See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: 81 yr old atheist reverses position
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70scientific_world.html
Published: Dec 12, 2007
Author: n
Post Date: 2007-12-12 13:15:28 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: None
Views: 473
Comments: 52
The Scientific World Is Turning to God HARUN YAHYA "As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done." (Anthony Flew) The newspapers these days are echoing with these regret-filled words by Anthony Flew, in his time a well-known atheist philosopher. The 81-year-old British professor of philosophy Flew chose to become an atheist at the age of 15, and first made a name for himself in the academic field with a paper published in 1950. In the 54 years that followed, he defended atheism as a teacher at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading, at many American and Canadian universities he visited, in debates, books, lecture halls and articles. In recent days, however, Flew has announced that he has abandoned this error and accepts that the universe was created. The decisive factor in this radical change of view is the clear and definitive evidence revealed by science on the subject of creation. Flew realised, in the face of the information-based complexity of life, that the true origin of life is intelligent design and that the atheism he had espoused for 66 years was a discredited philosophy. Flew announced the scientific reasons underlying this change in belief in these terms: "Biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved." (1) "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." (2) "I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature." (3) The DNA research which Flew cites as a fundamental reason for his change of opinion has indeed revealed striking facts about creation. The helix shape of the DNA molecule, its possession of the genetic code, the nucleotide strings that refute blind chance, the storage of encyclopaedic quantities of information and many other striking findings have revealed that the structure and functions of this molecule were arranged for life with a special design. Comments by scientists concerned with DNA research bear witness to this fact. Francis Crick, for instance, one of the scientists who revealed the helix shape of DNA admitted in the face of the findings regarding DNA that the origin of life indicated a miracle: 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. (4) Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs. (5) Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed: "What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." (6) The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject: A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (7) Creationist scientists and philosophers played a major role in Flew's acceptance of intelligent design, backed up by all these findings. In recent times Flew participated in debates with scientists and philosophers who were proponents of creation, and exchanged ideas with them. The final turning point in that process was a discussion organised by the Institute for Metascientific Research in Texas in May, 2003. Flew participated together with author Roy Abraham Varghese, Israeli physicist and molecular biologist Gerald Schroeder, and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane. Flew was impressed by the weight of the scientific evidence in favour of creation and by the convincing nature of his opponents' arguments, and abandoned atheism as an idea in the period following that discussion. In a letter he wrote for the August-September, 2003, edition of the British magazine Philosophy Now, he recommended Schroeder's book "The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth" and Varghese's book "The Wonderful World."(8) During an interview with the professor of philosophy and theology Gary R. Habermas, who also played a major role in his change of mind (9), and also on the video "Has Science Discovered God?," he openly stated that he believed in intelligent design. The "Intelligence Pervading the Universe" and the Collapse of Atheism In the face of all the scientific developments outlined above, the acceptance of intelligent design by Antony Flew, famous for defending atheism for many years, reflects a final scene in the process of collapse being undergone by atheism. Modern science has revealed the existence of an "intelligence pervading the universe," thus leaving atheism out of the equation. In his book "The Hidden Face of God," Gerald Schroeder, one of the creationist scientists who influenced Flew, writes: "A single consciousness, a universal wisdom, pervades the universe. The discoveries of science, those that search the quantum nature of subatomic matter, have moved us to the brink of a startling realization: all existence is the expression of this wisdom. In the laboratories we experience it as information that first physically articulated as energy and then condensed into the form of matter. Every particle, every being, from atom to human, appears to represent a level of information, of wisdom." (10) Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom. There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and mind that pervade the universe at all levels is Almighty Allah. Allah reveals this truth in the Qur'an:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
Train gets going... builds up a huge head of steam.... starts racing along at 200 miles an hour.... and then goes soaring off the tracks and flying into space at the first curve. Wheee! Do I think there is a "great intelligence" behind the creation of this universe? Yes. Do I believe this reality is a subset of a greater reality? Yes. Am I willing to subscribe to any particular dogma and/or say any one particular religion has "the truth" as compared to all the rest? Hell no!
Scientific research into both the functioning of the cell and the subatomic particles of matter has revealed this fact in an indisputable manner: Life and the universe were brought into being from nothing by the will of an entity possessed of a superior mind and wisdom. There is no doubt that the possessor of that knowledge and mind that pervade the universe at all levels is Almighty Allah. Allah reveals this truth in the Qur'an:
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#2. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
yeah, this clown has to go and hack for islam. archaic. creationism seems far more philisophically likely than random evolution. to me, the ultimate fundamentalists are the atheists. as dogmatic as any religion.
Gypsy woman said to me, one thing you must bear in your mind:
You are young and you are free, but damned if youre deceased in your own lifetime.
The Core, Eric Clapton
#3. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
The best book I have read up to now about evolution... In the first few chapters the author gives a concise overview over the history of natural science and the involvement of the church, including it's misconceptions. He then summarizes the development of the idea of evolution, which culminates in Darwin's theory of mutation and selection. All the arguments for evolution are made, to a point that I was wondering why I bought the book. Arguments that are made in biology textbooks for decades are repeated so that this book seems not to fulfill it's promise 'to make a distinctive and valuable contribution' and that the author would 'expose fundamental flaws in the overall theory of evolution'. But in the second half of the book this masterpiece of an analytical mind shows that it is well worth it's price. It is awesome to read how, one by one, the 'convincing arguments' for evolution are analyzed and shown to be flawed. Especially the recent new findings in cell biology and genetics shows the impossibility of complex life to have evolved from 'simple' cells. The author also dips briefly into the issue of prebiotic evolution, debunking the common perception that, given enough time, self-replicating molecules could have risen spontaneously. The author shows that evolution of living matter from non-living matter could not have occured. I just wish the author had dealt in more detail about Popper and science philosophy in general. There are many books where you cannot wait to finish it early, so that you might know the outcome. This book is different. The closer I came to the last chapter, the slower I read. I didn't want to finish this book - I wanted to continue to read more about the facts behind the theory of evolution. Great piece, with deep insight - a lot of biological and chemistry facts - written in easy to understand English for the scientific layperson, who is interested in evolution.
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#4. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
Deserves repeating, since that's what I woulda said. :) I'm not a biologist, but I would have thought that science would have figured this one out a long time ago. I mean, two cells meet in a womb, join, and then a process is begun, which had to have been programmed by some form of intelligence, and it ends as a human being. It matters not what we choose to call the intelligence behind all of this. Heck if the intelligence is intelligent at all, it already knows that opinions will differ, and I don't think it could, in good conscience, penalize someone for believing one way while rewarding another for believing a different way, or for not believing at all. If it did, it is not a very loving intelligence, and not one I would care to know.
Do I think there is a "great intelligence" behind the creation of this universe? Yes. Do I believe this reality is a subset of a greater reality? Yes. Am I willing to subscribe to any particular dogma and/or say any one particular religion has "the truth" as compared to all the rest? Hell no!
#5. To: (#0)
Origin of Life Made Easy
#6. To: gengis gandhi (#2)
creationism seems far more philisophically likely than random evolution Evolution isn't a random process. Anyone who has studied the subject at all understands this. People who use words such as "accidental," "chance," and "random," when talking about life in the context of evolution have studied little or nothing about the subject. They've read or heard some one-liners and they think that means they're informed on the issue. to me, the ultimate fundamentalists are the atheists. Atheism is a default position. Everyone is born an atheist and then they are indoctrinated by others who were, themselves, indoctrinated by others.
#7. To: Critter (#4)
...two cells meet in a womb, join, and then a process is begun, which had to have been programmed by some form of intelligence, and it ends as a human being. Some organisms reproduce by asexual means.
#8. To: Alan Chapman (#6)
if not a random process, what is the underlying pattern or motive force to initiate the process? what then created its order of development? yawn. evolution is merely another rabbit hole for those with severe body/ego identification to become fixated upon. earth is merely one stop along a very very long chain of consciousness development....to become bogged down misses the point.
Gypsy woman said to me, one thing you must bear in your mind:
You are young and you are free, but damned if youre deceased in your own lifetime.
The Core, Eric Clapton
#9. To: FOH (#3)
How, or why, should Dr.Paul address Dennis the Menace's position on guns, or anything else? Dr.Paul's position on the 2nd Amendment is clearly what the founders intended, and has been for decades. Let Kucinich clarify his own anti-Constitutional ideas...
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
#10. To: Alan Chapman (#6)
Often times, not even that much research is done. The Pope has the best comment on the topic. Believe whichever one you want. Both allow for the other to take place. Creationists have accepted that there is evolution post-creation. Until the very beginnings are known, it is faith in whatever one holds to be true that carries the day, whether it is a dogmatic religion or dogmatic science. The only thing that the hurling of insults can do is make the adherents to one particular theory or the other look like petulant children screaming "I'm right, you're wrong, because I say so!" Creationists cannot - and I repeat - CANNOT prove there is a Divine Being. So all we are left with is a bunch of children running around acting like jackasses trying to force their particular belief system onto everyone else.
They've read or heard some one-liners and they think that means they're informed on the issue.
With Pure Evolution, science cannot show what sparked the Big Bang, leaving a hole for Divine Intervention.
Likewise, Science cannot explain what sparked the Big Bang.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
#11. To: Indrid Cold (#0)
(((((Ping))))) Thought you might find this of interest.
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#12. To: gengis gandhi (#8)
The reasoning process of the ignorant goes like this: I don't understand. Therefore, magic. Intelligent design is nothing but facile conjecture.
#13. To: Alan Chapman (#12) (Edited)
actually, what science likes to call magic is only that which has not been explained. science is a belief system that exists to perpetuate itself, accepting evidence that confirms, rejecting that which contradicts. all science is based on discovering new correlations....yet, insanely, it defends the status quo in the face of its past history of changing 'truths'... when science cannot fit into existing theories evidence that would nullify those theories, it ignores them. quantum theory has pretty well turned alot of 'axioms' on their heads. Indeed, merely observing events has an outcome upon them. This was 'magic' only a few decades ago. have a nice time in the recycling rings.
Gypsy woman said to me, one thing you must bear in your mind:
You are young and you are free, but damned if youre deceased in your own lifetime.
The Core, Eric Clapton
#14. To: lodwick (#9)
Ron Paul needs to make it clear that he WILL NOT under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES form a coalition with a Communist or any strain thereof...people in his own circle are promoting the idea and it's being floated all over the place. Ron and only Ron can stop that MADNESS.
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#15. To: mirage (#10)
Bologna. The 'science' of "Evolution" as posited, respun, re-posited and spun again is hogwash...
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#16. To: FOH (#14)
Just listen to Dr.Paul: I don't know how many times, and in how many ways, he's said that he is running for the Republican nomination for President. Period. End of story. Please disregard all the other fantasies and dreams that others may be running out there - that's all that they are. Goofiness.
#17. To: FOH (#15)
As I said, "What we are left with is a bunch of petulant children...." People just keep proving me correct in that.
The 'science' of "Evolution" as posited, respun, re-posited and spun again is hogwash...
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
#18. To: mirage (#17)
With the advent of the high powered microscope, the "Theory of Evolution" was officially dead...save for God-hating 'progressives' and others along similar veins.
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#19. To: lodwick (#16)
Actually, Ron has NOT completely eliminated the possibility... Nor should he. Here's an interesting article written by a Libertarian I know:
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#20. To: Alan Chapman, gengis gandhi, Indrid Cold, christine, FOH, innieway, TwentyTwelve, all (#6)
People who use words such as "accidental," "chance," and "random," when talking about life in the context of evolution have studied little or nothing about the subject. They've read or heard some one-liners and they think that means they're informed on the issue. to me, the ultimate fundamentalists are the atheists. Atheism is a default position. Everyone is born an atheist and then they are indoctrinated by others who were, themselves, indoctrinated by others. I do so wish atheists were not addicted to logical fallacies and imputing postions to others which they do not hold, are unprovable, and assumed as factual by fiat. First the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist position, which is accepted on "faith in Almighty Darwin" and his omniscience, for the origin of life is one which is assumed by fiat and IS based upon an assumption that life originated by the chance combination of inanimate materials into a primordial animate form. What I call the "Shit Happens" Theory for the origin of life. The theory of course revolves around that fact, and the scientific experiment which purported to prove it has been proven incorrect. Putting the "Shit Happens" Theorists into an uproar was the discovery by Historical Geologists that one of the elements of the Materialist Creation Theory (i.e., "Shit Happens") is false. That is that in the time frame positied the earth did not have an abundant Methane-Amonia Atmosphere, but that it was apparently dominated by Sulfur compounds, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and other trace gases. Further, as pointed out in the article indirectly, from this highly improbable beginning greater complexity evolves in direct contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is not a trivial point. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, for those not familiar with it, states that the physical universe tends toward a zero energy state of complete chaos, no life, and no physical organization - this is referred to as "entropy". It is an accepted, and experimentally validated, theory of how the Physical Universe operates. So, the problem confronted, and always avoided, by the Darwinists/Evolutionists/Atheists is that the biological world demonstrates the exact opposite i.e., increasing complexity, higher levels of organization and function, and higher levels of operational capability. So, the Darwinist "Shit Happens" Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are in conflict. Axiom: When two datums are mutually exclusive then the first thing one can know is that one or both are false. So, in order to explain the observed phenomena an element of causality must be introduced and it is one which perforce adds energy to the System and coordinates and brings about higher levels of function and complexity. That is the core operating datum for the Creation Theorists i.e., that causal element which brings about a greater order and more complex function. Not as misrepresented by the Darwinists that it is all "God". Creation theory taken objectively simply implies the existence of that causal element. What one names it and associated Religious Dogma in not relevant to the basic position and to assert such is false and is frequently intentionally false. As for Atheism being a default position that is again a logical fallacy and is an unsupported assumption which is self-serving for the atheist position. The most that could be supported is that Religion, in its formal sense i.e., Worship and Philosophy, are learned but unbelief as a doctrine is equally a learned position, philosophy, and DOGMA. It is possible that one could construct an argument that a newborn infant holds neither position, but that is not a proposition I care to take on at the moment.
Evolution isn't a random process. Anyone who has studied the subject at all understands this.
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#21. To: lodwick, FOH (#16)
Please disregard all the other fantasies and dreams that others may be running out there - that's all that they are. Goofiness. It's not just "goofiness". I wish it was. It is another PsyOp attack to divorce Ron Paul from the Republican base by planting the ideas that Ron Paul could and should run for the Losertarian Nomination. This is being implanted to erode his increasing support among the tradition Republican constituency.
Just listen to Dr.Paul: I don't know how many times, and in how many ways, he's said that he is running for the Republican nomination for President. Period. End of story.
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#22. To: Original_Intent (#20)
Interesting. both atheists and creationists believe that some unseen force initiated life. and both think that man came from mud or slime, in essence. I have found more evidence to support that man came from the stars, as a hybrid or genetic experiment, than anything else. much like we are now developing life forms to serve our interests seems reasonable.
Gypsy woman said to me, one thing you must bear in your mind:
You are young and you are free, but damned if youre deceased in your own lifetime.
The Core, Eric Clapton
#23. To: Original_Intent (#20)
Did you author this?
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#24. To: Original_Intent (#21)
I would vote for Ron Paul on a Libertarian ticket, however, I would prefer that if he didn't achieve the GOP nomination that he run on the Constitution Party ticket...
It's not just "goofiness". I wish it was. It is another PsyOp attack to divorce Ron Paul from the Republican base by planting the ideas that Ron Paul could and should run for the Losertarian Nomination. This is being implanted to erode his increasing support among the tradition Republican constituency.
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#25. To: gengis gandhi (#22)
I have to run but briefly - you have to take it back even further on the chain of causality: "Who shaved the Barber?" Where the materialists go really nuts is when you begin hitting them with the cosmologic question: Where did those elements that combined by chance come from? As for ET intervention - it makes sense only if you accept that life as we know it is a recent event. If one posits its creation at some time much further back than Planet Earth - the same set of problems in explaining its origin still apply.
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#26. To: FOH (#23)
Yes. Were it not my own I would credit the author.
Did you author this?
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#27. To: Original_Intent (#26)
You write so extremely well...
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#28. To: FOH (#18)
Again, with the insults. Trying to prove me correct here? Again, the problem is - nobody and I mean NOBODY can actually PROVE that there is either a God or what caused the Big Bang in the first place. Again, any way you want to look at it, you are taking the "beginning" on Faith and on Faith alone.
With the advent of the high powered microscope, the "Theory of Evolution" was officially dead...save for God-hating 'progressives' and others along similar veins.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
#29. To: mirage (#28)
I can, with modern technology, 100% rule out every single "Evolution Theory" or adaptation of such for certain...
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#30. To: FOH (#29)
Wrong. There have been observed 'speciation' events in recent modern history. You cannot rule out 100% of evolution. The gene that protects Africans but not Asians from Sickle Cell Anemia cannot be explained any other way. Even the most ardent creationist is forced to agree that Natural Selection is a rule of nature. Successful organisms reproduce and pass on those traits that help them survive. Unsuccessful organisms fail to reproduce and thus do not pass on those traits which lead to their demise. That, my friend, is Evolution in its most basic sense.
I can, with modern technology, 100% rule out every single "Evolution Theory" or adaptation of such for certain...
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
#31. To: mirage (#30)
You're in way over your head here...have you considered the facts or do you just like making up stuff as you go?
My support for Ron Paul 2008 is as of this moment officially on hold until RP clarifies the "Kucinich" issue...
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#32. To: Original_Intent (#20)
I do so wish atheists were not addicted to logical fallacies and imputing postions to others which they do not hold, are unprovable, and assumed as factual by fiat. What logical fallacies? The phrase "random evolution" was used. Evolutionary biologists don't think evolution is random. First the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist position, which is accepted on "faith in Almighty Darwin"... Although often credited with it's discovery, Darwin didn't discover evolution. He came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection based upon his observations. Succinctly put, it means that the more successful an organism is at adaptation the more likely it is to survive and replicate. The notion that life evolved into increasingly complex forms over time is based on observable evidence. People seek refuge in faith when they just don't know any better. ...in the time frame positied the earth did not have an abundant Methane-Amonia Atmosphere, but that it was apparently dominated by Sulfur compounds, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and other trace gases. Microscopic organisms have been discovered living and thriving in extremely hostile environments on Earth, which would be lethal to many other species. As for Atheism being a default position that is again a logical fallacy... I'm beginning to think that you don't understand what a logical fallacy is. ...an unsupported assumption...unbelief as a doctrine is equally a learned position A newborn is completely ignorant about his environment except what he discerns through his senses. Lacking belief isn't a learned position. Some choose to use reason to discover answers. Others choose to engage in wild speculation without evidence because the appealing prospects are comforting.
#33. To: FOH (#31)
Everything I've said is absolutely true. It all boils down to taking things on Faith. Unless you can produce a deity and introduce me to that entity, you've got nothing but Faith to work with.
You're in way over your head here...have you considered the facts or do you just like making up stuff as you go?
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
#34. To: mirage (#10)
It's true that science can't explain the origin of the universe. The Big Bang offers an explanation only of formation and not of origin. Not long ago, people thought sickness was caused by supernatural forces because they lacked the technology to see micro-organisms. The main difference between science and religion is that science is an ongoing process. For many, faith is a conclusion and no further investigation is necessary.
#35. To: Alan Chapman (#34)
This is true on all sides of this debate.
For many, faith is a conclusion and no further investigation is necessary.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
#36. To: gengis gandhi, innieway, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, Zipporah (#0)
"What really astounds me is the architecture of life… The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." (6) The most striking fact about DNA is that the existence of the coded genetic information can definitely not be explained in terms of matter and energy or natural laws. Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, has said this on the subject: A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. (7) very cool
Based on his calculations, Led Adleman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has stated that one gram of DNA can store as much information as a trillion compact discs. (5) Gene Myers, a scientist employed on the Human Genome Project, has said the following in the face of the miraculous arrangements he witnessed:
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
#37. To: mirage (#35)
Cosmology is among the most actively debated and researched fields of science. I wasn't aware that some scientists though that they had all the answers and decided that no further research was necessary. Maybe you're privy to information which I'm not.
#38. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
He feels the Heat, he's not seeing The Light....
The 81-year-old British professor...
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." James Madison
#39. To: Alan Chapman (#37)
No information, just common sense. Scientists take it 'on faith' that they can figure it out.....eventually. Nobody knows if and/or when they will be able to do so. As I keep saying....all sides take things 'on faith'....
Maybe you're privy to information which I'm not.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
#40. To: FOH (#27)
Thank you for the kind words.
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#41. To: mirage (#39)
Science is an ongoing process. It's is the discernment of our surroundings through the application of our faculties. Superstition isn't an ongoing process and its postulations can't be quantified by the application of our faculties to our surroundings. You can't test something imaginary. Some might argue that the "power" which created the universe exists outside of the universe, but what does that accomplish? It's nothing but a consoling thought. You could spend the rest of your life speculating about infinite possibilities about powers "outside of the universe," all of them untestable and undetectable. While religious folk love to ridicule scientists for the supposed belief that the universe spontaneously created itself out of nothing they, themselves, believe precisely the same thing; that God created himself (or always existed) and then created the universe out of nothing by simply willing it to appear. Although I have heard the assertion that the universe "created itself out of nothing," no honest scientist holds to this notion because if conflicts with physics.
#42. To: Alan Chapman, gengis gandhi, Indrid Cold, christine, FOH, innieway, TwentyTwelve, all (#32)
Evasion and an attempt to divert from the point. (I could demand you support your contention but will leave it for other readers to simply note that you have made an unsupported assertion i.e., a generalization "Evolutionary biologists don' think ...".) My point was, and stands unrefuted, that the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist mythology for the origin of life relies upon a random chance event creating life spontaneously. A more complete refutation would also point out that a mutation is by definition a random chance event and that the evolutionary mechanism relies upon mutatiom, a random chance event, for much of its macroevolutionary dogma. This was counter to your assertion which evolutionary theory does not rely upon chance - which assertion you are now trying to obfuscate. The funadamental starting point of Darwinian/Materialiast/Atheist dogma is that the origin of life is to be found when some materialist mystical moment occurs where inanimate Methane and Ammonia, which is scientifically dubious given the geologic record, somehow combined in a tidal pool. Then by "deus ex machina" Mary Shelley hit it with a lightning bolt and like the “Modern Prometheus” life erupted from inanimate matter i.e., the "Shit Happens" Theory. My point did not address evolutionary theory as a direct point, but rather attacked the premise upon which your assertion is founded and derives its logical basis. The premise is discredited. Any argument founded upon a false premise is itself false i.e., a logical fallacy. (Note: For those not familiar with the terms there are really two distinct types of evolution: 1.Microevolution i.e., the adaptation and modification by environment of an plant or an animal to a niche in its habitat. This is often referred to as evolution by natural selection i.e., those that successfully adapt survive and those that don't – don't. The animal does not change from one type of animal to another but rather undergoes minor changes in form. Thus Darwin's Galapagos Finches are all still Finches, but have simply adapted via small changes in form to more effectively thrive in the niche they feed in. Creation Theory does not dispute the validity of microevolution. 2.Macroevolution i.e., the change of one form to another. This would be analogous to a plant developing mobility and becoming an animal or a Wolf evolving into a Sheep. In microevolution the animal remains the same type of animal but undergoes small modifications necessary to more successfully survive in a changing environment or to take on a new niche in the ecosphere. In macroevolution you have one form radically changing into something completely different.) Again you engage in “logic chopping”. (Look up the term – it is not a compliment.) Evolution by adaptation i.e., natural selection is not under dispute and thus throwing that out as though the assertion proves something is a Red Herring . The point raised is the fundamental premise upon which your argument rests i.e., the origin of animate life. Without a life form to modify evolution is a moot point. Further macroevolution, while observable, has no proven mechanism, other than causal intelligent intervention from whatever source. The fossil record does not support it in the Darwinistic sense of small changes over time – there are no intermediate transitional forms in the fossil record which were predicted by the Darwinist Model. Not even one. As well you did not address the observation that evolution, as posited by the Materialist Camp, runs contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For a system to move to a higher energy state, i.e., greater complexity and organization, requires an energy input into the system. The Darwinist model provides no mechanism to explain this and thus is deficient as a theory upon that point. How nice. That does not address how those organisms came to be i.e., from what sprung the primordial first microbe. Thus this is again a logicial fallacy i.e., a Red Herring . The position of a newborn is that of unknowing. It is not a position of advocacy for or against a proposition. Atheism is not the lack of belief but the negation of belief. Symbolically if one were to posit: P = There is a deity. Then the atheist position is not the lack of any defined belief but rather ~P (for those not familiar with symbolic logic the “~” symbol means “the negation of” or “not”. Thus ~P = NOT P.) Thus ~P = There is no deity. Thus anyone following this can then see the truth of the statement that atheism is not the absence of belief but as it is practiced the opposite of belief or formally the negation of belief. Returning to our newborn we can then see that a baby with no defined belief system is neither a theist nor an atheist as, as far as we can tell, it has no belief one way or the other, and does not even have the thought symbols for either position. Thus both theism (a belief in a divine being) and atheism (a rejection of the belief in a divine being) are both positive positions in that they both advocate a specific point of view. Thus our unknowing child holds neither belief, and thus the assertion that the natural native position of a newborn is atheism is false. This can be expressed as neither P or ~P or symbolically ("v" = or) ~(P v ~P) which is not equivalent to ~P. Q.E.D.
Me: I do so wish atheists were not addicted to logical fallacies and imputing postions to others which they do not hold, are unprovable, and assumed as factual by fiat.
AC: What logical fallacies? The phrase "random evolution" was used. Evolutionary biologists don't think evolution is random.
Me: First the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist position, which is accepted on "faith in Almighty Darwin"...
AC: Although often credited with it's discovery, Darwin didn't discover evolution. He came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection based upon his observations. Succinctly put, it means that the more successful an organism is at adaptation the more likely it is to survive and replicate. The notion that life evolved into increasingly complex forms over time is based on observable evidence. People seek refuge in faith when they just don't know any better.
Me: ...in the time frame posit ed the earth did not have an abundant Methane-Amonia Atmosphere, but that it was apparently dominated by Sulfur compounds, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and other trace gases.
AC: Microscopic organisms have been discovered living and thriving in extremely hostile environments on Earth, which would be lethal to many other species.
Me: As for Atheism being a default position that is again a logical fallacy...
I'm beginning to think that you don't understand what a logical fallacy is.
...an unsupported assumption...unbelief as a doctrine is equally a learned position
A newborn is completely ignorant about his environment except what he discerns through his senses. Lacking belief isn't a learned position. Some choose to use reason to discover answers. Others choose to engage in wild speculation without evidence because the appealing prospects are comforting.
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#43. To: Original_Intent (#42)
Great post. Thanks for the ping.
#44. To: Original_Intent (#42)
as is this origin of the theory, the big bang. came from somewhere, somehow, just because. the causeless cause.
My point was, and stands unrefuted, that the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist mythology for the origin of life relies upon a random chance event creating life spontaneously.
Gypsy woman said to me, one thing you must bear in your mind:
You are young and you are free, but damned if youre deceased in your own lifetime.
The Core, Eric Clapton
#45. To: gengis gandhi, TwentyTwelve (#44)
as is this origin of the theory, the big bang. came from somewhere, somehow, just because. the causeless cause. Ultimately the answer is that we do not have a final accepted answer. In recent years the "big bang" has come under assault in the cosmological community. I've kind of fallen out of touch with the current arguments (I can't stay up on everything despite my endless curiosity). Ontologically the Creation Theory hangs up at the point of asking the question: What was the first cause? However, we can, inductively, infer an intelligent cause because of the level of order and organization which cannot be explained by an unspecified random non-causal event. When we say "the design of life" we identify the crux i.e., that biological life as we, in our limited understanding, currently perceive has a fine grained level of information dense complex organization. Where the materialist Creation Theory hangs up is at that point because when you analyze the assertions made in Materialist Camp you quickly find that their arguments are built on quicksand. As you rightly pointed out their argument ultimately rests on Materialist Mysticism i.e., "it just happened". Since we can observe in our experience, empirically, that all effects have a cause it is not illogical to infer a cause for the origin of biologic life. This then implies the existence of some form of existence other than biologic life as we have no other direction to go. Again we return to: "Who Shaved the Barber?" Thus we have to posit a "First Cause", but we lack the knowledge to define what exactly that "First Cause" is.
My point was, and stands unrefuted, that the Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist mythology for the origin of life relies upon a random chance event creating life spontaneously.
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#46. To: TwentyTwelve, gengis gandhi, FOH, all (#43)
Thanks - this is my "meat and drink" intellectually. Ultimately while the material world does intervene with its demands these are the most important questions. Who am I? What am I? What is the meaning of existence? From these questions flow all elements of philosophy and religion.
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#47. To: Original_Intent (#45)
It is not difficult for taoism. Toss a deck of cards into the air. What caused its distribution? Lay out a deck of cards with only hearts face up. What caused its distribution? Again toss cards into the air. Did the cards that landed face up all show as hearts? If not, then try some more. Continue this until a toss results in all face up cards showing as hearts, it is only then that you may make your conclusion. Do not return until you have an answer. Its just not difficult. So, if it cannot be arranged randomly into a suit with only a few cards, to accept that it can be arranged randomly with variables exponentially greater is asking for more than can be provided in a smaller scale. The magic is in the fact that the universe cares what you think only when you don't notice....and when you notice, it doesn't care what you think.
However, we can, inductively, infer an intelligent cause because of the level of order and organization which cannot be explained by an unspecified random non-causal event.
Gypsy woman said to me, one thing you must bear in your mind:
You are young and you are free, but damned if youre deceased in your own lifetime.
The Core, Eric Clapton
#48. To: gengis gandhi (#47)
Lao Tsu was no doubt one of the towering geniuses of human history. The answer of course is that you are cause. Each of us are cause. We are intelligent self aware entities capable of creating an effect. The universe cares because you who are self aware cause create an effect in that universe. The universe is not a cause it is an effect.
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#49. To: Alan Chapman, gengis gandhi, Indrid Cold, christine, FOH, innieway, TwentyTwelve, all (#42)
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#50. To: Original_Intent (#49)
I'm in the process of composing a response.
#51. To: Alan Chapman (#50)
Would it help if I hummed the "jeopardy Theme"?
"When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather - not screaming in terror like his passengers." - Unk.
#52. To: Original_Intent (#51)
I haven't forgotten. Soon.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest