Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

The universe created itself and us in it? Now, that’s faith!

May 15, 2015

Okay, so the rebuttal is done to the defense of the circular presumption of Big Bang theories is rebutted. The defense was that no knowledge is “required” to reject supernaturalism.

Again, note that no knowledge whatsoever is “required” to reject the spontaneous self-made universe, either.

BLIND FAITH is necessary to believe the universe exploded into existence from a null, a nothing that was nowhere and in a literal sense was never, because there was no time until the beginning of time, “when” it happened.  That’s according to the millenia-old superstition that some Greeks described.  most materialistic cosmologists

THAT is supernaturalism. That is mysticism. That is faith in something so mysterious you avoid talking about what it might be because you’re afraid it is.. that it is… (well, you know)…

Questioner says, “certainly as gravitational effects increase, time can slow down, so we can plausibly posit that “before the big bang” might be a non-sequitor.” But this is precisely one of the elements of a Creationist astrophysicist’s theory for the Creation week. He’s only the one that predicted on the button the strength of the magnetic field of the outer gas giants before the probe arrived, while NASA’s billionaire team of smart guys were exponentially off.

So some physicists like Russ Humphreys do have “some pretty good ideas”, like don’t think the way you’re told, but think according to facts and science and what has always proven true.

Nobody needs a “special pleading” about God being outside time and space. It’s the answer to the stupid question anti-Creationists always ask, where did God come from. He’s the Creator. He’s the God of the Bible. The Bible matches measurable, provable repeatable science more than any “philosophical framework” and its believers cultivated the good science of recent centuries, the incubator for great inventions and advancements of today. And the culture of individualism and liberty.

And so having an answer, you still pose the same irrelevant questions about God’s origins, when you already have the answer. His “origin” is an oxymoron, he’s the Creator of the universe, and Einstein’s and Stephen Hawking’s theories should make clear that “time” itself should be considered part of this universe, and co-existent with it. Without four dimensions nothing exists here.

Scientists have no trouble imagining multiple universes in their materialistic fantasies, so this is willful ignorance, again. They even have no trouble, as with quantum physics, imagining something as existing in multiple states except inasmuch as it manifests through our observation of it. Fascinating how much we find parallels in the physical world to the spiritual truths.

Antony Flew, unfortunately for him, came to faith in a Creator God late in life. The obviously designed universe, more so the obvious intelligent design manifest in life, is just too much in one’s face. It takes faith to reject the design in biology.

Never mind “supernatural”, call it natural. I think God is natural, He is simply part of what surrounds us. Like Jesus said about “spiritual things”, it’s like the wind. You can’t see it but you can sure see its effects, if you allow perception to congeal.

More than any time in history, today, popularity of an idea has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not. Real, true Bible-believing faith, in spite of being faith in the truth, and being the best fit of descriptions of the world and its history, is not popular.

That’s the same as always. The most religious and sanctimonious in Jesus’ day obligated the Roman authorities to put him to death. Not long after he had cleansed their temple at the painful end of a long lashing for that “den of vipers and thieves”. The same he would do today to the satanic stealth thieves of the central banks’ worldwide cartel.

Michael Crichton made the same point also in his essay “Aliens Cause Global Warming’. neither consensus in science, nor the popularity of an idea, nor the argument from (secular) authority, none of these is sufficient.

One last note. Jesus Christ and his true followers do NOT “get to see” the godless burn in hell, rather, quite the opposite.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.–2 Peter 3:9

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.–John 3:17

Better to sing with the repentant former slave trader who anointed William Wilberforce on his mission to extinguish slavery from the British empire:

AMAZING GRACE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G72NucLEGM

A very beautiful song, that.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. -Isaiah 1:18

IRS and Feds engaging in more prosecutorial criminality

March 8, 2015

Here’s another case of federal and IRS prosecutorial criminality.

He’s a creationist who is well-known among Christians who are interested in the topic. He was, in the opinion of m many, the most effective creationist speaker. His invitations to speak were many, he had years scheduled in advance. They sold the videos in DVDs but made clear that permission was granted to copy them, as long as they were given away, and they were download-able on the Internet.

The IRS put him away for 10 years claiming “structuring”. Structuring is when somebody follows the law but somebody at the IRS decides you’re trying to avoid the reporting requirements. They got the structuring laws passed by claiming it was a “tool” to go after drug traffickers.

There were other bogus charges and then the first thing the judge did after a request from prosecution was to ban the defense strategy. There were all kinds of things they also threw at him.

He had been denounced by a jealous Christian school director in the same town of Pensacola.

I just discovered that as the end of his sentence draws near, they have created more bogus charges to keep him in prison. The judge presiding –note this!– has banned all taking of notes, and has banned everyone from having a Bible open in the courtroom. I am not making this up.

Outside the courtroom after one session:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgaZFQrKBn4

Kent Hovind’s blog: http://www.kenthovindblog.com

https://www.facebook.com/drkenthovind

http://ytmp.blogspot.com

Forbes is reporting on it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/10/29/government-coming-down-harder-on-kent-hovind/

Atheism is irrational

January 29, 2015

The insanitybytes blog at: https://insanitybytes2.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/on-being-crazy/ inspired this response…

Many an anti-creationist posting on Christian blogs is just a troll.
He’s just ranting and accusing others of ranting.
He’s condescending and sneers that you’re condescending. He ridicules, and just makes a caricature of himself.
His whole rant is ad hominem, and he thinks it makes him smart to accuse somebody else of ad hominem.
He uses an Egyptian-sounding moniker, thinking this makes him some kind of spiritually superior, but it only labels himself as a snob.

His ravings turn his accusations of lunacy upon himself and corroborate this blog.
The most loudmouth anti-creationist scientists go into panic mode when they contemplate debating a real live Creationist scientist. Even with an audience full of people who have been indoctrinated in the materialist (null) explanation of Origins through twelve and even sixteen years, while subjected to the same indoctrination in “news” reports, movies, anti-Christian lawsuits, they still go into panic mode and warn their colleagues against trying it. I saw the memo in the book “Science and Creationism”, in which the editor and compiler of these anti-creationist essays admits having been resoundingly humiliated in such a debate. In order to bolster his darwinian fantasies, he asked a bunch of people for their essays.

In those essays, a biochemist in the book fantasized how a few linkups among a few amino acid molecules “proved” abiogenesis. Harvard recently got a million-dollar grant to study how abiogenesis could have happened.

Meantime, anti-creationists run with panic from the issue, saying it’s not part of evolution. Read on ahead when you can stop laughing.

Asimov made his points against a creationist argument that creationists would never use with an unbeliever, and avoided the science.

Stephen Jay Gould came right out and said explicitly that science has to believe some things that are not provable using the scientific method.

One guy from UC Berkeley couldn’t refrain from proudly using the label “pagan”. A haughty spirit goeth before a fall.

Just shows: The mouth of a fool poureth out foolishness.

So many dead scientists, too many microbiologists

October 11, 2014

Dead scientists list, 2004-2014:
http://www.stevequayle.com/?s=146

(a lot of “apparent suicides in the list seems like)
and more from before, 1994-2003: http://www.stevequayle.com/index.php?s=147

A list of 115 scientists dead:
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2011/12/a-list-of-115-dead-scientists-assassinated-1468927.html

and more:
http://www.rense.com/general62/list.htm

Dr. Eugene F. Mallove was one of them in 2004:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/whoarewe/gene.html

He was a many-lettered professor at MIT and enraged by MIT’s press conference on the Pons-Fleichmann experiments, he told the press and anybody who would listen that the results had been promising, that MIT lied to protect billions in research, and started a new energy foundation to fund LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) research. It is finally creeping -slowly- into “mainstream” labs. (I use it to expose the leadership of the enviro-racket).

Wired article about so-called “cold fusion” (Mallove preferred LENR):

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream

Check your assumptions

September 14, 2014

The common Christian definition of God is a being that is all-knowing. If this conjecture is true, then God knew the final outcome of the Universe & of all life in it before the Creation took place. So why did She bother to go to all this tremendous effort if the final conclusion (and all the intermediate stages) were known to Her beforehand?


First off, you expose your motivation in writing this as a troll trying to provoke hysterical response, a self-arrogant exercise in which you think yourself smarter than the audience while in reality showing folly.

You start off addressing yourself to the “Christian definition” then pull a fraudulent bait and switch by saying “She”, an obvious reference to some false god.

You then ask a question that is not a question so you can jump into an ignorant argument you think is new that you just picked up off some Internet forum or atheist website or other self-mockery. You were planning to mock whatever came back from it, I’m sure, because your use of “She” does not apply to the “Christian definition” and you obviously know that.

A perverse sense of humor comes to mind, to just sit back & watch wars, plagues, cancer, disease, famine & death torment the human race over millennia.


You think you’re funny, with your foolishness you think is wit. It’s just witlessness. This claptrap has been answered in a thousand different ways for millenia, for serious questioners.

That seems pretty silly. An all-powerful God should have better things to do than to just set up experiments where the conclusion was known before the start. So there either is no God & things just happened according to natural laws or God is not all-knowing & just wants to watch things play out.


Silly is to think your wit is better than God’s or Isaac Newton’s.

It all boils down to faith, and a lot of assumptions about the nature of God and its powers that have no basis. And to try to prove the existence of a God and a Creation by citing endless bits of quasi-scientific ‘proofs’ is an exercise in futility. Just like the Bible is not a science textbook. you will never be able to ‘prove’ the existence of things that are, by definition, unprovable articles of faith.


You have your own faith in your own unfounded dogmas and “a lot of [your own] assumptions about the nature of God and its powers that have no basis. It’s a foolish faith where you get something for nothing, a whole universe popping into existence from a singularity (another word for “nothing”. You probably even think Stephen Hawking is clever for saying we don’t need God because we have gravity.

He didn’t say why he thought gravity did not need a Creator.

Surely he had some course in Logic along the way?

Will robots put most people out of work?

July 21, 2014

You cannot possibly know that the only “niche” open will be “banditry” for buggy whip makers when buggy whip making is made obsolete by technology. Buggy whip makers found work at Ford Motor Company and in other places.

Some technology advances (robotics) scare many otherwise smart thinking people into thinking unemployment will rise, as in the referenced article.

For example, before technology T1 was adapted, say, n1 full time persons were required to produce product P1, and after T1 was adapted, n2 full time persons.

This does not happen in a vaccuum. n1 is greater than n2. The cost of n2 is less than n1.

But now n3 = n2 – n1 persons are now available to competitors, including new competitors, plus it is safe to assume that in most situations and generalizing here for the concept, there is now more competition for jobs that produce P1, which drives down the cost of P1.

With the consumer price of P1 lower than before, either (1) demand will usually go up for the product, or (2) consumers will buy other consumer goods.

So either (1) we must adjust n3 in the real world (job losses) upward, meaning there are fewer jobs lost due to technology T1, or (2) there is more “purchasing power” available for other products P2, P3, P4, etc., or (3) there is more leisure time for the producers, or (4) most probably, all of the above. Also, technology T1 may also require new jobs in both its production and/or consumption.

The changes that came with computing advances should kill this idea about robots leaving great masses of people unemployed. In the 1930s the biggest companies had multiple floors of accounting specialists and clerks using calculators all day to do the accounting for the company. In the late 1940s or early 1950s the CEO of IBM was still saying only three or four organizations in the world would ever need a computer. Microsoft CEO Bill Gates once said that people would never find much use for the Internet.

And yet we did not have great masses of former accountants and clerks on the street when computers automated so much of the accounting process. It rather enabled all kinds of new specializations in all kinds of industries, created an entire new information industry for both business and consumers, and made life easier in general. For the unskilled and uneducated included. The poorest barrios in one of the still poorest countries of Latin America have smart phones in at least one home every block.

The same will hold with robotics. We cannot have any idea how it will sort out. If 3-D technology is not crimped with stupid government interference, there will be a lot more people able to do some home-based manufacturing services, just for an example. IF.

But government interfering with the readjustment does not help, and that includes government-directed retraining. Let the market pull the resources to where the new demand will go, and let private investors take the risk instead of wasting economic resources for government middlemen and idlers. Those resources belong at private risk, no cost to you.

 

Evidence-based Christianity

June 14, 2014

I’m one Bible believer who got there through science, history, facts, reasoning and logic. The tautological circle is true of many Christians who don’t think much, and much Christian evangelical media. But even they are allowing the evidence-based arguments. Christianity is the one related by way of historical events. “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”, not tautologies. “Global cooling is part of global warming” is a tautology. You should put “scientists” in there. Michael Crichton did. See his essay “Aliens cause Global Warming”, from a talk at Cal Tech, where he totally demolished “Drake’s equation”, the blind-faith basis for SETI. Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” should have convinced them to “Question everything”, which they don’t.

History has hundreds who sought evidence against Christianity and ended up as believers, including thousands of scientists today who renounced Darwinism based on science. An archaeologist once set out to falsify the Bible by checking on the place names in Acts and dug them all up. The Jewish rabbis showed Alexander the prophecy that Greece would trounce Persia and conquer shockingly fast and then his empire divided to four. As happened. And that was after he fulfilled other prophecy by throwing the old Tyre literally into the sea.

A student once challenged atheist Harvard dean of Law Simon Greanleaf to apply his own rule (no conclusions without first considering the evidence) That in turn is held up by the evidence of history, archaeology, and logic, and the rules of historical evidence as detailed by the atheist-turned-Christian Simon Greanleaf, author of “Testimony of the Evangelists”. To this day a man’s dying testimony has weight, and to die for it proves belief. An archaeologists looking to disprove Acts, for example, excavated so much of it he became a believer. Lew Wallace is another one. Isaac Newton said the fact that (true) science is reliable shows design. It was his version of the “anthropic principle”, in the NON-circular definition of it.

It’s much more fact-based than Darwinism, for sure. That’s where the lack of evidence of “punctuation” in fossils (and only equilibrium) is offered as evidence for “punctuated equilibrium”. Mendel’s experiments were ignored at length and DNA made it so incredible a co-discoverer postulated aliens.

Peer review is dead; Long live the free Inter-Networks!

April 24, 2014

http://www.examiner.com/article/peer-review-potential-and-peril

Ah, forget about peer review. All those arguments against it, and then you throw it all away by simply saying that peer review is good, we just need good peer *reviewers*.

But having peer reviewers are exactly what is wrong with this thing. It’s a moral hazard, a massive temptation for enforcing conformity.

The greatest advancements in science history have been made against the resistance of the cabal of the majority of those who make a living based on the ideas they believe in, or have vested interest in.

Joao Mageijo, British Royal Fellowship recipient, wrote of his wrestling match with peer reviewers trying to get his paper published on his theory of the variable speed of light.

The article mentions the Krebs Cycle. Consider a recent episode in which a solution to the problem of “P versus NP” was proposed on the Internet directly, no “publishing”, no peer review, straight to the Web. It only took one day for dozens, maybe hundreds, to prove that the “proof” was wrong.

The Internet has already killed any lingering relevance peer review may have had. The Internet, or rather the penetration of interconnected electronic communications networks (doesn’t have to be “the” Internet) involves media that are basic and ubiquitous change to culture and the body politic, that it promises historical upheavals comparable to the discovery of the printing press.

So “peer review” today as a gatekeeper for the scarce resources of paper publication, is defunct. Its defenders are those who have already entrenched themselves in positions of power and authority in their respective disciplines, and wish to protect their emotional and career investments. Or call it “feeling threatened” by the wild free-for-all of the Internet.

Crazy ideas about and are quickly also shot down in the wider context of the Internet, and relegated to the dunce corner. Giving them wide coverage quickly exposes their flaws.

You can now tell which ideas are on shaky ground by how much they depend on peer review today for their continued circulation, in fact. Climate-gate exposed one of those. Creationist scientists’ papers are shut out when the science is sound, because the authoritarians in power “cannot allow a divine foot in the door”. That’s a quote from one of them, in his “explanation” for why scientists hold ideas that make no sense.

It’s like Gamaliel at the council of the Sanhedrin discussing the apostles in the book of Acts. “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” Acts 5:39.

 

The ever-lit light bulb and intellectual property

March 23, 2014

“Friend”, I didn’t mean for the SF bulb to be THE proof, and the other was a meme going around among us of the student rebellion days.

The point is, that if there is or if there were such a patent for a light bulb as one that never burnt out, would anybody *at all* be surprised if we found out that indeed, GE had bought it up and squelched it? A good example how that it is intuitively rational to see the “moral hazard” of a patent regime, however designed.

Your examples do not show an “unreasonable” application of the idea of copyright or patents. There are at least as many stories about the abuse of IP laws as there are about the abuse without them or outside them like your about Edgar Allan Poe’s.

I know of another where somebody rushed to copyright a song that had been in use for many years by fellow missionaries.

Such laws make IP theft and abuse much easier, in fact. Courtney Love wrote a scathing rebuke at the owners who dominated the music industry for their abuse of the system, leaving the real artists out in the cold. My son produces music in Miami Beach. He formed a band with his older brother and a friend and they had five offers he said made sure the big guys made all the money, for which reason the lawyer they got nixed the first four. The fifth one was okay (maybe word got around), but by that time one of them was tired of personality clashes.

There is another instance. The uncle of the founder of a well-known missionary association is the true writer of the movie Cimarron. The Hollywood studio rejected it, sent it back to him, then went ahead and put it on the big screen.

Without IP laws, these examples demonstrate how creators have a better chance of actually reliably enjoying the profit denied them today, especially if we have a true anarcho-capitalist society.

About this comment:

Our current legal structure around intellectual property is the result of political calculations by legislators who are often being influenced by lobbyists from the large media companies and other companies seeking to gain advantage over competitors. The result is confusing and even contradictory laws, but that does not negate the basic fairness of allowing a creator to benefit from his or her creation.

That is absolutely true and NO WAY you make that go away unless you abolish the custom of supporting a gang of any description, call it an IP Court, with the power to impose commercial and trade restrictions on anybody and everybody in the world or any other jurisdictional boundary.

A dictatorship to enforce “fair compensation” for anybody who creates any new anything is to invite oppression. Ayn-randian suicide by a band of “Mouchers”.

I believe in credit where credit is due and do like to see creative power awarded. That is why the mere idea of IP enforcement has made Microsoft one of the biggest parasite organizations in the world.

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

A List of Ways Darwinism and Materialism Hold Back Science

March 23, 2014

 

http://truebook.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/a-list-of-ways-darwinism-and-materialism-hold-back-science/

 

http://truebook.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/a-list-of-ways-darwinism-and-materialism-hold-back-science/

//


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers