installed by NATO has not lived up to its promises, and that something must be done.

Despite the high-minded rhetoric from Western interventionists regarding “democracy” and “freedom” in Libya, the reality is far from it, especially for dark skinned Libyans who have seen their socioeconomic and political status diminished with the end of the Jamahiriya government of Muammar Gaddafi. While these peoples enjoyed a large measure of political equality and protection under the law in Gaddafi’s Libya, the post-Gaddafi era has seen their rights all but stripped from them. Rather than being integrated into a new democratic state, the black Libyan groups have been systematically excluded.

In fact, even Human Rights Watch—an organization which in no small measure helped to justify the NATO war by falsely claiming that Gaddafi forces used rape as a weapon and were preparing “imminent genocide”—has reported that, “A crime against humanity of mass forced displacement continues unabated, as militias mainly from Misrata prevented 40,000 people from the town of Tawergha from returning to their homes from where they had been expelled in 2011.” This fact, coupled with the horrific stories and images of lynchings, rapes, and other crimes against humanity, paints a very bleak picture of life in Libya for these groups.

In its 2011 report, Amnesty International documented a number of war crimes carried out by the so called “freedom fighters” of Libya who, despite being hailed in the Western media as “liberators”, used the opportunity of the war to carry out mass executions of black Libyans as well as rival clans and ethnic groups. This is of course in stark contrast to the treatment of black Libyans under the government of Gaddafi. The Human Rights Council of the United Nations in their 2011 report noted that Gaddafi had gone to great lengths to ensure economic and social development, as well as specifically providing economic opportunities and political protections to black Libyans and migrant workers from neighboring African countries.

As the Toubou and other black ethnic groups clash with Arab militias, their struggle should be understood in the context of a continued struggle for peace and equality. Moreover, the fact that they must engage in this form of armed struggle again illustrates the point that many international observers made from the very beginning of the war: NATO’s aggression was never about protecting civilians or human rights, but rather regime change for economic and geopolitical interests. That the majority of the population, including black ethnic minorities, is worse off today than they ever were under Gaddafi is a fact that is actively suppressed.

It would be presumptuous to assume that the military victories made by the pro-Gaddafi Green resistance in recent days will be long-lasting, or that they represent an irreversible shift in the political and military landscape of the country. Though decidedly unstable, the government in Tripoli is supported economically and militarily by some of the most powerful interests in the world, making it difficult to simply overthrow it with minor victories. However, these developments do signal an interesting shift in the calculus on the ground. Undoubtedly there is a confluence between the black ethnic minorities and the Green fighters as both recognize their enemy as being the tribal militias who participated in the overthrow of Gaddafi as well as the central government in Tripoli. Whether a formal alliance emerges from this remains to be seen.

One should be careful not to make too many assumptions about the situation in Libya today, as reliable details are hard to come by. More to the point, Western media has attempted to completely suppress the fact that the Green resistance even exists, let alone is active and winning victories. All this simply further illustrates that the war for Libya rages on, whether the world wants to admit it or not.

7 Crippling Parenting Behaviors That Keep Children From Growing Into Leaders

Kathy Caprino, Forbes, Jan. 16, 2014

While I spend my professional time now as a career success coach, writer, and leadership trainer, I was a marriage and family therapist in my past, and worked for several years with couples, families, and children. Through that experience, I witnessed a very wide array of both functional and dysfunctional parenting behaviors. As a parent myself, I’ve learned that all the wisdom and love in the world doesn’t necessarily protect you from parenting in ways that hold your children back from thriving, gaining independence and becoming the leaders they have the potential to be.

I was intrigued, then, to catch up with leadership expert Dr. Tim Elmore and learn more about how we as parents are failing our children today—coddling and crippling them—and keeping them from becoming leaders they are destined to be. Tim is a best-selling author of more than 25 books, including Generation iY: Our Last Chance to Save Their Future, Artificial Maturity: Helping Kids Meet the Challenges of Becoming Authentic Adults, and the Habitudes® series. He is Founder and President of Growing Leaders, an organization dedicated to mentoring today’s young people to become the leaders of tomorrow.

Tim had this to share about the 7 damaging parenting behaviors that keep children from becoming leaders—of their own lives and of the world’s enterprises:

1. We don’t let our children experience risk. We live in a world that warns us of danger at every turn. The “safety first” preoccupation enforces our fear of losing our kids, so we do everything we can to protect them. It’s our job after all, but we have insulated them from healthy risk-taking behavior and it’s had an adverse effect. Psychologists in Europe have discovered that if a child doesn’t play outside and is never allowed to experience a skinned knee, they frequently have phobias as adults. Kids need to fall a few times to learn it’s normal; teens likely need to break up with a boyfriend or girlfriend to appreciate the emotional maturity that lasting relationships require. If parents remove risk from children’s lives, we will likely experience high arrogance and low self-esteem in our growing leaders.

2. We rescue too quickly. Today’s generation of young people has not developed some of the life skills kids did 30 years ago because adults swoop in and take care of problems for them. When we rescue too quickly and over-indulge our children with “assistance,” we remove the need for them to navigate hardships and solve problems on their own. It’s parenting for the short-term and it sorely misses the point of leadership—to equip our young people to do it without help. Sooner or later, kids get used to someone rescuing them: “If I fail or fall short, an adult will smooth things over and remove any consequences for my misconduct.” When in reality, this isn’t even remotely close to how the world works, and therefore it disables our kids from becoming competent adults.

3. We rave too easily. The self-esteem movement has been around since Baby Boomers were kids, but it took root in our school systems in the 1980s. Attend a little league baseball game and you’ll see that everyone is a winner. This “everyone gets a trophy” mentality might make our kids feel special, but research is now indicating this method has unintended consequences. Kids eventually observe that Mom and Dad are the only ones who think they’re awesome when no one else is saying it. They begin to doubt the objectivity of their parents; it feels good in the moment, but it’s not connected to reality. When we rave too easily and disregard poor behavior, children eventually learn to cheat, exaggerate and lie and to avoid difficult reality. They have not been conditioned to face it.

4. We let guilt get in the way of leading well. Your child does not have to love you every minute. Your kids will get over the disappointment, but they won’t get over the effects of being spoiled. So tell them “no” or “not now,” and let them fight for what they really value and need. As parents, we tend to give them what they want when rewarding our children, especially with multiple kids. When one does well in something, we feel it’s unfair to praise and reward that one and not the other. This is unrealistic and misses an opportunity to enforce the point to our kids that success is dependent upon our own actions and good deeds. Be careful not to teach them a good grade is rewarded by a trip to the mall. If your relationship is based on material rewards, kids will experience neither intrinsic motivation nor unconditional love.

5. We don’t share our past mistakes. Healthy teens are going to want to spread their wings and they’ll need to try things on their own. We as adults must let them, but that doesn’t mean we can’t help them navigate these waters. Share with them the relevant mistakes you made when you were their age in a way that helps them learn to make good choices. (Avoid negative “lessons learned” having to do with smoking, alcohol, illegal drugs, etc.) Also, kids must prepare to encounter slip-ups and face the consequences of their decisions. Share how you felt when you faced a similar experience, what drove your actions, and the resulting lessons learned. Because we’re not the only influence on our kids, we must be the best influence.

6. We mistake intelligence, giftedness and influence for maturity. Intelligence is often used as a measurement of a child’s maturity, and as a result parents assume an intelligent child is ready for the world. That’s not the case. Some professional athletes and Hollywood starlets, for example, possess unimaginable talent, but still get caught in a public scandal. Just because giftedness is present in one aspect of a child’s life, don’t assume it pervades all areas. There is no magic “age of responsibility” or a proven guide as to when a child should be given specific freedoms, but a good rule of thumb is to observe other children the same age as yours. If you notice that they are doing more themselves than your child does, you may be delaying your child’s independence.

7. We don’t practice what we preach. As parents, it is our responsibility to model the life we want our children to live. To help them lead a life of character and become dependable and accountable for their words and actions. As the leaders of our homes, we can start by only speaking honest words—white lies will surface and slowly erode character. Watch yourself in the little ethical choices that others might notice, because your kids will notice too. If you don’t cut corners, for example, they will know it’s not acceptable for them to either. Show your kids what it means to give selflessly and joyfully by volunteering for a service project or with a community group. Leave people and places better than you found them, and your kids will take note and do the same.

Why do parents engage in these behaviors? Do these behaviors come from fear or from poor understanding of what strong parenting (with good boundaries) is?

Tim shares: “I think both fear and lack of understanding play a role here, but it leads with the fact that each generation of parents is usually compensating for something the previous generation did. The primary adults in kids’ lives today have focused on now rather than later. It’s about their happiness today, not their readiness tomorrow. I suspect it’s a reaction. Many parents today had Moms and Dads who were all about getting ready for tomorrow: saving money, not spending it, and getting ready for retirement. In response, many of us bought into the message: embrace the moment. You deserve it. Enjoy today. And we did. For many, it resulted in credit card debt and the inability to delay gratification. This may be the crux of our challenge. The truth is, parents who are able to focus on tomorrow, not just today, produce better results.”

How can parents move away from these negative behaviors?

Tim says: “It’s important for parents to become exceedingly self-aware of their words and actions when interacting with their children, or with others when their children are nearby. Care enough to train them, not merely treat them to a good life. Coach them, more than coddle.”

Here’s a start:
1. Talk over the issues you wish you would’ve known about adulthood.

2. Allow them to attempt things that stretch them and even let them fail.

3. Discuss future consequences if they fail to master certain disciplines.

4. Aid them in matching their strengths to real-world problems.

5. Furnish projects that require patience, so they learn to delay gratification.

6. Teach them that life is about choices and trade-offs; they can’t do everything.

7. Initiate (or simulate) adult tasks like paying bills or making business deals.

8. Introduce them to potential mentors from your network.

9. Help them envision a fulfilling future, and then discuss the steps to get there.

10. Celebrate progress they make toward autonomy and responsibility.

How To Combat A Ridiculous Work Schedule And Stop Feeling So Overwhelmed

By Laura Vanderkam, Fast Company, Jan. 23, 2014

When Crystal Paine launched MoneySavingMom.com in 2007, she thought it would be a small offshoot of the blog she had been keeping. Then the economy crashed, and millions of people wanted to know how she fed her family for $35 a week. She soon found herself running a company that was growing so fast her hosting service went down every afternoon. She couldn’t stay on top of advertising queries. “I pulled all nighters,” she says. “Your body forgets how to relax and sleep.”

At first, she thought she could soldier through—things would be better after the next big project—but “that’s never how it is with a startup,” she says. “It took me months to realize it’s never going to get better. I needed to step back and make better choices if I wanted this thing to run for the long haul.”

She wrote about her journey back to sanity in a new book, Say Goodbye to Survival Mode. While the book is primarily aimed at the moms of young kids who comprise the majority of her 1.5 million monthly readers, Paine’s advice is also relevant to entrepreneurs working crazy hours at all kinds of startups. Here are her tips for clawing out from total chaos.

1. JUST SAY NO FOR A WHILE. Paine said no to almost all opportunities for about six months. Yes, that was hard; she worried that “If I don’t say yes to all these opportunities, I’m going to miss out on something big.” But there is only so much time in a day, and the more likely possibility is that you’ll miss something really important because you’ve said yes to something that doesn’t matter. Saying no was “very freeing,” she says. “I needed to get to a place where I had some clarity, and to get some clarity, I had to have breathing room.”

2. GET A VIRTUAL ASSISTANT FOR A FEW HOURS. If you’re swamped, long term, you’ll need to hire a good number of additional people (MoneySavingMom is now a team of 13). But when you’re in overwhelm mode, scaling up seems like one more huge project. Here’s something you can do: get a virtual assistant for a few hours a week to deal with your most overdue projects. There’s no long term commitment, and no big expense. Hiring a virtual assistant was “so hard for me,” Paine confesses because—hello—she’s the money saving mom. But she calls it “the best thing I ever did. This person is freeing me up from all those little details so I can focus on what I do best.” As your additional administrative help starts to free up more space, you can think about other specific team members you’ll need to bring on for your rising workload.

3. MAKE TIME FOR SELF-CARE. Sometimes entrepreneurs think they’ll sleep or exercise after they get their work done. This is faulty thinking: “You’re never going to get your work done,” Paine says. “Accept that it’s never going to be done. There’s always something more you could be doing.” So figure out what aspects of self-care make life feel livable. Maybe it’s sleeping seven hours a night. Maybe it’s eating dinner with your family three times per week. Exercising for 30 minutes four times a week isn’t a bad idea either. Block in times for these things to happen, because if you don’t, they won’t happen. And you’ll feel out of control. “If you’re in it for the long haul, you’ve got to be taking care of yourself,” she says.

4. TAKE A DAY OFF. “I completely unplug on Sundays,” Paine says. Here are a few reasons to consider giving yourself a weekly day of rest. First, it’s motivational. “If it’s a hard week, a busy week, I think ‘I know Sunday’s coming!’” Paine says. Second, people get all sorts of great ideas when they step back from their work. Mental breathing space is profoundly creative. And third? Your family may be willing to put up with a lot if they know that at least one day a week you will focus on them, rather than work, and that you will not interrupt a conversation to take a phone call.

5. SAY YES STRATEGICALLY. As you start shoveling stuff off your plate, you can start saying yes, strategically, to good opportunities. Ideally, you’ll be reaching out to people about the ideas you think are best for your business, rather than just responding to what comes across the transom. Potentially this will result in you asking someone you said no to in step one if she wants to work together, but you know what? If she liked you before, she’ll probably still like you—and this time, you’ll have your act together.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

The Problem Of Pride

By John C. Maxwell, January 22, 2014

When you think of the word pride, does it strike you as positive or negative? There are certainly many positive types of pride. It’s good to “take pride in our work.” We like it when someone tells us, “I’m proud of you.” And nearly everyone wants to live in a neighborhood where people display “pride of ownership.” All of these expressions communicate a positive kind of pride: dignity, respect and honor, traits that we all can embrace.

But pride isn’t always positive. Pride can also mean conceit, arrogance, or superiority. This kind of pride is based on self-centeredness, and it’s destructive.

Selfish pride is especially destructive to relationships. That’s because the opposite of loving others is not hating them but rather being self-centered. The great writer and apologist C.S. Lewis had this to say about pride:

The point is that each person’s pride is in competition with everyone else’s pride. It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise…. Now what you want to get clear is that Pride is essentially competitive, is competitive by its very nature, while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident.

Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better looking than others. If every one else became equally rich, or clever, or good looking, there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest.

So how do we solve the problem of pride? I believe there are several steps we can take to counteract our tendency toward self-centeredness.

1. Recognize and Admit Your Pride. C.S. Lewis said about acknowledging pride: “If anyone would like to acquire humility, I can, I think, tell him the first step. The first step is to realize that one is proud. And a biggish step, too. At least, nothing whatever can be done before it. If you think you are not conceited, you are very conceited indeed.” You will not solve a problem that you don’t know exists.

2. Express Your Gratitude. Henry Ward Beecher said, “A proud man is seldom a grateful man, for he never thinks he gets as much as he deserves.” There is something about saying “thank you” that takes our eyes off of ourselves and puts them back on the blessings we’ve received and the people who’ve blessed us.

3. Practice Servanthood. A person who is truly great is always willing to be little. But pride fights against servanthood, because a proud person demands to be served. Serving others requires us to focus on their needs rather than our own, and this also reminds us of how we are part of something bigger than ourselves.

4. Laugh at Yourself. There’s an old saying, “Blessed are they that laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be entertained.” Once you begin to look for the humor in your behavior and situation, you find it everywhere. Prideful people take themselves way too seriously. By laughing at yourself, you begin to see how absurd we can all be sometimes.

If your pride pushes you toward performing with excellence, doing your best, and finding joy in the accomplishments of others, it’s probably helping you become a better leader. But if there’s even a hit of competition or self-promotion in it, it’s probably having a negative effect on your relationships. That can hurt both your life and your leadership. If that’s true, do what I try to do: shift my focus onto others and follow the tips above.

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith