God & The Failure of Modern Science — Can God be found thru Scientific Experiments?
Failure Science Has Science
Failed Us ?
by
Swami B. B. Visnu
THESIS
Scientists generally insist that all phenomena can be described, in principle, in terms of measurable quantities which can be calculated using simple mathematical laws, thus reducing the universe to a mechanism and humans to complex submechanisms whose will and feelings correspond to nothing more than patterns of chemical interaction among molecules. The vast majority of these scientists are bent on eliminating the concept of God from all descriptions of reality and it's creation.
Erwin Schrodinger
Renowned physicist and Nobel laureate, Erwin Schrodinger, father of Quantum Mechanics, writes: "No personal God can form part of a world model that has only become accessible at the cost of removing everything personal from it." (1) We find that almost all of the scientists have chosen to rule out god from the very beginning of their research.
Presumably scientists seek to improve their position of knowledge and better satisfy their needs (pleasures) in this world by controlling nature. Unfortunately we find that so-called scientific progress more often brings an unexpected toll, a negative reaction from the material energy.
With the proliferation of automobiles, air pollution threatens humanity, the industrial revolution has brought air and water pollution, truck farming with it's pesticides and chemical fertilizers has introduced innumerable poisons into our food system, advances in physics have brought about the nuclear threat and possible holocaust, appliances and other modern amenities (time saving devices) have inadvertently spawned drunkenness and obesity and with urbanization the breakdown of morals, ethics and mental stability.
Even with all the advances in medical cures, new and incurable diseases have only increased. It seems that the goals of knowledge and pleasure have not been achieved.
SCIENTIST'S IMPERFECTIONS
It is often found that scientists are not unbiased in their search for the truth, giving preference to evidence which supports their desired thesis and unscientifically rejecting alternative theories as unsuitable without proper consideration.
Alfred Russel Wallace
Alfred Russell Wallace, co-author with Charles Darwin of the 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection' advised, "the proper way to treat evidence as to man's antiquity is to place it on record, and admit it provisionally wherever it would be held adequate in the case of other animals; not, as is too often now the case, to ignore it as unworthy of acceptance or subject its discoverers to indiscriminate accusations of being impostors or the victims of impostors."
Although scientists are subject to the four defects of all humans, namely, they make mistakes, are subject to illusion, have a cheating propensity and defective perception (bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, karanapatava), their findings when presented with some sort of verifiable experimental proof, are accepted as factual descriptions of reality.
Even so, theories of creation, formation of life, and evolution cannot be rigorously proven nor do they adequately describe reality. Scientists have not provided us with adequate answers to fundamental questions about the universe, galaxies and life forms.
All too often scientists forcibly assume [albeit incorrectly] that their laboratory experimental evidence can be applied elsewhere under different circumstances. Further, almost all currently accepted theories of Creation and Evolution are unverifiable and often contradicted by reliable evidence. However, when concepts such as consciousness, a creator intelligence and soul are introduced as viable concepts, the scientists demand that they be detectable by experimentation.
Albert Einstein
Alternative world views which need to be examined more closely are those which include these concepts of consciousness, spiritual qualities and a grand designer or universal designing intelligence (god).
Although Albert Einstein professed atheism, he agreed that there is a perfect "brain" behind all the natural physical laws. It is common sense that there is some cause behind each action. Even machines cannot run automatically without an "operator" to turn them on or repair them. There is no logical reason for ruling out in advance alternative strategies for explaining the creation and it's constituent parts. Yet, the vast majority of scientists reject outright any argument in favor of design since such a concept is not reducible to physical processes and simple mathematics. We think this approach of the scientists is unscientific .
Gödel's incompleteness findings shook the very foundations of 20th-century mathematics, just as relativity theory and quantum mechanics redirected contemporary physical research.
Gregory Chaitlin of the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center takes Gödel's incompleteness results one step further and shows with algorithmic information theory that mathematics has much more widespread and serious limitations than hitherto suspected. Chaitlin provides the LISP and Mathematica software so we can run our own calculations.
Chaitin's work focuses on the problems of mathematical "truth" as a convenient fiction. There are infinitely many possible mathematical facts, but, according to Chaitin, the underlying relationships among them are impossible to establish. This isn't good news for anyone interested in a "theory of everything," since, if the foundation is built on cottage cheese, the tower is going to be a bit tippy at best. Even worse, Chaitin's results demonstrate that not only is there no structure to the foundation of mathematics, the foundation is in fact random. Bad news, reductionists! (2)
PROPER EDUCATION
The purpose of the Educational system is to teach students how to solve the problems of life, yet educators are simply propagating how to increase one's entanglement in this material world by economic development and sensory enjoyment. We do not find a department in the Universities which teaches what is the actual goal of life.
Heisenberg
When Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, imaginary numbers and other non-verifiable conceptual models are accepted by our scientific friends, what is the problem in considering such concepts as the spiritual soul? Consciousness is the symptom of the spirit soul's residency in the body of the living entity. It is a fundamental aspect of reality which cannot be ignored in any valid scientific explanation of reality.
FAILURE OF SCIENCE
In the field of mathematics, which underlies all other branches of Science, the imaginary number "i," (the square root of minus one) is essential for most complex theoretical calculations. However this "imaginary" number cannot be proven by experimentation. It is also not possible to prove by experimentation the Third Law of Thermodynamics or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Yet these principles are absolutely essential for modern scientific theories.
In the beginning of the Nineteenth Century it was believed that atoms could not be divided, yet as we entered the Twentieth Century the fundamental building blocks of atoms such as neutrons, protons and electrons were discovered. Newtonian Mechanics was accepted as the proper scientific explanation of reality until it was discovered in the Twentieth Century that it failed to describe the motion of these fundamental particles. Quantum Mechanics was devised to cope with this inadequacy. The General Theory of Relativity was also devised by Albert Einstein to help further explain fundamental concepts.
P.A.M. Dirac
Because General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appear to contradict each other, Quantum Field Theory was developed. This theories inventor, Nobel laureate P.A.M. Dirac, confessed, "It seems to be quite impossible to put the theory on a sound mathematical basis." (3)
So we can see clearly that the various evolving theories of the scientists are constantly changing as they scramble to adjust these theories, all of which are filled with speculation. These theories can never be perfect because the scientists themselves are imperfect and subject to the four human defects. With our limited knowledge, tiny brains, limited experience and resources we cannot hope to understand the unlimited.
Noted astronomer Bart J. Bok wrote in Scientific American " ... we did not suspect it would soon be necessary to revise the radius of the Milky Way upward by a factor of three or more and to increase it's mass by as much as a factor of 10." (4)
BIG BANG THEORY
For lack of other alternatives, scientists generally support the "Big Bang" Theory of creation, which postulates that in the beginning of creation all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a single point of mass at a high temperature which then exploded producing a superheated cloud of sub atomic particles. However this initial condition is mathematically indescribable. A point of infinitesimal circumference and infinite density is called a "singularity." — an impossibility.
Stephen Hawking
Of this, renowned mathematician Stephen Hawking and Professor G.F.R. Ellis write, "It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of a singularity by a physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down." (5)
Thus the scientists stand convicted of the crime of making unverifiable supernatural claims, just what they accuse the transcendental saints of doing.
These various "Big Bang" theories lead to a stage of uniformly distributed gas which is expanding. Again, what happens after that is the subject of further speculation and has not been properly explained.
Various alternative theories have been proposed which are little better. Of one such attempt, the "Inflationary Model" of the universe, it was written, "It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing." (6) The nothingness mentioned here is a hypothetical quantum mechanical vacuum, a state which is virtually indescribable. This vacuum is actually very complicated to describe and it is unknown how it could have evolved further to produce the life forms present today, although a number of theories have been proposed.
Attempts by the German scientist Manfred Eigen to describe how an inert chemical soup might transform into self-reproducing cells elicited such comments as: "Clearly these papers [of Eigen and coworkers] raise more problems than they solve." (7)
Their failure is like the frog in the well speculating as to the size of the Pacific Ocean by comparing it to his well.
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Darwin himself admitted that speculation was necessary in the formulation of a theory, "I am a firm believer that without speculation there is no good and original observation..." (8)
His Theory of Evolution published in his book "Origin of Species" has been accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.
Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way. It is indeed strange that scientists speak with absolute conviction of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, when it has been calculated that out of one billion species that have lived since the Cambrian period, that 99.9% of these species left no fossil record, thus leaving scant evidence (some of which is contradictory) to support this theory.
Java Man
There are innumerable anomalies in the archeological artifacts, such as: Human remains have been found from the wrong time period in the wrong continent, pollen of flowering plants from the wrong time period, etc —which sharply contradict this theory of evolution. These contradictions are either brushed aside by traditional evolutionists or rejected.
Peking Man
Indeed it has been noted that the vehemence of their opposition and the lengths to which they will go to discredit and reject any evidence contradicting their sacred theories, is proportional to the significance of it's challenge to their theories. Studies of artifact dating which does contradict evolutionary theories have been published along with such statements that the authors were, "painfully aware that so great an age poses an archaeological dilemma." (9)
Yet, such significant finds are simply not mentioned in standard textbooks and popular accounts of human evolution, nor are they included in the evolutionists writings. Sir Arthur Keith, an eminent British evolutionist, wrote, "Were such discoveries in accordance with our expectations, if they were in harmony with the theories we have formed regarding the date of man's evolution, no one would ever dream of doubting them, much less of rejecting them." (10)
A hint of the prevailing attitude towards unwelcome finds (those which contradict the predominating evolutionary theory) is provided by a quote of William H. Holmes during his opposition to the Tertiary humans found by J. D. Whitney, "Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood to-day, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated, notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted." (11) What he is really saying is that if the evidence does not support the favored theory, then it should be disregarded.
FURTHER PROBLEMS WITH DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION
The modification of species by breeding has been heralded since the time of Darwin as evidence of evolution, yet experiments have shown that there are natural limits to the changes which can be brought about by breeding. Experiments with plums and roses by the eminent biologist Luther Burbank confirmed these limits, "In short, there are limits to the development possible." (12)
A staunch advocate of evolution, Ernst Mayr of Harvard University found similar results in his experiments with fruit flies. Some altered species died out while others reverted to their original state a few years and generations later. (13) These results show a strong anti-evolutionary characteristic in the species examined.
Domestic animals have not evolved in four to ten thousand years. "Ten thousand years of mutations, crossbreeding, and selection have mixed the inheritance of the canine species in innumerable ways without its losing its chemical cytological [cellular] unity. The same is observed of all domestic animals: the ox [at least 4,000 years old, the fowl (4,000), the sheep (6,000), etc." (14)
It has been found that ancient Egyptian pyramids contain depictions of various species of animals which remain unchanged to this day. Why have the species not evolved?
Evolution theory fails miserably to account for complex form. How can small sequential changes over many generations improve the survivability of each generation such that these changes develop? It seems that the intermediate steps would decrease the species fitness rather than increase it. However, this would simply not take place unless each successive stage provided some definite advantage over the previous stage. Otherwise, the changes cannot be attributed to natural selection. A particularly vexing question is that of the evolution of the eye in previously sightless species. Darwin himself admitted this shortcoming of his theory, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could nave been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (15)
Anthropologist Frank Spencer stated in 1984: "From accumulating skeletal evidence it appeared as if the modern human skeleton extended far back in time, an apparent fact which led many workers to either abandon or modify their views on human evolution. One such apostate was Alfred Russel Wallace (co-author of the Theory of Evolution)." (16)
Evolutionary theorist Theodosius Dobzhansky has stated that there is almost zero chance of human evolution being repeated.
Modern humans do not have Neanderthal ancestors in their family tree, a new DNA study concludes. The DNA extracted from the ribs of a Neanderthal infant buried in southern Russia 29,000 years ago was found to be too distinct from modern human DNA to be related. (17)
Jonathan Wells, a molecular and cell biologist from the University of California at Berkeley who is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, in his Icons of Evolution does more than cast doubt. He takes 10 so-called "proofs" of evolution offered in current textbooks and shows where not one of them is in a fact a proof of anything, and several are actually frauds. (18)
In view of so much strong evidence to the contrary, it seems very misleading to present Darwin's Theory of Evolution as factual as has been done and continues to be presented in today's school textbooks.
LIFE FROM CHEMICALS?
Scientists have long theorized that life has emerged from a primordial chemical soup without the direction of any higher organizing principles. They theorize that simple molecules randomly combine into inconceivably complex organic compounds, which again evolve into higher self-reproducing organisms. How any of this happens is yet to be explained.
James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA structure wrote, "Not only will the exact structure of most macromolecules within the cell remain unsolved, but their relative locations within cells can only be vaguely known." (19)
The great question is: How can inert matter, acting according to simple physical laws alone, generate the remarkable molecular machinery found in even the simplest cell?
Experiments by chemists hailed as demonstrating the "creation" of life showed no signs of evolving into even slightly more complex forms, what to speak of cells. The relative success of Stanley Miller in producing amino acids by running a spark thru a gaseous substance believed to be similar to the ancient atmosphere from which life arose, is actually of little consequence. It is quite another matter to go the next step to complex cellular components with their complicated mechanisms. Another chemist, Sydney Fox, produced small drops of protein by heating dry amino acids and dropping them into water. His results were equally unimpressive and failed to demonstrate how inert chemicals could evolve into highly organized complex cells.
Albert L. Lehninger aptly expressed the dilemna, "At the center of the problem is the process of the self-organization of matter." (20)
The scientist's quest to show how a set of simple natural laws can explain the transformation of a few basic molecular building blocks of life into a single self-reproducing cell can be compared to finding a simple computer program which can take the 26 letters of the alphabet and transform them into a Shakespearean masterpiece. To help our readers formulate an idea of the complexity of this task we mention that Professor R, B. Woodward of Harvard, winner of a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1965, took eleven years working with ninety-nine scientists to synthesize the vitamin B-12 molecule.
Scientists claim to be able to produce life, but can they create one mosquito, produce milk from grass or put a banyon tree in a capsule the size of a mustard seed?
In view of the fact that there exists no viable theory on the chemical origin of life, perhaps other factors may be involved in chemical evolution, such as a self-intelligent organizing principle.
COULD LIFE ARISE BY CHANCE?
A number of scientists, left with no other viable alternatives, then turn to blind chance as a last resort explanation in their attempts to save the theory of evolution. Some scientists have calculated the probability of life arising by chance from a primordial soup and shown that it is virtually zero. (21) Could Life Arise by Chance
CONCLUSION
Scientists seem obsessed with the concept that complex life forms have evolved progressively from simple building blocks. However direct experience shows just the opposite, that complex forms actually originate from even more complex forms. On the basis of information theory and also the basic principle of the Second Law of Thermodynamics regarding increasing entropy, or the tendency towards disorder, we can understand that to go from a simple system to a more complicated one, that design information is necessary. If we say that this information is encoded in the DNA, then we ask simply for an explanation of how this encoding information may happen to appear without any external input to our inert primordial soup.
Our capacity to function in an intelligent way and make decisions based on external stimuli depends on our consciousness. The phenomenon of consciousness cannot be denied, yet because consciousness itself cannot be explained quantitatively, scientists themselves generally neglect to include this essential element in their constructs. Fortunately not all of them feel this way.
Albert Einstein recognized that there was a perfect intelligence behind all the natural physical laws. He concluded that the cosmos; "reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
He is not alone in this thought. Other important scientists have considered the concept of a higher source transmitting design information; that there is a purpose in the universe. Robert Broom, who made important anthropological finds wrote, "The origin of species and of much of evolution appears to be due to some organizing and partly intelligent spiritual agency associated with the animal or plant, which controls its life processes and tends to keep the being more or less adapted to its environment. But in addition to this there seem to be other spiritual agencies of a much higher type which have been responsible for what may be called greater evolution ... These spiritual agencies appear to have worked by directing from time to time the inferior agencies which are associated with the animals and plants." (22)
Alfred Russel Wallace
Alfred Russell Wallace, co-author of the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" along with Charles Darwin, expressed similar thoughts, "If there is such an Infinite Being, and if... his will and purpose is the increase of conscious beings, then we can hardly be the first result of this purpose. We conclude, therefore, that there are now in the universe infinite grades of power, infinite grades of knowledge and wisdom, infinite grades of influence of higher beings upon lower. Holding this opinion, I have suggested that this vast and wonderful universe, with its almost infinite variety of forms, motions, and reactions of parts upon part, from suns and systems up to plant-life, animal-life, and the human living soul, has ever required and still requires the continuous coordinated agency of myriads of such intelligences." (23)
Stephen Hawking, the most famous scientist of our day, recently stated in 2002, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of god. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that god acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws." (24)
If we cannot explain the origin of life via simple principles then the only choice other than giving up our quest is to search for more complex principles as the source.
So, one might rightly ask, then where do we turn for a proper understanding of reality and the purpose of life itself? If we cannot trust the knowledge or findings of any human source, then where can we find a reliable source of information?
REAL KNOWLEDGE
We suggest that a body of knowledge does exist which provides sufficient explanation of the nature and origin of the universe and the living organisms that inhabit it. We refer to the ancient sanskrit Vedic literatures of India, an internally and externally verifiable and consistent presentation of information. Herein we find profuse descriptions of an intelligent creator god and his creation.
Perhaps the most well known of these literatures, The Bhagavad-gita explains the nature of the conscious soul as an indweller in the bodies of various species and it's journey to other bodies after the death of it's present body according to the laws of karma. The living entity has free choice to act properly or improperly and receives the resultant good and bad reactions in terms of success and failure, happiness and distress.
Also encoded within this vast body of literature is a description of the process of bhakti-yoga, a process for obtaining enlightenment and rising beyond the ordinary platform of eating, sleeping, mating and defending. The essence of these teachings may be found in the Bhagavad-gita.
An article as well as a video entitled "Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge" is now available.
Bibliography
(1) Erwin Schrodinger, What is Life? and Mind and Matter (Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 68.
(2) A Century of Controversy Over the Foundations of Mathematics, a lecture by Gregory Chaitlin of the IBM T. J. Watson Research Center on 2 March 2000 at Carnegie Mellon University School of computer science. Available here: Mathematics
(3) P.A.M. Dirac, "The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature," Scientific American (May 1963), pp. 45-53
(4) Bart J. Bok, "The Milky Way Galaxy," Scientific American (March 1981), p. 94
(5) S.W. Hawking and Professor G.F.R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 362-63
(6) Alan H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt, "The Inflationary Universe." Scientific American,1984, p 128.
(7) John Maynard Smith, "Hypercycles and the Origin of Life," Nature, vol. 280 (1979), pp. 445-446.
(8) Philip Appleman, ed., Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1970), p. 66.
(9) Virginia Steen-McIntyre, Roald Ryxell, and Harold E. Malde, "Geologic Evidence for Age of Deposits at Hueyatlaco Archeological Site, Valsequillo, Mexico," Quaternary Research, Vol. 16 (1981), p. 15.
(10) Sir Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, 1920), p. 473.
(11) Holmes, W. H. (1919) Handbook of aboriginal American antiquities, Part I. Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin 60.
(12) Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (Boston: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.
(13) Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraff (New York: New American Library, 1982), p. 41.
(14) Pierre-P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, (New Your: Academic Press, 1977), p. 125.
(15) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, (New York: New American Library, 1964), p. 168.
(16) Michael a. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, The Hidden History of the Human Race, (Govardhan Hill Publishing, 1994), p. 155.
(17) British Broadcasting Co. (12-11-02)
(18) Interview with Dr. Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, http://www.origins.org/mc/resources/ri9602/behe.html, Updated: 18 November 2002.
(19) James D, Watson, The Molecular Biology of the Gene (Menlo park: W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1977), p. 69.
(20) Albert L. Lehninger, Biochemistry, (New York: Worth Publishers, 1975), p. 1055.
(21) The Bhaktivedanta Institute, Origins—Higher dimensions in science, (Los Angeles: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1984).
(22) Robert Broom, "Evolution—Is There Intelligence Behind It?" South African Journal of science, Vol. 30 (October 1933), pp. 18-19.
(23) Alfred Russell Wallace, The World of Life (New York: Moffat, Yard & Co., 1911), p. 431.
(24) Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer, III, Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and god, http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html
lfbno7 posted on Nov 14, 2007
| views: 808
Comments
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 14, 2007....
A particularly vexing question is that of the evolution of the eye in previously sightless species. Darwin himself admitted this shortcoming of his theory, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could nave been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (15) Just what I said before. The sense of sight proves the existence of design. Read it again. -
lfbno7 said on Nov 14, 2007....
CONCLUSION Scientists seem obsessed with the concept that complex life forms have evolved progressively from simple building blocks. However direct experience shows just the opposite, that complex forms actually originate from even more complex forms. On the basis of information theory and also the basic principle of the Second Law of Thermodynamics regarding increasing entropy, or the tendency towards disorder, we can understand that to go from a simple system to a more complicated one, that design information is necessary.
Exactly what I've said before. Entropy, the tendency towards disorder, flat out proves the falsity of evolution. Things don't get more ordered, they get less ordered. You don't go from a little amoeba to a higher life form. You go from a little amoeba to a little fucked up amoeba. -
lfbno7 said on Nov 14, 2007....
Einstein and Hawking agree with me that the answer must include intelligent design, and yet so many of you brainwashed and unimaginative pinheads just repeat the silliness you were taught in school without having the intelligence to figure things out for yourself. Axiom number one - every fucking thing you were ever taught is absolute bullshit. Can't go far wrong if you start from there. Then see if you have the brains to figure it out for yourself. See if you end up with the same conclusion that you were taught. If you do, I guess you don't have the brains to do any better. You just get caught in a loop that you can't see your way out of. -
moonriver said on Nov 14, 2007....
lfb -- the law of entropy doesn't preclude little islands insulated from the entropy surrounding them, in much the same way as the climate of a country doesn't preclude micro-climates inside airconditioned malls and heated pools.
living things are such islands of organized energy rising above the sea of entropy. they survive precisely by managing the energy exchange between interior and exterior.
when looking for an explanation about the earth's biological complexities throughout earth's history, and choosing between vedic writings and encyclopaedia britannica, i'll take britannica everytime. no contest... :-)
-
Fallyn said on Nov 14, 2007....
are you saying in part of what you posted that because i is required in so many mathematical equations....but it cannot be proven therefore the whole foundation of mathematics is false?
forgive me if i'm being absolutely retarded it's 1am and i should be sleeping.....
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 14, 2007....
Moonie, well, it's actually racist to dismiss the poor guy just cause he's an Indian. So he eats goat, I wouldn't hold that against him. I don't buy the concept that living things are immune to entropy though. It's sort of a presto changeo poof let's ignore the rule of entropy now. Wait til you start getting wrinkles, you'll see how immune you are to entropy, you life form you.
Fallyn, the strongest arguments against evolution for me are the ones in my first two comments and another one from the Big Bang Theory where a physicist said the original Big Bang requires someone determining exactly how powerful the bang must be in order to create a universe that would survive as long as it has, because a bang one iota too powerful would blast it all to hell, and a bang one iota too weak would have resulted in the collapse of the universe long ago by gravity. This physicist said that the degree of accuracy in the power of the explosion had to be similar to counting every grain of sand on earth and not being wrong by one, otherwise today's universe could not possibly exist after so many billions of years.
As for i, yeah I remember that. Square root of minus one. Kind of reminds me of up quarks and down quarks and spin. I didn't really pay any attention to that part of this guy's argument. Why shouldn't there be a square root of minus one? I don't really have a problem with it. There's a lot in his article I don't connect to. How can you pay any attention to a guy who eats goats? -
Fallyn said on Nov 14, 2007....
hmmmm. aren't there other theories than the big bang?
*laughing* i wasn't sure who'd written it. i thought maybe you had...but again...2am now.
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 14, 2007....
There used to be a theory that was more popular than the Big Bang. It was called the Steady State theory. It said that the universe was always as it is now, therefore (supposedly) no need for a creator. It was popular in the Soviet Union because they were atheist there. But when the Big Bang proponents predicted a certain microwave background in the universe, and then many years later they actually found it, just the way they had predicted it, this was taken as proof that the Big Bang theory was correct, and it pretty much killed off the Steady State theory. Another death blow to the Steady State theory was a few decades ago when somebody determined through the Doppler Effect that the universe is still expanding, so it couldn't have always been the way it is now. The Big Bangers had more creationists, which is why it was more popular in America, where creationism was more accepted than in the Soviet Union. -
moonriver said on Nov 14, 2007....
hahaha. lfb, you *are* funny.
-
pickersplock said on Nov 14, 2007....
That was fascinating. -
Fallyn said on Nov 14, 2007....
the steady state theory really makes no sense even without all the proof against it.
i'll have to look into this more. i was sure there were other theory's but i'm so rusty in the learning department...i've basically been absent for the past decade.
-
bloc said on Nov 14, 2007....
"On the basis of information theory and also the basic principle of the Second Law of Thermodynamics regarding increasing entropy, or the tendency towards disorder, we can understand that to go from a simple system to a more complicated one, that design information is necessary."
This is a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here is some good info
"For example, it is a fundamental axiom of thermodynamics that when heat flows from subsystem A to subsystem B, the entropy of A decreases and the entropy of B increases. (i.e. the sun providing energy to earth)
...
Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution" source -
Fallyn said on Nov 14, 2007....
evolution itself has provided proof of that....and i'm meaning evolution in the provable sense not the theory.
going from a simply species to hundreds of subsets of that species that are highly adapted to their environments.
beatles or birds for example. the plethora of beak designs is in itself proof that you can go from simple to complex.
-
bloc said on Nov 14, 2007....
You quoted stephen hawking so allow me to do the same."It is a matter of common experience that things get more disordered and chaoticwith time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called
Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder or
entropy in the universe always increases with time. However, the Law refers only
to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase provided that
the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. This is
what happens in a living being.One can define Life to be an ordered system that
can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder and can reproduce itself. That is,
it can make similar, but independent, ordered systems. To do these things the
system must convert energy in some ordered form, life food, sunlight or electric
power, into disordered energy in the form of heat. In this way the system can
satisfy the requirement that the total amount of disorder increases while at the same
time increasing the order in itself and its offspring." source -
lfbno7 said on Nov 14, 2007....
ok, go right ahead. -
Antimatter said on Nov 14, 2007....
“and yet so many of you brainwashed and unimaginative pinheads just repeat the silliness you were taught in school without having the intelligence to figure things out for yourself. Axiom number one - every fucking thing you were ever taught is absolute bullshit. Can't go far wrong if you start from there. Then see if you have the brains to figure it out for yourself. See if you end up with the same conclusion that you were taught. If you do, I guess you don't have the brains to do any better. You just get caught in a loop that you can't see your way out of.”
That about sums up my response to your post.
-
Fallyn said on Nov 14, 2007....
i have one other question.
if the universe is so complex that only a massively higher intelligent being could have created it........
then....what of that higher intelligent being?......if you ask the question where did the world come from.......and then answer it.....from a higher intelligence being.....
the question begs to be asked and answered.....where did the higher intelligence being come from? did it create itself? did it evolve? was there still a higher intelligence being that created it? and a still higher intelligence being that created that one? and so on back through infinity? .......
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 14, 2007....
wish i knew -
Fallyn said on Nov 14, 2007....
my point is...it makes as little sense to me as either the big bang.....or the steady state theory. -
bloc said on Nov 14, 2007....
lfb, you've gotten me thinking about this issue lately. I've started looking at it from a different perspective. Start with the assumption that there is a designer and look at various aspects of life and the universe and ask if what we see coincides with the concept of a designer. This is similar to the approach ID people take regarding the eye. After doing this I'm still forced to conclude that there isn't a designer.Some examples. If we were designed why did it take so long? Earth existed long before humans were present here and advanced life existed long before humans (think dinosaurs). This doesn't seem like the work of a designer unless the designer is a little inept.Also, think about all the millions of species that have existed and are now extinct. Why would a designer design such things especially if the designer is all powerful? Even if not all powerful why design so many different life forms, many which only vary slightly, and many which are incapable of survival.And the most convincing point. Many life forms on earth have come into existence at widely different times. These leads to all kinds of questions which have no good answers. Why didn't the designer create all life upfront? If the designer comes back regularly to add new life why isn't there any evidence of the designer? -
Fallyn said on Nov 15, 2007....
unless the designer wasn't aiming for humans to begin with?
possibly we weren't the be all and end all goal in mind?
or, maybe the designer wasn't the snap of the fingers kind......
interesting points raised though bloc.
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 15, 2007....
I believe there are millions of designers. I believe that we ourselves are designers. I don't believe that there is one God creating all the life forms. I think there are many planets that produce life forms fit for souls to incarnate in. I think the Earth is just one of many, and when its light goes out, that will be no big deal. How does that fit into your questions? Part of "God doesn't micromanage" includes that God doesn't get involved in the design of physical bodies. We do. -
Fallyn said on Nov 15, 2007....
interesting.
hmmm.
including bugs?
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 15, 2007....
yup -
Fallyn said on Nov 15, 2007....
do you just get a feeling about all this? or have you studied something about it?
the feeling i get is that we're all waiting around in a big boring paradise somewhere up in the clouds, and eventually each of us gets so bored we decide to take a turn at acting in the whole "human drama" ...thinking it will be fun....
but then we get down there (here) and come out as crying babies, forgetting where we came from.......then we grow old and die.
and it's an addiction....so when we get bored of paradise again we go down again.....even though now we know it will be so painful.
but we just can't resist......cause eternal boredom vs pain.....well...the choice for some is obvious.
but it's just a feeling....not an actual belief i have.
-
moonriver said on Nov 15, 2007....
fallyn, lfb, here's my own take on this god soul afterlife thing. it's just an initial outline, but i've read enough to be able to hold on to these beliefs, which fit comfortably in my scientific mindset and tempered by my huge faith in the scientific method. i think i will post it later as a separate blog.
-
Fallyn said on Nov 15, 2007....
moon....that's an interesting take on it.
reincarnation then? ......if we're going by yours or mine or traditional reincarnationists....i'm a very young soul. as far as i can tell anyway.
it's something i'm pretty sure of.
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 15, 2007....
I've read a lot about the afterlife. My favorite books are by Michael Newton, and are called Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls. Newton is a shrink of a sort, someone who medical doctors referred patients to, when they found no physical cause for the patient's pain. Newton would hypnotize the patient and age-regress them to when the pain started, hoping to make some progress and alleviate the patient's pain. He had enough success that doctors kept referring patients to him when they themselves were at the end of their rope.
Newton was a conservative, traditional type of shrink. He did not believe in anything out of the ordinary. But one day, one of his patients, complaining of pain in his side that had absolutely no discernible cause, age-regressed to a past life in World War One when he was bayonetted in the side. Newton had one of those "Holy shit!" moments. Since the technique worked, Newton continued to regress patients into past lives. He didn't care if the past lives were real or not. That was utterly irrelevant to his practice. The important thing to him was that his patients were doing very well, getting rid of their pain. That, after all, was his job.
He was very successfully and effectively regressing many of his patients into past lives, getting great results, when he had another, and very different, "holy shit!" moment. One of his patients reported that she was in Heaven. She was in contact with her friends in Heaven, friends she missed terribly in her present incarnation. This led Newton to include in his practice the art of hypnotizing people not only into other lives, but into "life between lives".
This was his most fascinating work. But it was very tough to do, as a practicing hypnotist. It took hours to get someone so hypnotized that they could actually be in contact with Heaven. It was extremely hard work. It wasn't just one of your "I'm going to count backwards from ten to one, and with each number you will go deeper and deeper into hypnosis." In order to hypnotize people so deeply, he had to become one of the best hypnotists around, and it was a struggle.
He wrote about the thousands of patients he hypnotized to the point of having them report about Heaven. He wrote that they were all reporting similar things, all confirming each other's reports, even though they didn't know each other. He claimed that he never "led the witness" with leading questions that pulled out answers he was looking for. He claimed that they often contradicted him, and most definitely had minds of their own, that it wasn't a matter of him planting suggestions in their minds.
Newton's patients report over and over that there is a God, it is not anything like Jehovah, that we ourselves are creators in training, that we have immortal souls, that we have dear friends and loved ones in Heaven who we may or may not know here on Earth this time, that there are spirit guides for all of us. I read both of his books twice over, and I know quite a bit about them. I also read his third book, but that one is geared more towards the hypnotist, and reveals nothing new about Heaven, so I don't recommend it.
I don't know if Newton is on to something or not, but I think there's a good chance he is. My own beliefs were heavily influenced by his books. Any reader of Michael Newton would recognize him in the beliefs I write about here. But I'm not completely sure he is right about any of this. I'd be much more comfortable with it if someone else came out with a book reporting on the same subject, using the same hypnotic technique, and either confirmed or corrected Newton. I'm not fully convinced that Newton really didn't "lead the witness". If you aren't in the room watching the hypnotic experience, you can't be sure what really went on. So I hold out the definite possibility that all of Newton's writing is worthless, but I think there's a good chance that he's right on target, or usually on target, and that his books are terrific and for the most part accurate. -
Fallyn said on Nov 15, 2007....
that sounds remarkably like my own impressions.
was it only human past lives that people remembered?
i have the feeling that i once spent a VERY long time as a tree.
but it's just a feeling.
and i have glimpses of this....heaven.....not in memory....but...an impression....and images.
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 15, 2007....
Good question Fallyn. No it was not only human past lives that people remembered. On Earth it was only human ones, but on other planets it was a lot of different things. Young souls don't start off with human bodies. They do much simpler things, like experiencing what it is like to feel like clouds or other substances on other planets. They just play in those substances, having fun with them, no pressure, just play. There are also other human-like lives that can be lived on other planets. And there are some very strange things to be done too, some having to do with traveling through confusing spaces that it takes a lot of training and experience to travel through. -
Fallyn said on Nov 15, 2007....
like a tree? -
lfbno7 said on Nov 16, 2007....
Michael Newton doesn't mention trees but why not -
Fallyn said on Nov 16, 2007....
:P
it's just a feeling.
a strong one....but a feeling nonetheless.
-
StupidGenius said on Nov 17, 2007....
Point 1For those who don't know Endogenous Retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host’s genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host’s genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host.
So what does this mean and how does it prove evolution? Well, When a Retrovirus infects the host it will leave behind a tell tale sign, Like a calling card, In the hosts genome. This calling card is then passed on to the hosts offspring in cases where the genome change was made in a Germ cell.
So if evolution is correct we should find that we share Retrovirus DNA with chimpanzees, And we do, At numerous locations in our genome. Could this be a coincidence? Well it could, But it is highly unlikely. For it to be a coincidence humans and chimpanzees would have had to get infected by the same viruses and have the viruses insert the DNA change in exactly the same place. So as humans have around 3 billion base pairs and retroviruses generally insert their DNA randomly it's impossible that ourselves and chimpanzees would have the same instances of retrovirus DNA at the same locations unless we inherited it from a common ancestor.
This evidence is even more compelling when we learn that we share 100,000+ instances of retrovirus DNA with chimpanzees, All of which occur in the same locations in our genome. The odds against this happening by chance in a genome with 3 billion base pairs is astronomical.Point 2Einstein is always mis-quoted by those who seek to use him as a supporter of creationism. To clear this up, here is a quote from the great man himself making his stance on religion known. The "Brain" he is refering to"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."Stop mis quoting einstein. He was a great man and is no supporter of organised religion or a personal god.Point 3When a scientist makes a claim he makes it after many tests to reenforce that claim as he knows that the scientific community will not just accept it as fact, instead they will retest and re test until it can be rpoven beyong resonable doubt. The claim that scientists perform tests to simply gain an answer that they have already pre-decided. If this was the case then we would all be taking medicine now that a scientists didnt test correctly and we would all be very ill. Scientists have one simple goal, To test and re-test until a test can no longer be tested without consistantly obtaining the same result.Point 4"Big Bang" was originally coined in 1950 by Sir Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the theory."For lack of other alternatives, scientists generally support the "Big Bang" Theory of creation, which postulates that in the beginning of creation all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a single point of mass at a high temperature which then exploded producing a superheated cloud of sub atomic particles. However this initial condition is mathematically indescribable. A point of infinitesimal circumference and infinite density is called a "singularity." — an impossibility."- The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
- BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
- The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
So to this end the stephen wawking quote is in no way relevent to the big bang theory and he was not making this comment as any kind of refute of the theory.
Point 5
Fossilised evidence does exist so im not sure where you are getting your facts from. Evolutionary tracking of species is also evident and proven. Get your facts right.
Point 6
"REAL KNOWLEDGE
We suggest that a body of knowledge does exist which provides sufficient explanation of the nature and origin of the universe and the living organisms that inhabit it. We refer to the ancient sanskrit Vedic literatures of India, an internally and externally verifiable and consistent presentation of information. Herein we find profuse descriptions of an intelligent creator god and his creation."It is here that you reveal your true intention. You misquote and mis-use scientific fact to then support your blind faith in religion. You spent so much of this blog picking apart (Unsuccefully) evolution and natural selection and then show yourself as incapable of using the same techniques to analyse your own religion.
I welcome your response.
SG
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 17, 2007....
Point 1. The fact that we share genetic material with another mammal does not prove that this happened without intelligent planning involved. In fact, this would be irrelevant to the question of whether there was intelligent planning involved. To explain it simply, an intelligent plan could use similar DNA for different mammals. So Point 1, while it may be interesting to some, is not relevant to whether an intelligent designer was involved or not.
Point 2. I never misquoted Einstein. I never said he was a supporter of organised religion or a personal god. I know he wasn't. Neither am I. Einstein and I both recognized the obvious, that there is intelligence in the design of the universe. The fact that you would mention this "straw man" and then knock it down, about organized religion and a personal god, seems like a shady trick to me.
Point 3. That would be true about the ones with integrity. As for the ones who have a vested interest in a particular position, perhaps because their whole livelihood and reputation are invested in a theory, they are not so full of integrity, according to Carl Sagan. He should know.
Point 4. "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of god. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that god acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws." (24)
Agreed, Hawking was not saying this to refute the Big Bang Theory. He was just saying this to show that he believes in intelligent design. He is talking about a "god" who operates outside of scientific laws. That's pretty clear. He's an intelligent design guy, like me, and like Einstein.
Point 5. Not sure what your point is. Don't know what you're arguing. If it is possible for a human being to change an amoeba into some other life form, do it. Fossils my ass. Do it. Fossils can't show that one thing evolved into another. They can only show similarities between species. Turn something into a different creature entirely. Do it. Don't just breed a dachshund to a spaniel. And you know what - even if our scientists do manage to turn one creature into another somehow, that won't prove evolution. That is just as likely to prove intelligent design. Think about it. The guy is intelligent, he designed some new creature, using what was available. The way to prove that evolution alone turns lower life forms into higher ones is to show us that it is happening. Let's all watch it happen. Show me the amoeba that is at this very moment morphing into something more advanced. That's the kind of proof that I would find convincing. I think the only thing an amoeba can evolve into is another amoeba.
Point 6. Yeah what a bunch of crap that is, huh? Finally we agree on something. I never thought that would happen. But you think I have blind faith in religion and that's my hidden agenda? No, I have no more faith in religion than Einstein and Hawking have. I think Jehovah is a fictional character, the Bible is a fraud, and all religions are full of it. -
bloc said on Nov 17, 2007....
@lfbpoint 1: many things in life don't make any sense if life was designed unless the designer were inept. one example, why do mothers blood harm babies because of blood type incompatibility? No designer would design it this way. -
resrat said on Nov 17, 2007....
Why would a designer design so many perfect killing machines ?- the shark, the birds of prey, the poisonous snakes and frogs etc.....As a vegetarian I know that it's perfectly easy not to kill other creatures and still enjoy lunch. Why couldn't a designer see this too? Why not make good health infectious instead of diseases? If there's a designer, he's a sadist. -
lfbno7 said on Nov 17, 2007....
I don't think we can expect perfection out of the designers. I think the designers are us. I think a lot of the designs are screwups. You can't really say "no designer would design it this way". You can't speak for them all. Maybe you wouldn't design it that way. Maybe the one who designed it that way didn't realize it would turn out that way. It's sort of like saying no baseball player would let a ball go through his legs. Umm, yeah, they do. Same response to the killing machines. Pretty much every single creature is a killing machine, whether killing plants or animals. Plants defend themselves too, you know. They have spikes, they have poisons, they do what they can to stay alive. Survival of the fittest is a life and death struggle, whether you focus on a designer or evolution or whatever.
I guess my main difference here is that I am saying the designers are not gods. You seem to be expecting something moral or something infallible about the designers, but that's falling into the god trap. The human body should not develop kidney stones. It's nothing but stupid. The designer of the human body fucked up there. Send it back to the factory. -
bloc said on Nov 18, 2007....
@lfbYou raise some good points. I am assuming gods in many ways, because that's what ID is usually referring to. In fact, most ID proponents are trying to change the definition of science to include "supernatural" causes.If we let go of the idea of a supernatural designer than we are left with another question I asked earlier. The myriad life forms of earth did not come into being at the same time. I.e. dinosaurs existed prior to humans. This means that the designers reside somewhere on earth or that they visit earth at various times to add some new life forms. I have seen no evidence of this and can't believe it until I have. -
lfbno7 said on Nov 18, 2007....
The designers don't live on Earth. They don't have physical bodies. They are spirits. They are made of energy, not matter. They use matter like we use clay. The human body is like a space suit to house a spirit. They are always with us. They are our friends, our teachers, our loved ones, ourselves after death. God is a different matter altogether. I don't expect that many ID proponents see it that way. That's a relief for me, because I would get antsy and uncomfortable if I thought anyone agreed with me on something.
The most educational programs on tv are Lisa Williams Life Among The Dead and John Edward Crossing Over. They are dead on accurate, not the least bit phony. Maybe the book Journey of Souls is also true. I don't know. -
Antimatter said on Nov 19, 2007....
“The designers don't live on Earth. They don't have physical bodies. They are spirits. They are made of energy, not matter.”
Evolution is much more plausible than this speculation.
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 19, 2007....
Evolution is great for those who have no imagination. If you think the spiritual stuff is implausible, read a physics book. Now that's implausible. Just stick with what you know, you'll be fine. The multiverse? Quantum mechanics? Everything that can possibly occur must occur? Infinity? Every atom has an anti-atom? Space is mostly composed of dark energy? You're looking for plausible? Nah, you're looking to learn nothing new. Plausible don't cut it.
You just want to be content sitting there counting your fingers and toes, cause at least you can see them. It is utterly irrelevant what seems plausible to us because the answers are way way way out of our comfort zone.
Anyway, if you have even one iota of judgment about whether people are telling the truth or not, and you watch John Edward or Lisa Williams on tv along with the people they are dealing with, you will know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are all perfectly sincere and that these spiritual mediums are in fact doing exactly what they claim to be doing, therefore proving that there is life after death and that spirits do exist, right here. The only thing stopping you from reaching that conclusion is your own obtuseness and refusal to see the truth when it goes beyond what you're used to. -
Antimatter said on Nov 20, 2007....
I do have an iota of judgement about whether people are telling the truth: Those who tell the truth rarely need to reduce themselves to personal insults in order to convey their message. -
lfbno7 said on Nov 20, 2007....
It's so common. So many people are like that. It's frustrating. So many people come out with remarks like "it isn't proven". So many people who consider themselves the intelligentsia, who wrap themselves in evolution, who put down spirits, who think they have a scientific mind, but who are actually just flat out wrong. There are a zillion of them and it's frustrating to hear them all saying the same dopy things over and over. It's not just you. It's a million of you.
They just swallow what they think the acceptable answer is, and they refuse to re-evaluate when faced with a John Edward or a Lisa Williams. They find spirits implausible, unproven, yet there they are, right there! They are so much more proven than evolution and string theory and the rest. They are right friggin there, on your tv.
You think it has been proven that lower life forms spontaneously evolve into higher ones without a designer or spirit making it happen? That's not proven at all, and in fact can't possibly be proven. How can it be proven that something DOESN'T exist? You can't prove a negative like that. No matter what the fossil record shows, that can't prove that a designer didn't set it up to be that way.
And I know all these people, who think they're so intelligent, they are the ones who were doing a hell of a lot worse than me in math class, they don't have a thing over me, they just lack imagination and wallow in the crap they were taught, unable to go beyond that.
I want to shake them up. I want them to consider what I'm saying. I don't want them to be comfortable sitting on their position. Their position is wrong. I'm not out to insult, but I am out to shake people out of their lethargy and overconfidence, because in fact they are wrong.
I'm not some dizzy spiritualist. I'm the kid who kicked everyone's ass in algebra, the kid who scored the highest in the district on the math team. You can't play "intelligentsia" with me, because I've got that covered already. And for believers in IQ, if yours is really high, I've got you beat by 30 points. I'm a friggin' card carrying genius, and I don't have the patience to put up with all these people who say "it's not proven, so stick to evolution, dummy". Evolution is a dead end. -
Antimatter said on Nov 20, 2007....
You presume to know so much about me, but you really don’t. You accuse me of unquestioningly swallowing the accepted answer, yet I grew up believing in spirits. I thought evolution was hogwash for a majority of my years in school. I no longer do because I was (and continue to be) willing to re-evaluate and criticize my own beliefs. -
lfbno7 said on Nov 20, 2007....
I don't know you. -
bloc said on Nov 20, 2007....
lfb said:
"No matter what the fossil record shows, that can't prove that a designer didn't set it up to be that way. "
Pastafarians concur
"What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."
I may not believe in spirits, but I believe in FSM. No one can prove that FSM isn't "changing the results with His Noodly Appendage". -
lfbno7 said on Nov 20, 2007....
holy shit
Comment on "God & The Failure of Modern Science"
Related Posts:
WriterCarlDobbs
posted 5 days ago
| views: 10
|
This is a discourse on why answered prayer is reliable. This is the scriptural basis. For those who don't believe in God, don't comment. This doesn't apply to you.... read entire post