IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Open Letter To Atheist-scientists And Their Followers
Fremen Bryan
post Feb 19 2009, 03:45 PM
Post #16


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



More forthcoming evidence:-

http://sites.google.com/site/appliedbiophysicsresearch/

Here you can listen to some of the results of our DNA music translations and productions.

We have successfully interpreted over 80 genetic sequences already and we have examples of some of our most recent clients as a sample for you, with kind permission of the owner's.

The effect upon the listener/client on first hearing their DNA music is magical and enriching. The client feels a great sense of affinity with this personalised and intimate musical reflection of themselves.

Your DNA Song Ltd (2008) - Home



Thus it is no longer surprising that Man, imitating his Creator, has at last found a method of singing in harmony which was unknown to the ancients, so that he might play, that is to say, the perpetuity of the whole of cosmic time in some brief fraction of an hour, by the artificial concert of several voices, and taste up to a point the satisfaction of God his Maker in His works by a most delightful sense of pleasure felt in this imitator of God: Music.

Johannes Kepler, book v chapter Vii



Stuart Mitchell - Saturn's Hexagon and Cymatics




--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarielite
post Feb 20 2009, 12:30 PM
Post #17


Internet Cowboy
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 278
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 5,906



QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 17 2009, 03:06 PM) *
Not all scientists are atheists, for instance Walter Russell:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell

Also, incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a Creator does exist when one looks in the right places (like the works of the above author for instance).


Much of Walter Russel's work remains unproven and is contrary to the theories that currently have the most supporting evidence. While I'm not too familiar with Russel's writing, his philosophy appears to be in the same vein as the proponents of the technological singularity but for consciousness. It's unclear if either is actually taking place or if it's a matter of perception--the horizon approaches very slowly even when the trees on either side of the road blur past.

In any case, no, not all scientists are atheists. The credible scientists that do believe in a creator being take it as a matter of faith, however. Just as I described Russell's teapot, the corollary to it is the uncertainty principle: Just because there's no evidence that there is a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars does not mean that no such teapot exists. One can obviously ardently believe that such a teapot does exist, but one cannot reasonably force that belief on others without substantial evidence.

This post has been edited by Sarielite: Feb 20 2009, 12:40 PM


--------------------
Peace.
Equality.
Integrity.
Simplicity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarielite
post Feb 20 2009, 12:52 PM
Post #18


Internet Cowboy
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 278
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 5,906



Also:



--------------------
Peace.
Equality.
Integrity.
Simplicity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Feb 20 2009, 03:16 PM
Post #19


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



QUOTE (Sarielite @ Feb 20 2009, 12:30 PM) *
QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Feb 17 2009, 03:06 PM) *
Not all scientists are atheists, for instance Walter Russell:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell

Also, incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a Creator does exist when one looks in the right places (like the works of the above author for instance).


Much of Walter Russel's work remains unproven and is contrary to the theories that currently have the most supporting evidence. While I'm not too familiar with Russel's writing, his philosophy appears to be in the same vein as the proponents of the technological singularity but for consciousness. It's unclear if either is actually taking place or if it's a matter of perception--the horizon approaches very slowly even when the trees on either side of the road blur past.

In any case, no, not all scientists are atheists. The credible scientists that do believe in a creator being take it as a matter of faith, however. Just as I described Russell's teapot, the corollary to it is the uncertainty principle: Just because there's no evidence that there is a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars does not mean that no such teapot exists. One can obviously ardently believe that such a teapot does exist, but one cannot reasonably force that belief on others without substantial evidence.


Nikola Tesla once told Russell
he should "lock up his work in a vault in the Smithsonian for a
thousand years" to keep it for future generations who might be
developed sufficiently to understand it.



Please see the following article about Walter Russell which should give some weight and credibility to some of his claims:-

The Macrobiotic Genius of Walter Russell


By John David Mann


(also wordsearch MERLib.org for 'Walter Russell' for more articles)


This post has been edited by Fremen Bryan: Feb 20 2009, 03:20 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Feb 20 2009, 03:18 PM
Post #20


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



Walter Russell - An Open Letter to Science


Gentlemen:

This Open Letter to the World of Science, accompanied by a Treatise on The Russell Cosmogony, is being sent to approximately 350 members of our National Academy of Science and Royal Society of London, 100 Universities, and 300 leading newspapers.

This announcement with its new concept of Light, Matter, Energy, Electricity and Magnetism is a simple yet complete, consistent and workable cosmogony which will enable future scientists to visualize the universe as ONE WHOLE, and will open the door to the New Age of Transmutation.

Recalling the important contributions I have already made to science, such as my work in completing the hydrogen octave and my prior discovery of the existence of the two atom bomb elements given to the scientific world in my two Periodic Tables of the Elements, assures me that you will give serious thought and attention to these documents.

Present threatening world conditions make it imperative that science discloses the way whereby the weakest of nations can protext itself from the strongest of them and render attack by land, sea and air impotent.

This new knowledge will give science this power.

England could have been rendered immune from her devastating bombardment had the world been receptive to these new scientific discoveries which I endeavored to give to it when World War II started. Science, however, did make use of the two atom bomb elements mentioned above, which I charted and copyrighted in 1926.

The world needs new metals. Many new rustless metals of greater density, malleability and conductivity await division in vast quantities from carbon and silicon. These will be found when science discards its concept of matter as being substance, and becomes aware of the gyroscopic control of motion which will split the carbon tone into isotopes as a musical tone is split into sharps and flats.

In the chemical elements, the sharps and flats are isotopes. These can be produced by man in greater numbers than Nature has produced them, for Nature does not begin to split her tones until she has passed two octaves beyond carbon. There is a tremendous opportunity for the metallurgist of tomorrow to create new metals in the carbon and silicon octaves.

Of even greater importance to the world in this crucial period is the production of unlimited quantities of free hydrogen. This ideal weightless fuel could be transmuted from the atmosphere while in transit without the necessity of storage capacity.

These are the important things which might now be known if Kepler's discovery had divulged the facts of geometric symmetry and dual curvature within the wave field.

His law of elliptical orbits evidences that he was on the verge of discovering that four - not two - magnetic poles control the dual opposed balance of this two/way universe. With but two magnetic poles a three-dimensional radial universe of time intervals and sequences would be impossible. A balanced universe must have two poles to control centripetal, genero-active force, and two compensating poles to control centrifugal, radioactive force.

By means of such knowledge, science could rid the earth of fear of attack by any nation no matter how the attack might come, whether by land, sea or air.

This new knowledge will give to science the cause of all the effects which have for centuries of research deceived the senses of scientific observers.

Man has a Mind as well as having senses, but he has given preference to the evidence of his senses in the building of his cosmogony. Man can reason with his senses but he cannot know with them. Reasoning is sense-thinking - not Mind-knowing. He has also produced effects without knowing their cause.

The senses have not revealed to man that this is a substanceless universe of motion only. Neither have they told him the principle of polarity which divides the universal equilibrium into pairs of oppositely-conditioned mates to create a sex-divided electric two-way universe.

The time has come in the history of man when knowledge alone can save the human race. Man has for too long left the Creator out of His Creation, thinking He cannot be proven in the laboratory.

God not only can be proven in the laboratory, but because of the facts of that proof man can solve many heretofore hidden mysteries of the universe - such as that of the seed and growth - life and death cycles - the purpose of the inert gases as electric recorders of all repetitive effects - and the true process of atomic structure.

You might reasonably ask why I have withheld this knowledge for so many years. I have not withheld it. I tried in vain to give it from 1926 when I first published charts of the complete periodic tables herewith attached, up to the beginning of World War II when I tried to organize a laboratory group to save England from its unnecessary bombardment.

I also accepted and held the Presidency of The Social of Arts and Sciences in New York for seven years for the sole purpose of giving to the world this new cosmogony based upon a two-way continuous, balanced universe to replace the one-way discontinuous, unbalanced universe which is presumably expanding to a heat death.

During this period, I lectured upon the misconceived idea that hydrogen is the basic number one atom of the periodic table. I explained that there are twenty-one other elements which precede it and that hydrogen itself is not a single element but a whole complex octave. I also explained the impossibility of there being any element without an inert gas as its source. At that time I distributed my periodic charts to approximately 800 scientists and universities.

Further than inciting research which yielded so-called isotopes of hydrogen and heavy water, nothing came of my effort, nor did I receive the credit due me. Incidentally, those so-called isotopes are not isotopes but full-toned elements of an orderly octave group series. Isotopes do not occur in Nature until they reach the octave following the silicon octave. The reasons for this are fully explained in our Study Course.

I wrote two books, gave many lectures and set up a demonstration laboratory in a university to prove that the elements are not different substances but are differently conditioned pressures of motion - and that the structure of the atom is based upon the gyroscopic principle.

As one after another of my discoveries appeared under other names, I acted on the advice of a friendly science editor to withhold any more of my new cosmogony until it was fully completed in words and diagrams, and again copyrighted.

It has taken many years to so complete it that it is invulnerable to attack, but this has now been done, and this present treatise is as complete in brief as the whole cosmogony is complete in detail.

I do not look for immediate acceptance of this revolutionary new knowledge. I do hope and expect, however, that the seed of it will grow within the consciousness of science, and as I am nearing 82 years of age I feel it is incumbent to announce the fact to science through this open letter and treatise that The Russell Cosmogony, which my gifted wife, Lao, and I have together written into a year's Study Course of 935 uncontradictable pages, and 182 diagrams, is now complete.

This course is now being studied all over the world and, through our students as seed, this new knowledge will ultimately trnasform the world.

It is with the deep desire that a higher civilization shall arise that I send forth this message to mankind. The day is here when Science and Religion must marry, or through ignorance of God's Universal Laws man will perish from the earth.

Hoping that the world of science will recognize that this treatise has within it the answer to basic cause for which it has been so long and tirelessly searching, I am

Sincerely yours
Walter Russell

February 13, 1953
(Introduction to "A New Concept of the Universe", which is available from philosophy.org and various other places that sell Russell books)














This post has been edited by Fremen Bryan: Feb 20 2009, 03:37 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarielite
post Mar 2 2009, 06:32 PM
Post #21


Internet Cowboy
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 278
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 5,906



QUOTE
In the chemical elements, the sharps and flats are isotopes. These can be produced by man in greater numbers than Nature has produced them, for Nature does not begin to split her tones until she has passed two octaves beyond carbon. There is a tremendous opportunity for the metallurgist of tomorrow to create new metals in the carbon and silicon octaves.


In this he is clearly wrong. Carbon exists in three isotopes in nature (Carbon 12, 13 and 14 -- C13 is used in radiocarbon dating). No carbon isotope exists that exhibits significantly different metallurgical properties other than increased radioactivity. There are numerous naturally-occurring isotopes of lighter elements than Carbon, as well. Tritium, for example, is a hydrogen atom with two extra neutrons, and is thought to be key in human-controlled fusion reactions.

Essentially, Walter Russell's theories aren't consistent with scientific discoveries in the recent past. Whether or not he's a theist, or that he believes that a deity's hand can be seen in the laboratory, is an entirely separate issue. As I said before: there are many religious and spiritual scientists, but that belief is an act of faith, not science.

There are many components to the abiogenesis and evolutionary theory, none of which have been falsified theoretically or experimentally. If anything, there is a corpus of evidence that that life on Earth is a product of random happenstance. A previous point that Fremen Bryan made, or was made by proxy through him, was the extreme unlikeliness of life arising out of nothing. I think that this is perhapsbased out of a misunderstanding of exactly how large the universe is: Astronomers estimate that there are 10^22 stars visible from Earth. That's a 1 with 22 zeroes behind it, which is a quantity unimaginably large.* Then you take the individual history of all those stars (some will burn out eventually, and new ones will be formed) from the beginning of the mature universe some 10 billon years ago (an unimaginably long time) to the present moment, it's plausible that life could spontaneously arise at least once, based on our limited knowledge of abiogenesis.


* A little NapkinMath indicates that if you stacked 10^22 dollar bills (assuming each dollar is 0.1mm thick, or there are 100 dollars per centimeter), the stack would be about 10 light years tall. In other words, the scale is so unimaginably large that all the analogies are unimaginably large as well.


--------------------
Peace.
Equality.
Integrity.
Simplicity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
daier
post Mar 2 2009, 10:43 PM
Post #22


Junior Activist
*

Group: Activist
Posts: 5
Joined: 2-March 09
Member No.: 7,377



The Spring Festival is the most important festival for the Chinese people and is when all family members get together, just like Christmas in the West. All people living away from home go back, becoming the busiest time for transportation systems of about half a month from the Spring Festival. Airports, railway stations and long-distance bus stations are crowded with home returnees.
,wow gold,
The Spring Festival falls on the 1st day of the 1st lunar month, often one month later than the Gregorian calendar. It originated in the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600 BC-c. 1100 BC) from the people's sacrifice to gods and ancestors at the end of an old year and the beginning of a new one.

Strictly speaking, the Spring Festival starts every year in the early days of the 12th lunar month and will last till the mid 1st lunar month of the next year. Of them, the most important days are Spring Festival Eve and the first three days. The Chinese government now stipulates people have seven days off for the Chinese Lunar New Year.
wow power leveling,
Many customs accompany the Spring Festival. Some are still followed today, but others have weakened.
On the 8th day of the 12th lunar month, many families make laba porridge, a delicious kind of porridge made with glutinous rice, millet, seeds of Job's tears, jujube berries, lotus seeds, beans, longan and gingko.
The 23rd day of the 12th lunar month is called Preliminary Eve. At this time, people offer sacrifice to the kitchen god. Now however, most families make delicious food to enjoy themselves.
wow gold,
After the Preliminary Eve, people begin preparing for the coming New Year. This is called "Seeing the New Year in".

Store owners are busy then as everybody goes out to purchase necessities for the New Year. Materials not only include edible oil, rice, flour, chicken, duck, fish and meat, but also fruit, candies and kinds of nuts. What's more, various decorations, new clothes and shoes for the children as well as gifts for the elderly, friends and relatives, are all on the list of purchasing.
wow gold,
Before the New Year comes, the people completely clean the indoors and outdoors of their homes as well as their clothes, bedclothes and all their utensils.
archlord gold,
Then people begin decorating their clean rooms featuring an atmosphere of rejoicing and festivity. All the door panels will be pasted with Spring Festival couplets, highlighting Chinese calligraphy with black characters on red paper. The content varies from house owners' wishes for a bright future to good luck for the New Year. Also, pictures of the god of doors and wealth will be posted on front doors to ward off evil spirits and welcome peace and abundance.
wotlk gold,
The Chinese character "fu" (meaning blessing or happiness) is a must. The character put on paper can be pasted normally or upside down, for in Chinese the "reversed fu" is homophonic with "fu comes", both being pronounced as "fudaole." What's more, two big red lanterns can be raised on both sides of the front door. Red paper-cuttings can be seen on window glass and brightly colored New Year paintings with auspicious meanings may be put on the wall.
wow gold,

Spring Festival
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 4 2009, 06:15 PM
Post #23


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



Quote tags dont seem to be working with me, so everything below appears in quotation marks and my comments appear underlined.


"In the chemical elements, the sharps and flats are isotopes. These can be produced by man in greater numbers than Nature has produced them, for Nature does not begin to split her tones until she has passed two octaves beyond carbon. There is a tremendous opportunity for the metallurgist of tomorrow to create new metals in the carbon and silicon octaves." - Walter Russell

'Sarielite':-

"In this he is clearly wrong. Carbon exists in three isotopes in nature (Carbon 12, 13 and 14 -- C13 is used in radiocarbon dating). No carbon isotope exists that exhibits significantly different metallurgical properties other than increased radioactivity. There are numerous naturally-occurring isotopes of lighter elements than Carbon, as well. Tritium, for example, is a hydrogen atom with two extra neutrons, and is thought to be key in human-controlled fusion reactions."

Russell is himself the very reason the element you have just named was ever discovered -- and his spiral chart was the very first Periodic Table of the Elements to include said element. This is taken from the before mentioned 'The Macrobiotic Genius of Walter Russell':-

Atomic Prophesies
It was an uncannily accurate forecast: ozone depletion was
first noticed over the Antarctic in 1982 -- and scientists have
since concluded that it first appeared in 1979. But then, as now,
the Russells' voice received little notice.
The somber prediction of Atomic Suicide? was not the first
time Russell had gone out on a limb with scientific prophecy.
His spiral charts of the atomic table, copyrighted in 1926,
predicted the discovery of the transuranic elements Plutonium and
Neptunium, as well as the now-familiar elements of "heavy water,
Deuterium and Tritium" -- years before they were isolated in
research labs.

Some have claimed that the 1926 Russell charts (for which he
later received an honorary doctorate from the American Academy of
Sciences
) and his years of New York City lectures on the subject
led directly to the laboratory research that resulted in these
elements' later discovery. It is difficult to document such a
claim at a half century's distance, but this sequence certainly
is feasible. Russell himself evidently exerted considerable
energy for years urging the research labs of Union Carbide,
Westinghouse, General Electric and others to verify his atomic
findings.
In any case, the exclusion from the mainstream of Russell's
charts is perhaps one of the most unfortunate snafus in the
history of science. For in neglecting to credit Russell with
these pivotal atomic discoveries
, the world also lost track of
the other side of the Russell equation: the larger scientific
understanding in the spiral charts
, the pragmatic warnings that
accompanied them, and the breathtaking scope of macrobiotic
thought his life and work revealed.


Sarielite :-

"Essentially, Walter Russell's theories aren't consistent with scientific discoveries in the recent past. Whether or not he's a theist, or that he believes that a deity's hand can be seen in the laboratory, is an entirely separate issue. As I said before: there are many religious and spiritual scientists, but that belief is an act of faith, not science."

Walter Russell has not been disproven by science at all, and in fact his experiemnts in TRANSMUTATION OF THE ELEMENTS have been proven successful, and they only could have been, if he were correct (which he was/is). Science continues to give validity to his cosmogeny, please see:-

Walter Russell: The Universal One:

In this 1926 historic volume, Walter Russell first reveals the possibility of transmutation of the elements.


Jeane Manning: Top 10 Impossible Inventions that Work

6. A METHOD FOR TRANSMUTATION OF ELEMENTS

Changing atomic elements or making elements appear mysteriously? It sounds like impossible alchemy, but experimenters recently did this, without Big Science particle accelerators. These scientists learned from a metaphysician, Walter Russell (1871-1963). During vivid spiritual experiences, Russell had seen everything in the universe, from the atom to outer space, being formed by an invisible background geometry. Russell not only portrayed his visions in paintings, he also learned science. He was so far ahead that in 1926 he predicted tritium, deuterium, neptunium, plutonium and other elements.

Recently, professional engineers Ron Kovac and Toby Grotz of Colorado, with help from Dr. Tim Binder, repeated Russell's 1927 work, which was verified at the time by Westinghouse Laboratories. Russell found a novel way to change the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in water vapor inside a sealed quartz tube, or to change the vapor to completely different elements. Their conclusion agrees with Russell: the geometry of motion in space is important in atomic transmutation. Kovac shorthands that idea to geometry of space-bending.

These modern shape-shifters speak of Russell's feats such as prolate or oblate the oxygen nucleus into nitrogen or hydrogen or vice versa. To change nuclei, they change the shape of a magnetic field. Although they used expensive analyzing equipment, it is basically tabletop science. No atom-smashing cyclotron needed; just a gentle nudge using the right frequencies. Focus and un-focus light-motion, create a vortex and control it.

Cold fusion researchers are also running across strange elements popping up in their own electrified brews. No one is proposing to make gold and upset world currencies, but some experimenters aim to clean up radioactive waste by their novel processes."

Please also see:-

http://merlib.org/blog/distance/5078


Grotz, Toby, Tim Binder, et Ron Kovac, (1992), "Novel Means of Hydrogen Production Using Dual Polarity Control and Walter Russell's Experiments with Zero Point Energy," 27th IECEC, pages 4.339-4.344.

Binder, Timothy, (1993), "Transmutation of the Elements, A Modern Alchemical Team's Experiments with the concepts of Walter Russell", Proceedings IANS pp.107-134.

Binder, Timothy - Russell's Nuclear-Magnetic Transmutation Experiments - ISNE 1993 Grotz, Toby - Russell's Power Multiplication Principle Experiments IECEC 1992, ISNE1993



Toby Grotz and his team are planning to replicate the energy experiments of Walter Russell. In the fall of 1959, General Chapman, Colonel Fry, Major Sargent, Major Cripe, and others from NORAD in Colorado Springs, attended a meeting at Swannanoa, Virginia (University Of Science And Philosophy) at the invitation of Walter Russell. At this meeting Russell explained the workings of a device he proposed to build to take advantage of the vacuum state energy, and the two directional movement of energy from gravitation, (generation), to radiation, (degeneration). During the following year Russell, his wife, Lao, and their assistants built the device. The prototype that was built consisted of two sets of dual and magnetically-sexed coils. On September 10, 1961, Walter and Lao Russell reported to their contacts at NORAD, that the coils had worked and that the President of the United States could announce to the world that a "greater, safer power than atomic energy" could be provided for industry and transportation.

Tim Binder and his team have replicated the 1927 experiments of Walter Russell and have created fluorine from pure water vapor using complex E-M field arrangements. This work validates Russell's theories about nuclear structure and the proper arrangement of the Periodic Table of the Elements.

(See 'The Influence of Vedic Philosophy on Nikola Tesla's Understanding of Free Energy', 15th Annual USPA Conference, Sacramento, California, audio and video tape available, paper to be published, fall of 1992 in the Journal Of The USPA)



The December 1994 issue of the university's Science Journal published a report filed by the Russell Science Research (RSR) Colorado team of Ron Kovac, Toby Grotz, and Dr. Timothy Binder. Titled, "A Report On The Russell Science Research Team's Transmutation of Nitrogen into Lithium and Helium," the abstract is authored by electrical engineer and team member Ron Kovac. In a 1992/1993 attempt to verify Walter Russell's 1927 effort at transmutation, the RSR team states that they succeeded when they produced fluorine from water vapor. According to the report, "The first generation experiment utilized water injected into evacuated quartz tubes which were subsequently heated, placed in magnetic fields, allowed to cool while in the magnetic field, and then qualitatively analyzed with an emission spectroscope."



Sarielite:-

"There are many components to the abiogenesis and evolutionary theory, none of which have been falsified theoretically or experimentally. If anything, there is a corpus of evidence that that life on Earth is a product of random happenstance. A previous point that Fremen Bryan made, or was made by proxy through him, was the extreme unlikeliness of life arising out of nothing. I think that this is perhapsbased out of a misunderstanding of exactly how large the universe is: Astronomers estimate that there are 10^22 stars visible from Earth. That's a 1 with 22 zeroes behind it, which is a quantity unimaginably large.* Then you take the individual history of all those stars (some will burn out eventually, and new ones will be formed) from the beginning of the mature universe some 10 billon years ago (an unimaginably long time) to the present moment, it's plausible that life could spontaneously arise at least once, based on our limited knowledge of abiogenesis."

Biogenesis - Life Begets Life - is the most likely plausable scenario. How could 'No life' somehow spontaniously produce 'Life' out of nothingness? Life Begets life - as we already see in Nature with reproduction - is the best answer, instead of the highly unlikely 'spontaneous order' (terms which seem to contradict one another).

Sarielite:-

"* A little NapkinMath indicates that if you stacked 10^22 dollar bills (assuming each dollar is 0.1mm thick, or there are 100 dollars per centimeter), the stack would be about 10 light years tall. In other words, the scale is so unimaginably large that all the analogies are unimaginably large as well."


It is an extreme unlikelyhood and mathmatically unsound, alhough I disagree with the followings claim that disproving 'spontaneous generation' is the same as disproving evoluion, however serves as good reading to completely disprove spontaneous generation from a scientific point of view
:-

The Odds
During the last several decades a number of prestigious scientists have attempted to calculate the mathematical probability of the random-chance origin of life. The results of their calculations reveal the enormity of the dilemma faced by evolutionists.

Dr. Blum estimated the probability of just a single protein arising spontaneously from a primordial soup. Equilibrium and the reversibility of biochemical reactions eventually led Blum to state: "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a ‘chance’ act."




In the 1970’s British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth – a bacterium.




Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoebae. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power, i.e., 1 in 1040,000. Prior to this project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. This project, however, changed his opinion 180 degrees. Hoyle stated: "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Hoyle also concluded that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein."




Hoyle’s calculations may seem impressive, but they don’t even begin to approximate the difficulty of the task. He only calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of the proteins in the cell. He did not calculate the chance formation of the DNA, RNA, nor the cell wall that holds the contents of the cell together.




Consider this. The odds of winning a state lottery are about 1 chance in ten million. The odds of someone winning the state lottery every single week from age 18 to age 99 is 1 chance in 4.6 x 1029,120. Therefore, the odds of winning the state lottery every week consecutively for eighty years is more likely than the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of an amoebae!




A more detailed estimate for spontaneous generation has been made by Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist. Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that was super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. This number is so large that it would require several thousand books just to write it out. To put this number into perspective, it is more likely that an entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance!




In his book, Origins–A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Robert Shapiro gives a very realistic illustration of how one might estimate the odds of the spontaneous generation of life. Shapiro begins by allowing one billion years (5 x 1014 minutes) for spontaneous biogenesis. Next he notes that a simple bacterium can make a copy of itself in twenty minutes, but he assumes that the first life was much simpler. So he allows each trial assembly to last one minute, thus providing 5 x 1014 trial assemblies in 1 billion years to make a living bacterium. Next he allows the entire ocean to be used as the reaction chamber. If the entire ocean volume on planet earth were divided into reaction flasks the size of a bacterium we would have 1036 separate reaction flasks. He allows each reaction flask to be filled with all the necessary building blocks of life. Finally, each reaction chamber is allowed to proceed through one-minute trial assemblies for one billion years. The result is that there would be 1051 tries available in 1 billion years. According to Morowitz we need 10100,000,000,000 trial assemblies!




Regarding the probabilities calculated by Morowitz, Robert Shapiro wrote: "The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."




Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, stated in 1982: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."




Regarding the probability of spontaneous generation, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald stated in 1954: "One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here–as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." In this incredibly twisted statement, we see that Wald’s dogmatic adherence to the evolutionist’s paradigm is independent of the evidence. Wald’s belief in the "impossible" can only be explained by faith: "…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."




Despite these incredible odds and insurmountable problems, spontaneous generation is taught as a fact from grammar school to the university level. In fact, NASA reported to the press in 1991 their opinion that life arose spontaneously not once, but multiple times, because previous attempts were wiped out by cosmic catastrophes!




Conclusion
The overwhelming evidence is clear…spontaneous generation is an impossibility. It is a scientifically corrupt theory that, among other things, violates the Law of Biogenesis, which says that that life never arises except from life. Life simply cannot come from non-life. Since spontaneous generation is impossible, so then the foundation that evolution rests on has been shattered. Without spontaneous generation there can be no evolution.





Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, however, there are those who continue to believe in evolution, and are therefore forced to accept and defend some form of spontaneous generation. The reason for this dogmatic adherence to spontaneous generation is eloquently pointed out by George Wald: "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: That life arose spontaneously by chance!" According to Wald, it’s not about discovering the truth through the finding of fact, it’s not a matter of evidence, not a matter of science…it’s a matter of philosophy! Like George Wald, many people do not like the alternative: that all life on earth was created by God. So, as Wald said, they are willing to "believe the impossible."




Since the impossibility of spontaneous generation is a conclusion that leads to a supernatural creative act by God, it is a conclusion that many choose not to accept. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present politically correct climate, undesirable philosophic and religious implications. It is for that unfortunate and illogical reason most scientists continue to cling to the unscientific, disproved theory that life arose from non-life through spontaneous generation.

"

http://www.truenews.org/Creation_vs_Evolut...in_of_life.html

This post has been edited by Fremen Bryan: Mar 4 2009, 06:23 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 5 2009, 04:11 PM
Post #24


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365




Walter Russell Vortex Video: The Cosmology of Twin Opposing Electro-Magnetic Vortices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsPrudLFGZk

Video Diescription:-

These are images one may use to contemplate the properties of Walter Russell's Cosmology of "Twin Opposing Electro-Magnetic Vortices". His ideas explain all of the natural observations of our Universe which baffle confused academicians.

The physics of Russell's Cosmology also explains the Free Energy Implosion Technologies of the great Austrian Water Wizard, Viktor Schauberger. Schauberger invented Implosion Turbines in the 30's and 40's in Austria and Germany.

This implosion physics defies academic physics and makes academic theory provably obsolete and the professors pushing these socially engineered lies as well.

For a detailed account of the free energy technologies of Viktor Schuaberger and Walter Russell, Implosion Physics, Bio-mimicry, Scalar Mechanics and the many types of Free Energy Technologies currently in existence please see:

http://www.feandft.com/

Viktor Schauberger Implosion Turbine from the 1940's

http://www.frank.germano.com/viktorsc...

Permanent Magnetic Free Energy Motors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDJpUV...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBMVs...

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromag.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fR3vB...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQAo3O...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDeXTX...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEfpGo...

All current destructive academic forms of energy production including the corporate alternatives of Solar, wind and tide are all obsolete. Demand that this technology not be suppressed by the energy barons again for another 50 years. Start a group and demand it be implemented immediately to reverse our present direction into a planetary environmental hell.

Hold President Obama accountable for his promised mantra of "Change". This is the only change that will bring about real freedom, happiness, recreation and eternal abundance for humanity.

Namaste Amigos

Music by Pink Floyd "Dogs" from the beautiful "Animals" recording. The gorgeous vocal work of David Gilmore and his soaring guitar solos, makes this a personal favorite. Plus I am a wood dog (58'), so it is rather poignant for me as well.

Namaste Friends


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Mar 30 2009, 01:16 PM
Post #25


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



'I've Found God' Says Man
Who Cracked Genome
By Steven Swinford
The Sunday Times
6-11-6


THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God".

His book, The Language of God, to be published in September, will reopen the age-old debate about the relationship between science and faith. "One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war," said Collins, 56.

"I don't see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years."

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to "glimpse at the workings of God".

"When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it," he said. "But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

"When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can't survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can't help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind."

Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: "This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."

Although Einstein revolutionised our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator. "I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details," he said. However Galileo was famously questioned by the inquisition and put on trial in 1633 for the "heresy" of claiming that the earth moved around the sun.

Among Collins's most controversial beliefs is that of "theistic evolution", which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.
http://i.am/jah/evolut.htm

"I see God's hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way," he says.

"Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members. So what you see is pretty much what you get."

Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.

"They had terrible diseases from which they were probably not going to escape, and yet instead of railing at God they seemed to lean on their faith as a source of great comfort and reassurance," he said. "That was interesting, puzzling and unsettling."

He decided to visit a Methodist minister and was given a copy of C S Lewis's Mere Christianity, which argues that God is a rational possibility. The book transformed his life. "It was an argument I was not prepared to hear," he said. "I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist, and had no interest in me. And yet at the same time, I could not turn away."

His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: "It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, 'I cannot resist this another moment'."

Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the "natural" world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. "If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion," he says.
__________________



The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution




http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution

As scientists explore a new universe˜the universe inside the cell˜they are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?
http://i.am/jah/evolut.htm


Related Articles
Coming to a School Near You: Darwinism in the Classroom <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn36/darwinism.htm>
Drawings Faked to Support Evolution? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn36/darwinism_drawings.htm>
Creation or Evolution: Did God Create Man? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn17/createman.htm>
Evolution: Fact or Fiction? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn18/evolution.htm>
Creation and Evolution: The Bible Explanation <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn19/explanation.htm>
A Course on Evolution and Faith <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn52/evolutionfaith.htm>
How Did Life Begin? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn29/lifebegin.htm>
Serious Problems With Dating Methods <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn46/noahsflood_methods.htm>
The Human Genome Project Decoding the Mystery of Man <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn29/mysteryman.htm>
Creation and Evolution: An Interview With Philip Johnson <http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn17/interview.htm>
FREE BOOKLET
Creation or Evolution - Does It Really Matter What You Believe? <http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/>

by Mario Seiglie


Two great achievements occurred in 1953, more than half a century ago.


The first was the successful ascent of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide, Tenzing Norgay, reached the summit that year, an accomplishment that's still considered the ultimate feat for mountain climbers. Since then, more than a thousand mountaineers have made it to the top, and each year hundreds more attempt it.


Yet the second great achievement of 1953 has had a greater impact on the world. Each year, many thousands join the ranks of those participating in this accomplishment, hoping to ascend to fame and fortune.


It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossible˜discovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.


The discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule opened the floodgates for scientists to examine the code embedded within it. Now, more than half a century after the initial discovery, the DNA code has been deciphered˜although many of its elements are still not well understood.


What has been found has profound implications regarding Darwinian evolution, the theory taught in schools all over the world that all living beings have evolved by natural processes through mutation and natural selection.


Amazing revelations about DNA


As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected˜an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information˜the detailed instructions for assembling proteins˜in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).


It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica˜an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!


Yet in their actual size˜which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick˜a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).


Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?


DNA contains a genetic language


Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.


Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).


The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.


The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.


Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."


Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution˜no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?


DNA language not the same as DNA molecule


Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusions˜namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.


For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book˜the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it.


If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. "In fact the content of the message," says professor Phillip Johnson, "is independent of the physical makeup of the medium" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 71).


The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.


As George Williams puts it: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message" (quoted by Johnson, p. 70).


Information from an intelligent source


In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.


As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task˜the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).


For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters˜far from it.


So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.


Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.


He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step˜say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).


We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings.


Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).


Evolution fails to provide answers


It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!


Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident˜by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.


Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).


Quality of genetic information the same


Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.


So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language˜alphabet, grammar and semantics˜in simple bacteria and algae as in man.


Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).


So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?


Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).


Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).


The clincher


Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining˜the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.


Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.


This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth˜a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).


More witnesses


Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell.


"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).


Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).


Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).


Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution˜mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA˜states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).


Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.


"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).


"Fearfully and wonderfully made"


Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . ." (Psalm 139:13-15, emphasis added).


Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).


All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.


"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).


Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution! GN


<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=54475>


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Jun 5 2009, 12:57 PM
Post #26


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



No man-made law ever, no matter whether derived from the past or projected onto a distant, unforeseeable future, can or should ever be empowered to claim that it is greater than the Natural Law from which it stems and to which it must inevitably return in the eternal rhythm of creation and decline of all things natural. This is valid, no matter whether we speak in terms such as "God," "Natural Law," "Cosmic Primordial Force," "Ether" or "Cosmic Orgone Energy."

Wilhelm Reich Response to the FDA's Complaint for Injunction (22 February 1954)


This post has been edited by Fremen Bryan: Jun 5 2009, 12:58 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FreeLeoP25
post Jun 9 2009, 10:23 AM
Post #27


Junior Activist
*

Group: Activist
Posts: 16
Joined: 5-December 02
Member No.: 59



fellas fellas, you guys are wasting your time. well, one of you is, the other is just cutting and pasting worthless info (in my opinion). anyone who claims that they can prove the existence of god probably isn't worth listening to. there is no proof, there will never be proof. sure there are things one can point to and say "hey that looks like it had to be created" but who created the creator. the creator is much more complex than the creation, so how'd he get there. also, suppose there was a creator, how could one be so arrogant to think they can prove that it's the Christian God. why not Zeus, or any other for that matter.


--------------------
30 Years and He's Still In Jail !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fremen Bryan
post Jun 9 2009, 11:58 AM
Post #28


"The Sleeper must awaken"
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,783
Joined: 2-February 08
From: Ohio, America, Earth, Universe
Member No.: 6,365



Dear Free Leo P.,

I doesn't matter what people call the Creator - Wakan-Tanka, Allah, The Force etc. Many people have had direct personal contact with the Creator and so know from their own lives experience that a Creator-God exists. You yourself seem here to be saying that there is a Creator and a Creation, but seem to be saying that there is no way we could ever comprehend it. That is I believe what defines an agnostic, as opposed to a Gnostic who feels that not only can you know but that it is only through knowing God and God's Workings in the Uni-Verse that you can believe in Spirit, and that it is your actual duty to seek out this knowledge ceaselessly. Either way, you are saying that there is a Creator, correct? That was my entire arguement. Sarielite seems to believe that the entire Uni-Verse just fell into place randomly, with no Intelligent-Guidance from Divine-Hands, and that the vast expanse of Space just happens to be inter-locking and co-operate with all of its various systems and parts in perfect timing (like the Springs of a Giant Cosmic Clock) entirely by "chance". That conclusion is very illogical and is the real holding onto dying dogma, only in this case it is the dogma of the athiest scientific community, who have already been proven wrong by their own peers. I have already posted alot of material that completely disproves that dogma to anybody who doesnt have rocks for brains - and I copy and pasted that material because it is coming from more informed individuals than myself, and also because I don't feel I am that well with words. The following speach is from somebody who was far better with them, please see below, and enjoy.

LLTF,HBFK
Fremen Bryan

* * * * * * *

'If Britain and America were truly Christian, there would be no other religion on the planet'


-- Mahatma Ghandi.
"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk_RtLayZqY&feature=related

Mahatma's Kingsley Hall speech in 1931 London

"There is an indefinable mysterious power that pervades everything, I feel it though I do not see it.

It is this unseen power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof, because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses.

It transcends the senses.

But it is possible to reason out the existence of God to a limited extent.

Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules.

In my tour last year in Mysore I met many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they did not know who ruled Mysore.

They simply said some God ruled it.

If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler I who am infinitely lesser in respect to God than they to their ruler need not be surprised if I do not realize the presence of God - the King of Kings.

Nevertheless, I do feel, as the poor villagers felt about Mysore, that there is orderliness in the universe, there is an unalterable law governing everything and every being that exists or lives.

It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being and thanks to the marvelous researches of Sir J. C. Bose it can now be proved that even matter is life.

That law then which governs all life is God.

Law and the law-giver are one.

I may not deny the law or the law-giver because I know so little about it or Him.

Just as my denial or ignorance of the existence of an earthly power will avail me nothing even so my denial of God and His law will not liberate me from its operation, whereas humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.

I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is ever changing, ever dying there is underlying all that change a living power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves and recreates.

That informing power of spirit is God, and since nothing else that I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He alone is.

And is this power benevolent or malevolent ?

I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists.

Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light.

He is love.

He is the supreme Good.

But He is no God who merely satisfies the intellect, if He ever does.

God to be God must rule the heart and transform it.

He must express himself in every smallest act of His votary.

This can only be done through a definite realization, more real than the five senses can ever produce.

Sense perceptions can be and often are false and deceptive, however real they may appear to us.

Where there is realization outside the senses it is infallible.

It is proved not by extraneous evidence but in the transformed conduct and character of those who have felt the real presence of God within.

Such testimony is to be found in the experiences of an unbroken line of prophets and sages in all countries and climes.

To reject this evidence is to deny oneself.

This realization is preceded by an immovable faith.

He who would in his own person test the fact of God's presence can do so by a living faith and since faith itself cannot be proved by extraneous evidence the safest course is to believe in the moral government of the world and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law of truth and love.

Exercise of faith will be the safest where there is a clear determination summarily to reject all that is contrary to truth and love.

I confess that I have no argument to convince through reason.

Faith transcends reason.

All that I can advise is not to attempt the impossible."


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarielite
post Jun 9 2009, 02:09 PM
Post #29


Internet Cowboy
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 278
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 5,906



QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Jun 9 2009, 12:58 PM) *
I doesn't matter what people call the Creator - Wakan-Tanka, Allah, The Force etc. Many people have had direct personal contact with the Creator and so know from their own lives experience that a Creator-God exists. You yourself seem here to be saying that there is a Creator and a Creation, but seem to be saying that there is no way we could ever comprehend it. That is I believe what defines an agnostic, as opposed to a Gnostic who feels that not only can you know but that it is only through knowing God and God's Workings in the Uni-Verse that you can believe in Spirit, and that it is your actual duty to seek out this knowledge ceaselessly. Either way, you are saying that there is a Creator, correct? That was my entire arguement.


Not your entire argument. You're clearly placing the Christian mythology above those of other traditions, which means that you believe that it has some special insight into the nature of the universe. The "many faces, one god" argument is a fairly common one, but one that's profoundly insulting to anyone who believes differently than you: how would a Muslim feel if you said that his religious experience was simply a subset of yours, or a Taoist who has no specific beliefs relating to the origin of the universe and shares none of the moral strictures of Christianity. Were I a believer of any faith, I imagine I'd be a bit insulted.

Most religions, and all of the most popular ones, begin their doctrine with something to the effect of, "This is the only true belief. All others are false." Christianity's first commandment says "I am the Lord your God... Do not have any other gods before me," and Christ further hammered that point in by saying, "whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." In other words, if you say anything ill about god, you are forever damned without chance of redemption--all other actions are pardonable except blaspheming the evil sky tyrant.

Unless you're a Unitarian, or take the biblical verse in broad strokes, it's not really feasible to believe in the "many faces, one god" hypothesis.

QUOTE (Fremen Bryan @ Jun 9 2009, 12:58 PM) *
Sarielite seems to believe that the entire Uni-Verse just fell into place randomly, with no Intelligent-Guidance from Divine-Hands, and that the vast expanse of Space just happens to be inter-locking and co-operate with all of its various systems and parts in perfect timing (like the Springs of a Giant Cosmic Clock) entirely by "chance". That conclusion is very illogical and is the real holding onto dying dogma, only in this case it is the dogma of the athiest scientific community, who have already been proven wrong by their own peers.


I can't speak to the origins of the universe, or to the question of "why?". I'm comfortable with saying that I don't know, and I'm fairly sure that our species will never know why the universe exists. No theory at all is better than a wrong one. There are some interesting hypotheses--both supernatural and prosaic--but nothing strong enough to be called a theory.

I don't think the universe fell into place randomly: it's possible that the currently-stable structure of the universe determined the shape of its own origin in a bit of paradoxical reverse-causality. The nature of quantum mechanics could mean that the observable present determines the past, based on what's being measured. Stephen Hawking has suggested this as a possibility, and other physicists have developed some mathematical frameworks on how this hypothesis might operate.

Also, Mahatma Gandhi was an interesting person, but not for his great understanding of the universe. If I remember correctly, he was a lawyer before his entrance into radical politics, not a scientist or physicist or great philosopher. It's maybe not a great idea to defer to his authority on such matters, just as I wouldn't ask Stephen Pinker about cooking filet mignon.


--------------------
Peace.
Equality.
Integrity.
Simplicity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sarielite
post Jun 16 2009, 08:52 AM
Post #30


Internet Cowboy
***

Group: Activist
Posts: 278
Joined: 31-May 07
Member No.: 5,906



The New York Times has an interesting write-up on some advances in developing artificial proto-life. Apparently fatty acids will spontaneously arrange themselves into double-layered spheres that will grow larger as more lipids are added until some point when they divide. These membranes also allow small molecules in, but will not let larger compounds out, meaning that they represent a viable container for RNA and other proteins.

There's more, but I'd rather let the article speak for itself rather than paraphrasing or copying the full text here.

Link: New Glimpses of Life’s Puzzling Origins


--------------------
Peace.
Equality.
Integrity.
Simplicity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th May 2020 - 11:43 PM