In this post I want to make some comments on the effect of Darwinism on language. I'll use an article from the current issue of 'Discover' magazine as an example.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Instinct tells us that sharks are more deadly than delicious fatty foods. Instinct is wrong.' [1.]
- The problem with this claim is the use of the word 'deadly' for both these dangers. E.s seem to delight in abusing language, in endless conflation. A shark is a positive threat, a living organism, a predator that attacks; to put it simply, fat is not. Fat is not an active living entity for one thing. We willingly ingest fat; it does not ingest us. [2.]
Instinct is wrong? Instinct can never be wrong from an evolutionary point of view; instincts just are, they're not right or wrong. There is no right or wrong in evolution. (I wish evolutionists would take their own theory seriously; and stop pretending it is what it is not.) Saying instinct is wrong amounts to saying evolution is progressive, and you know where it's going, and how. Wrong is a theistic concept, and is meaningless apart from it.
We can by this example see how desperate science types are to trash 'traditional' views... to pretend only 'science' can give real answers to questions.
If I like fatty foods and ingest them, they do not consist of a danger; they're a 'risk' I've decided to accept for the sake of pleasure. You cannot call that a 'deadly' danger.
Sharks want to kill, fats do not (they don't want anything).
I get tired of this endless abuse of language in our sci mags. (Are vagueness, imprecision, conflation, obfuscation considered good method these days?)
Fats may kill but they don't lead you left bleeding and torn in the water; they don't deprive you of vitality and effectiveness in your life the way missing an arm or a head might. i.e. the effects are utterly different. (We need fats, although certain kinds of processed fats can be harmful. i.e. it's not the 'instinct' that leads us astray, but the modern food processing industry... you would think this would be an important caveat.)
They ignore the fact different things are dangerous at different times; e.g. we don't fear fats when out for a swim in the ocean, or fear sharks when eating a hamburger. (at least few of us do.)
Fatty foods are not deadly; the fact some (processed ones) can be deadly does not give anyone a warrant for conflating fat and deathly risk. Claiming the fatty foods are deadly amounts to saying x = y; where x is fat and y is deadly, and this is just false. i.e. fatty foods are more than just deadly (if in fact they are; we need to remind readers that much of the modern campaign to vilify fats stems from a belief vegetarianism is a righteous lifestyle and eating meat is evil).
They are delicious, necessary, comforting, healthy, and at times the only available choice, etc. ie. you cannot say F = D; as F includes more than D. (To vilify fatty foods is to hold liberty cheap; something only people with liberty do.)
We see here the desire of the educated to look down on the masses; to imagine the latest findings in Nature = God's own truth. The authors are laughing at the poor deluded masses. (Maybe we should put them on a fat-free diet to atone for their sins, and see how they do.)
You can't equate a death occasioned by great terror, with a death of contented debauchery. You can't equate all dangers; this makes no sense. (Is it good method to claim x, y, and z are all the same thing?)
For better or worse we face many different dangers; some come from without and some come from our own hand. To say fats are deadly is like saying sharks and alcohol are both deadly entities; ignoring the fact one has a mission to see you as a piece of meat and the other is self inflicted. (Is this kind of confusion good method?)
The shark has an aim and an intent while fat does not.
A shark attack is a hundred percent negative, while eating fatty foods is not. (Without fats in our diet our brains would atrophy and implode; no fat = no brain.)
A shark has been designed (in part) as a killing machine; it is what it is becausse of its status as predator.
We can't conflate all fats; there is nothing 'deadly' about natural fats. eg. is salmon deadly? (Is it good method to ignore important distinctions?)
Sharks are hostile, fats are not. (We'll not mention the fact sharks have fat in them, as we don't want to confuse readers who've been victimized by the bad writing of sci mags. Yes; in this sense, fats can be deadly :=}
You can't conflate dying over decades with dying in minutes. (Is it good method to ignore time factors?) I don't think many people would be terrified of shark attacks if they resulted in death over 3-5 decades.
This isn't science; it's PC goofiness. (We used to have the Left wing, and the right wing; now we need a new wing for the politically correct crowd. The PC wing I guess.)
You can see the obvious motivations behind this silly claim. What we see is an attempt to derive morals from science; the attempt to bridge the gap between description and prescription; something that David Hume insisted could not be done. The unstated message is clear (and I find it sad that so much science is now written up as secular sermon) ''don't eat meat; save the planet by becoming a vegetarian."
This attitude reminds me of something taken from Star Trek; the next generation... where humans no longer 'enslave' animals for the purpose of eating them. (In slave we have more conflation, as the same term is used for animals and humans; where it's only applicable for humans.)
You'd have better luck trying to persuade sharks to quit eating meat, than you would at persuading human beings to stop eating fatty foods. Christianity tells us that men have been given the freedom (by God) to eat what they will in the post incarnation era. Each person must decide for themselves what is best, what best conforms to their conscience. We have no right to ever violate God's will for our lives (revealed through his laws and commandments) but we do have the right to eat meat and fatty foods. They are not deadly; what is deadly is sin.
Summary;
- Behind the Darwinian misuse of language lies a monistic model of reality; the idea that all things (being merely matter in motion) are essentially one, and are connected in a chain of being from a common ancestry. (That this is speculative vision imposed on reality will become clear in the years to come, if I'm any good at guessing, as even with the evolutionary camp people are beginning to question and even reject the common ancestor idea.)
This is the rationale (conscious or unconscious) for using the same terms for both animals and humans (for all things in fact). e.g. animal behavior described in moral terms, the conflation of animal 'tool making' and human tool making, the 'language' of animals and humans, and so on. This abuse has become rampant, and constitutes a danger to any traditional notion of civilization.
- Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. Discover; July/August 2011
What You Don't Know Can Kill You
'Instinct tells us that sharks are more deadly than delicious fatty foods. Instinct is wrong. Risk analysts take on evolution.'
2. Why is fat delicious if it's a negative thing? The materialist has to explain this in evolutionary terms.
3. Man before the Fall was a vegetarian, and only after the Fall became a meat eater. During the era of Israel, there were strict dietary laws. After Christ men were given the right to eat as they thought best. In heaven? I don't know. It may be that we won't eat there at all. I take this to mean (contra Vegetarians, and Paleos) that there is no one diet that is best for all people at all times.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The uniqueness of Christianity; as evidence for its veracity
The popular atheists of our day like to lump all religions (and revelations) together, and so confuse the issue of Christianity's uniqueness.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Nowhere else in human literature, we believe, is the concept of an absolute God presented. And this fact is once more intimately related to the fact that nowhere else is there a conception of sin, such as that presented in the bible.'' [1.]
- Despite the attempts of non-Christians to confuse the matter, the God of the bible is utterly unique; as are other doctrines that concern; creation, sin, the Fall, dominion, redemption, antithesis, evil, special revelation, natural revelation, prophecy, miracles, the incarnation, the atonement, the final judgment, etc.
Other worldviews may appear to have some of these elements, but they turn out to be partial imitations at best. In the biblical view this is evidence for the claim Christianity is both a revealed religion, and the only revealed religion. Neither its God or its main doctrines are appealing to the natural man, so it would appear to be absurd to claim they are human inventions.
Doesn't the hatred these doctrines have been subjected to negate the idea they are human inventions? Why would men invent doctrines they hate?
The answer the non-Christian (e.g. materialist) will make, is that it's very true they weren't invented by reasonable men (e.g. atheists), but were instead invented by men who delighted in their irrationality and perversity. It's my contention that no natural man (and these are the only kind there are if the materialist is correct) would invent such doctrines.
Only after men have received grace do they find any of these doctrines appealing - and even so, its mainly their perceived need that moves them to do so, not their obvious attractiveness or beauty. e.g. the convert to Christianity doesn't see Christ on the cross (atoning for the sins of the annointed) a beautiful thing, but a necessary thing.
If he's a true Christian his heart will break at the thought such a horrific thing had to happen, be reminded of his guilt and thankful for his salvation. (The atheist finds the atonement offensive because he doesn't believe it was necessary.)
2. ''According to the bible, sin has set man at enmity against God.'' [1.]
- To the best of my knowledge the bible is the only book that tells us man is an enemy of God. When people like Richard Dawkins present themselves as enemies of god (and religion), what they mean is that they are enemies of these (false) notions of God. Since they don't believe God exists, they can hardly be (in their minds) his enemies. They thus deny (or reject) the Bible's claim that they are (in reality) enemies of God.
This difference is crucial, as we can hardly expect that the natural man invented a doctrine that claimed he was an enemy (in reality) of God. (i.e. the God who exists)
The fact atheist types deny God exists rather than announcing their rebellion to the living God, is ample evidence this doctrine was not invented. The natural man after all wants to present himself as fair minded, willing to go where the evidence leads - and he can hardly do this if he admits God exists, but then rejects him in rebellion.
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 517.
2. The atheist believes that he can save himself, and thus (or so he claims) finds the atonement offensive.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Nowhere else in human literature, we believe, is the concept of an absolute God presented. And this fact is once more intimately related to the fact that nowhere else is there a conception of sin, such as that presented in the bible.'' [1.]
- Despite the attempts of non-Christians to confuse the matter, the God of the bible is utterly unique; as are other doctrines that concern; creation, sin, the Fall, dominion, redemption, antithesis, evil, special revelation, natural revelation, prophecy, miracles, the incarnation, the atonement, the final judgment, etc.
Other worldviews may appear to have some of these elements, but they turn out to be partial imitations at best. In the biblical view this is evidence for the claim Christianity is both a revealed religion, and the only revealed religion. Neither its God or its main doctrines are appealing to the natural man, so it would appear to be absurd to claim they are human inventions.
Doesn't the hatred these doctrines have been subjected to negate the idea they are human inventions? Why would men invent doctrines they hate?
The answer the non-Christian (e.g. materialist) will make, is that it's very true they weren't invented by reasonable men (e.g. atheists), but were instead invented by men who delighted in their irrationality and perversity. It's my contention that no natural man (and these are the only kind there are if the materialist is correct) would invent such doctrines.
Only after men have received grace do they find any of these doctrines appealing - and even so, its mainly their perceived need that moves them to do so, not their obvious attractiveness or beauty. e.g. the convert to Christianity doesn't see Christ on the cross (atoning for the sins of the annointed) a beautiful thing, but a necessary thing.
If he's a true Christian his heart will break at the thought such a horrific thing had to happen, be reminded of his guilt and thankful for his salvation. (The atheist finds the atonement offensive because he doesn't believe it was necessary.)
2. ''According to the bible, sin has set man at enmity against God.'' [1.]
- To the best of my knowledge the bible is the only book that tells us man is an enemy of God. When people like Richard Dawkins present themselves as enemies of god (and religion), what they mean is that they are enemies of these (false) notions of God. Since they don't believe God exists, they can hardly be (in their minds) his enemies. They thus deny (or reject) the Bible's claim that they are (in reality) enemies of God.
This difference is crucial, as we can hardly expect that the natural man invented a doctrine that claimed he was an enemy (in reality) of God. (i.e. the God who exists)
The fact atheist types deny God exists rather than announcing their rebellion to the living God, is ample evidence this doctrine was not invented. The natural man after all wants to present himself as fair minded, willing to go where the evidence leads - and he can hardly do this if he admits God exists, but then rejects him in rebellion.
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 517.
2. The atheist believes that he can save himself, and thus (or so he claims) finds the atonement offensive.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Stephen Hawking and the search for heaven
In one of my favorite unaired episodes of star trek, Stephen Hawking is a scientist onboard the Enterprise, and they go in quest of a place called heaven. It turns out to be a place built by beings from another galaxy, that gives people access to other universes.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said. [2.]
- How does he know this? Unless he knows everyone on earth personally, all he can do is assume (without justification) that everyone is like him. There's no science in such a claim; it's completely without warrant.
2. 'PhysOrg told about 40 studies in 20 countries that indicated belief in an afterlife is “hardwired” into the human brain. “The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.” [1.]
- predisposed by what?
- hardwired? how?
- Isn't 'heaven' just a matter of conscious beings being able to imagine various possibilities? (i.e. generic heaven, or generic life after death)
Isn't atheism largely a matter of a certain personality type who loves raining on other people's parades? Isn't there an element of sadism in it? a kill joy spirit? I think atheism stems largely from a dialectical response to theism; that if there were no theists there would be no a-theists, that if there were no theists people like RD would be comfortable speculating on the deity... should such a new development emerge in human culture.
3. 'The 57 researchers were not out to establish the validity of beliefs but to determine whether they are innate or learned. One researcher commented, “Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact.” [1.]
- Clearly different people find it easier to think in certain ways; we make a grievous mistake in assuming people are the same, and have the same metaphysical tendencies, likes and dislikes.
This isn't an either or question in my opinion.
4. “If you think of your body as a machine, it’s kind of hard to believe in life after death,” Heflick said. “You’re not going to be able to think of yourself as a spirit.” [1.]
- Materialists haven't been able to understand human consciousness because (for one reason) they see the body as a machine. Machines aren't creative but human beings are. Machines don't have freedom but humans do. Machines are not able to converse, not able to talk, and human beings are. Machines know nothing of words and language, while human beings do. (I realize machines can be made to 'talk' in the sense of producing audible words; but I see this as simulation, not really conversation. Machines can't engage in conversation because they have no self; no personality.)
I believe the key to human consciousness might well be, ''In the beginning was the word..." If man needed words to have thought, and needed thought to have words, it would appear we see in this (chicken and egg type) conundrum evidence for special creation.
The materialist has the problem of telling us how a person can think before they have words, how they can invent language without any words to use as tools, etc. [3.]
If we think of spirit as information we can imagine a new life after death; imagine we exist purely in terms of information prior to being 'reborn' (reincarnated) in a physical form. (I hate to bring Star Trek into it, but if Captain Kirk can be 'dematerialized' and later materialized then I see no reason people can't survive physical death. ie. where is he when he's being beamed up? doesn't he exist solely as information? doesn't he exist in some computer network?)
I hate to speculate (alright I don't) but if Seth Lloyd can claim the universe is a computer, then why can't God (as information) exist on this computer? He wouldn't be equal to it; no more than a womb inhabitant is equal to his mother, but, having his own separate DNA, is separate from her, although dependent upon her.
I'm not saying this is the case; I'm just pointing out that the existence of God-as-spirit is theoretically possible. I personally have no idea how God can exist as spirit, or even what this means exactly; I'm content to have it be a mystery.
Notes;
1. Cosmology, Mythology, and Heaven Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/16/2011
May 16, 2011 — Stephen Hawking’s recent comment that heaven is a fairy tale (see The Guardian) started blogger keystrokes clicking. But one might ask, what does he know about it? Are the opinions of a cosmologist any better than those of a theologian?
2. Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'
We see how arrogant the man is, not only in this claim, but in almost everything he says or writes; he clearly suffers from megalomania.
2a. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.
- You can't get much more patronizing than that can you?
2b. "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.
- Science predicts no such thing. The fact some scientists make this claim is an entirely different matter, and is a claim that may or may not be true. (I give it a one in a quadrillion chance of being true.)
Is personification (and reification) good scientific method? People like Hawking labor hard to make the project of discovery (science) into a kind of infallible god. They clearly show the need for an ultimate authority in their lives; even if it's an impersonal thing like science. Science is a god who is deaf, dumb and blind; and thus one who is forced to speak via scientists... which makes scientists the ultimate authority in culture. (A position they jealousy guard.)
3. The key to understanding human consciousness is throwing out the idea man evolved from an ape like creature without language. I believe only the biblical creation model can lead to an understanding of human consciousness. I don't believe the materialist will ever comprehend it (i.e. in terms of matter in motion).
4. Unaired because non-existent.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'A belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said. [2.]
- How does he know this? Unless he knows everyone on earth personally, all he can do is assume (without justification) that everyone is like him. There's no science in such a claim; it's completely without warrant.
2. 'PhysOrg told about 40 studies in 20 countries that indicated belief in an afterlife is “hardwired” into the human brain. “The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.” [1.]
- predisposed by what?
- hardwired? how?
- Isn't 'heaven' just a matter of conscious beings being able to imagine various possibilities? (i.e. generic heaven, or generic life after death)
Isn't atheism largely a matter of a certain personality type who loves raining on other people's parades? Isn't there an element of sadism in it? a kill joy spirit? I think atheism stems largely from a dialectical response to theism; that if there were no theists there would be no a-theists, that if there were no theists people like RD would be comfortable speculating on the deity... should such a new development emerge in human culture.
3. 'The 57 researchers were not out to establish the validity of beliefs but to determine whether they are innate or learned. One researcher commented, “Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact.” [1.]
- Clearly different people find it easier to think in certain ways; we make a grievous mistake in assuming people are the same, and have the same metaphysical tendencies, likes and dislikes.
This isn't an either or question in my opinion.
4. “If you think of your body as a machine, it’s kind of hard to believe in life after death,” Heflick said. “You’re not going to be able to think of yourself as a spirit.” [1.]
- Materialists haven't been able to understand human consciousness because (for one reason) they see the body as a machine. Machines aren't creative but human beings are. Machines don't have freedom but humans do. Machines are not able to converse, not able to talk, and human beings are. Machines know nothing of words and language, while human beings do. (I realize machines can be made to 'talk' in the sense of producing audible words; but I see this as simulation, not really conversation. Machines can't engage in conversation because they have no self; no personality.)
I believe the key to human consciousness might well be, ''In the beginning was the word..." If man needed words to have thought, and needed thought to have words, it would appear we see in this (chicken and egg type) conundrum evidence for special creation.
The materialist has the problem of telling us how a person can think before they have words, how they can invent language without any words to use as tools, etc. [3.]
If we think of spirit as information we can imagine a new life after death; imagine we exist purely in terms of information prior to being 'reborn' (reincarnated) in a physical form. (I hate to bring Star Trek into it, but if Captain Kirk can be 'dematerialized' and later materialized then I see no reason people can't survive physical death. ie. where is he when he's being beamed up? doesn't he exist solely as information? doesn't he exist in some computer network?)
I hate to speculate (alright I don't) but if Seth Lloyd can claim the universe is a computer, then why can't God (as information) exist on this computer? He wouldn't be equal to it; no more than a womb inhabitant is equal to his mother, but, having his own separate DNA, is separate from her, although dependent upon her.
I'm not saying this is the case; I'm just pointing out that the existence of God-as-spirit is theoretically possible. I personally have no idea how God can exist as spirit, or even what this means exactly; I'm content to have it be a mystery.
Notes;
1. Cosmology, Mythology, and Heaven Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/16/2011
May 16, 2011 — Stephen Hawking’s recent comment that heaven is a fairy tale (see The Guardian) started blogger keystrokes clicking. But one might ask, what does he know about it? Are the opinions of a cosmologist any better than those of a theologian?
2. Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'
We see how arrogant the man is, not only in this claim, but in almost everything he says or writes; he clearly suffers from megalomania.
2a. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark," he added.
- You can't get much more patronizing than that can you?
2b. "Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in," he said.
- Science predicts no such thing. The fact some scientists make this claim is an entirely different matter, and is a claim that may or may not be true. (I give it a one in a quadrillion chance of being true.)
Is personification (and reification) good scientific method? People like Hawking labor hard to make the project of discovery (science) into a kind of infallible god. They clearly show the need for an ultimate authority in their lives; even if it's an impersonal thing like science. Science is a god who is deaf, dumb and blind; and thus one who is forced to speak via scientists... which makes scientists the ultimate authority in culture. (A position they jealousy guard.)
3. The key to understanding human consciousness is throwing out the idea man evolved from an ape like creature without language. I believe only the biblical creation model can lead to an understanding of human consciousness. I don't believe the materialist will ever comprehend it (i.e. in terms of matter in motion).
4. Unaired because non-existent.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The new scientific proof of aliens
With the advent of the new visualization science (known more popularly as the new mind science) it is now possible to prove, without a shred (or shedding) of doubt that intelligent alien life forms do in fact exist. (That was not a misprint or a misquote. see below)
Quotes and comments;
1. ''If you visualize evolutionary relationships in the form of branching diagrams and then plot them on a time scale, new patterns begin to emerge, with gaps in the fossil record suddenly filling rapidly.”
- Yes, exactly; that's Darwinism in a nutshell.
We have the new atheism, and now we have the new science. We might call it the science of the mind. (Not that the mind exists of course, but we speak loosely.)
Yes; the new mind science, where anything is possible, even life from non-life. What did that jerk Pasteur know anyway; he lived before the new mind science was invented.
Patterns begin to 'emerge' they tell us. Yes, that's about all 'emergence' is; it's the formation of patterns in the brain. Life didn't arise from inert matter in the real world, but in the mind. This makes life on earth about a hundred years old. (Now that's what I call a young earth.)
Apparently this 'fossil record' exists in the mind, or (as real scientists say) in the brain. I agree. I've long contended the textbook version of the fossil record existed mainly in the brain. ("Reality? Who needs that?")
I think we all have to admit that this is certainly an easier way to do science. (Now even people in Cuba, or in hospital beds can do cutting edge science.)
2. 'One of the team members elaborated on the success of visualization and imagination as gap-filling strategies. “It is as if ghosts from the past appear all of a sudden and join their relatives in a big family tree – you have a bigger tree,” he said. [1.]
- Ah yes; Darwinian ghosts, my favorite kind. They populate the pages of textbooks and science mags by the millions. (Cast one out and seven return.)
Yes; the new visualization science... I like it. Before we know it we'll have aliens on the Tree of life, all kinds of them, stretching out beyond mankind.... filling in all the cosmic gaps. This is going to be great. I can hardly wait.
It's going to be a big project transferring all the aliens from SF to the new Evolutionary tree, but I think it's going to be worth it. It's definitely going to be a bigger tree; a much bigger tree.
Nothing like imagination to fill in all those missing links. Who said they would never be found. (The creationists have been proven wrong yet again.) I only hope I can get in on the project, I have a lot of 'creatures' I'd like to add to the tree. The new cosmic tree outdoes the old in that it stretches from one end of the universe to the other.
In the new visualization science if you can imagine something it automatically comes true. (It's all a matter of quantum physics no doubt.) It's the new Ontological argument. (From the new atheists to the new ontologists.)
This may well mean (further study will decide for sure) that every alien imagined by a SF writer is alive and well somewhere in the universe; that via imagination they somehow intuited reality. This is exciting.
3. “This way, you can start analysing observed and extrapolated abundance of species through time, and you can quantify novel origination and extinction events that would otherwise go unnoticed if you were to look at known finds only.”
- What do we call this? the trivialization of reality?
If you can study none existent species on earth, why can't you use this method to study aliens? Aren't they unnoticed merely because they haven't been found? Why should that be held against them? Because they haven't been found doesn't mean they don't exist. That would be as absurd as saying the billions of missing links don't exist because we can't find them. (And surely no one believes that.)
They have to exist, we know that by studying evolutionary theory; their existence is every bit as certain as ours is. We can no more doubt them than we can doubt the earth orbits the big thing out there, you know, that thing that looks hot.
4. 'Another co-author of the paper emphasized the role of “evolutionary thinking” as a substitute for real bones: “Classic text-book views of waxing and waning of groups through deep time will certainly benefit, where possible, from the use of evolutionary thinking.”
- I nominate evolutionary thinking as a substitute for the bones of aliens. (I want to make it clear that I'm not saying I think all aliens have bones. Don't misquote me.)
I like evolutionary thinking, it's almost as good as real thinking, and much easier.
5. 'A peer from the University of Washington seemed delighted with this first-ever detailed study of parareptile relationships, because “we still know very little about their biology.” [1.]
- Well; why do we have to know anything? That's the real question. It's simply old fashioned (part of the old science) to think you have to have some real data before you can study an organism. If you have theory you have all you need, as you can simply visualize the rest. (Whether or not you need to use a crystal is really beside the point, and I don't think we have to get into it at this point.)
6. 'The abstract states that they provided “Phylogeny-corrected measures of diversity” and examined “ghost lineages” – i.e., lineages that should be there if evolution were true, but left no fossils. [1.]
- The mere fact aliens haven't left fossils doesn't mean they don't exist (did I say this before? I'm so excited I can't remember), we know they exist, and since it's technically difficult to visit every planet in the galaxy, it's a perfectly acceptable alternative to just imagine them. It's the new science; and the new science can't be bound by the old (data dependent) science.
It's time to move on; to move beyond the earth and our small, local evolutionary tree, and scamper out onto the branches of the cosmic tree.
In summary,
We can see how the new visualization science promises to shed light into hitherto unnoticed areas of the evolutionary model (dare we say universe). Congratulations team, from all of us here at Thinking About Creation.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. How to Fill In Missing Fossils: Imagine Them - Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/09/2011 May 09, 2011 — Evolutionists have long known of systematic gaps in the fossil record. This has been a frequent criticism lodged by Darwin skeptics against the evolutionary notion of a gradually unfolding tree of life. Now, however, it appears that evolutionists have revived use of a tool in their arsenal for combating the critics: imagination. Missing transitions in the record? No problem. Fill them in with “evolutionary thinking.”
2. The anti-creationist Dr. Greg House was quoted as saying, ''Cool!" and popped another Vicodin. I guess that about says it all.
3. This article gives us an example of why Darwinism is unfalsifiable. In the words of the website commentary (which we assume was authored by DC) "You can’t sink an imaginary ship on an imaginary ocean."
4. 'The team led by Dr Marcello Ruta of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences ... used the evolutionary relationships among known parareptiles to produce a corrected estimate of changing diversity through time.
- They don't 'know' what these relationships are; they just have a model they've fashioned that's to their liking... and they assume it in all they do. This isn't discovery, but interpretation and model building. (Why bother? that's my question. I thought there was supposed to be a drastic shortage of scientists. Is this the best way to employ these people :=}
They can't 'correct' anything since they have no observational data. (Their theories etc. are based on an interpretative model of the fossil rocks; on a model, not data.) Data without interpretation (theory) is meaningless. It's human beings who put (interject) meaning into the data. Interpretations are rarely scientific, but cultural or philosophical spin.
Quotes and comments;
1. ''If you visualize evolutionary relationships in the form of branching diagrams and then plot them on a time scale, new patterns begin to emerge, with gaps in the fossil record suddenly filling rapidly.”
- Yes, exactly; that's Darwinism in a nutshell.
We have the new atheism, and now we have the new science. We might call it the science of the mind. (Not that the mind exists of course, but we speak loosely.)
Yes; the new mind science, where anything is possible, even life from non-life. What did that jerk Pasteur know anyway; he lived before the new mind science was invented.
Patterns begin to 'emerge' they tell us. Yes, that's about all 'emergence' is; it's the formation of patterns in the brain. Life didn't arise from inert matter in the real world, but in the mind. This makes life on earth about a hundred years old. (Now that's what I call a young earth.)
Apparently this 'fossil record' exists in the mind, or (as real scientists say) in the brain. I agree. I've long contended the textbook version of the fossil record existed mainly in the brain. ("Reality? Who needs that?")
I think we all have to admit that this is certainly an easier way to do science. (Now even people in Cuba, or in hospital beds can do cutting edge science.)
2. 'One of the team members elaborated on the success of visualization and imagination as gap-filling strategies. “It is as if ghosts from the past appear all of a sudden and join their relatives in a big family tree – you have a bigger tree,” he said. [1.]
- Ah yes; Darwinian ghosts, my favorite kind. They populate the pages of textbooks and science mags by the millions. (Cast one out and seven return.)
Yes; the new visualization science... I like it. Before we know it we'll have aliens on the Tree of life, all kinds of them, stretching out beyond mankind.... filling in all the cosmic gaps. This is going to be great. I can hardly wait.
It's going to be a big project transferring all the aliens from SF to the new Evolutionary tree, but I think it's going to be worth it. It's definitely going to be a bigger tree; a much bigger tree.
Nothing like imagination to fill in all those missing links. Who said they would never be found. (The creationists have been proven wrong yet again.) I only hope I can get in on the project, I have a lot of 'creatures' I'd like to add to the tree. The new cosmic tree outdoes the old in that it stretches from one end of the universe to the other.
In the new visualization science if you can imagine something it automatically comes true. (It's all a matter of quantum physics no doubt.) It's the new Ontological argument. (From the new atheists to the new ontologists.)
This may well mean (further study will decide for sure) that every alien imagined by a SF writer is alive and well somewhere in the universe; that via imagination they somehow intuited reality. This is exciting.
3. “This way, you can start analysing observed and extrapolated abundance of species through time, and you can quantify novel origination and extinction events that would otherwise go unnoticed if you were to look at known finds only.”
- What do we call this? the trivialization of reality?
If you can study none existent species on earth, why can't you use this method to study aliens? Aren't they unnoticed merely because they haven't been found? Why should that be held against them? Because they haven't been found doesn't mean they don't exist. That would be as absurd as saying the billions of missing links don't exist because we can't find them. (And surely no one believes that.)
They have to exist, we know that by studying evolutionary theory; their existence is every bit as certain as ours is. We can no more doubt them than we can doubt the earth orbits the big thing out there, you know, that thing that looks hot.
4. 'Another co-author of the paper emphasized the role of “evolutionary thinking” as a substitute for real bones: “Classic text-book views of waxing and waning of groups through deep time will certainly benefit, where possible, from the use of evolutionary thinking.”
- I nominate evolutionary thinking as a substitute for the bones of aliens. (I want to make it clear that I'm not saying I think all aliens have bones. Don't misquote me.)
I like evolutionary thinking, it's almost as good as real thinking, and much easier.
5. 'A peer from the University of Washington seemed delighted with this first-ever detailed study of parareptile relationships, because “we still know very little about their biology.” [1.]
- Well; why do we have to know anything? That's the real question. It's simply old fashioned (part of the old science) to think you have to have some real data before you can study an organism. If you have theory you have all you need, as you can simply visualize the rest. (Whether or not you need to use a crystal is really beside the point, and I don't think we have to get into it at this point.)
6. 'The abstract states that they provided “Phylogeny-corrected measures of diversity” and examined “ghost lineages” – i.e., lineages that should be there if evolution were true, but left no fossils. [1.]
- The mere fact aliens haven't left fossils doesn't mean they don't exist (did I say this before? I'm so excited I can't remember), we know they exist, and since it's technically difficult to visit every planet in the galaxy, it's a perfectly acceptable alternative to just imagine them. It's the new science; and the new science can't be bound by the old (data dependent) science.
It's time to move on; to move beyond the earth and our small, local evolutionary tree, and scamper out onto the branches of the cosmic tree.
In summary,
We can see how the new visualization science promises to shed light into hitherto unnoticed areas of the evolutionary model (dare we say universe). Congratulations team, from all of us here at Thinking About Creation.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. How to Fill In Missing Fossils: Imagine Them - Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/09/2011 May 09, 2011 — Evolutionists have long known of systematic gaps in the fossil record. This has been a frequent criticism lodged by Darwin skeptics against the evolutionary notion of a gradually unfolding tree of life. Now, however, it appears that evolutionists have revived use of a tool in their arsenal for combating the critics: imagination. Missing transitions in the record? No problem. Fill them in with “evolutionary thinking.”
2. The anti-creationist Dr. Greg House was quoted as saying, ''Cool!" and popped another Vicodin. I guess that about says it all.
3. This article gives us an example of why Darwinism is unfalsifiable. In the words of the website commentary (which we assume was authored by DC) "You can’t sink an imaginary ship on an imaginary ocean."
4. 'The team led by Dr Marcello Ruta of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences ... used the evolutionary relationships among known parareptiles to produce a corrected estimate of changing diversity through time.
- They don't 'know' what these relationships are; they just have a model they've fashioned that's to their liking... and they assume it in all they do. This isn't discovery, but interpretation and model building. (Why bother? that's my question. I thought there was supposed to be a drastic shortage of scientists. Is this the best way to employ these people :=}
They can't 'correct' anything since they have no observational data. (Their theories etc. are based on an interpretative model of the fossil rocks; on a model, not data.) Data without interpretation (theory) is meaningless. It's human beings who put (interject) meaning into the data. Interpretations are rarely scientific, but cultural or philosophical spin.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The night has a thousand eyes
I've got a few comments from a story in Creation/Evolution Headlines. (My favorite website on the Origins issue, and one I recommend highly.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'You have a biological version of Photoshop in your eyes. That’s what Richard Robinson said in PLoS Biology.
"The eye is not a camera, and the retina is not a piece of film. Indeed, the retina might be better likened to a computer running Photoshop, given the extent of image processing that it performs before passing visual information along to the brain.'' [1.]
- So much for the 'idea' of Dawkins that the eye is a badly designed camera. What we see is that materialists always (always) underestimate the complexity of things. This is an unfailing rule; it's been true as long as the materialists have been giving us pronouncements (let's say several centuries, or more)
Believing that inert matter is the creator of all things, they necessarily believed that all things would be simple; and they've been proven wrong a million times. (Not that it's given them any humility; which is a story in itself, as you wonder how this is possible, how any creature could be so thick, so obtuse.)
The creationist on the other hand believes that an infinitely wise God created all things, and therefore is not surprised to see how complex things are (not that he's not astounded, not that he could have predicted the complexity in its details).
Over and over we see that biological organisms are not like machines but like software. This means that they were created by code not by mechanical application of physical laws working on matter; it means the source of all things is intelligence, not matter in motion, not random chance.
It takes intelligence to see, to produce vision; not mere mechanics. Matter couldn't build an eye because it has no intelligence and no foresight; has no goals. It takes intelligence to create code; as software is developed with a particular purpose in mind.
While it's a great feat to produce a Photoshop like piece of software (to run on a computer) it's orders of magnitude greater to produce 'Photoshop' in a living organism. By any reasonable analogy we should expect a greater intelligence was behind it, and that if it takes intelligence to operate Photoshop it takes intelligence to make eyesight possible, to write the code that makes it all happen automatically. (Despite what materialists say, the ID deduction is a sound one.)
This doesn't prove ID, but it makes any other explanation far more unlikely.
Dawkins was so impatient to dump on creation that he denounced the eye long before he had a clue what was involved in the process of human vision. The man has made a career of jumping to conclusions; to false conclusions that is. What sense does it make to critique something you don't understand? (But then, he's made a career out of doing just that.)
2. 'Robinson was discussing a new find from UC Berkeley that the retina employs both positive feedback and negative feedback systems to improve imaging, something that researchers had missed before in 50 years of study. [1.]
- And what else have they missed?
Every day the materialist has more and more 'miracles' to explain; explain by the process of blind chance and chemical reactions. Every day he sinks deeper into the quicksand. When his head finally goes under he'll realize how little of life he ever saw correctly.
Feedback systems are all the evidence anyone needs to junk the idea of undirected materialism having created the biosphere. There are no feedback systems in inert matter; feedback systems have to be designed and built.
3. “The human eye long ago solved a problem common to both digital and film cameras: how to get good contrast in an image while also capturing faint detail,” the article said, with the headline announcing that the eye does the better job. [1.]
- Matter doesn't (cannot) solve problems, because it has none. What problems could a rock possibly have? How to pay the taxes :=}
Only personal agents solve problems; only intelligent agents solve difficult problems. If the eye works better than any digital camera, it's because it had a designer more intelligent than man. If RD can't see that, it's because he doesn't want to. (Maybe the eye only 'appears' to work better than a camera, maybe it only 'appears' to work like software, maybe it only appears to make the critique of dawkins obsolete and fallacious. Yes, that must be it; it only 'appears' that RD is wrong about things.
4. 'Speaking of vision, eyesight has been found where biologists might have least expected it – in sea urchins... European scientists publishing in PNAS show that the spines transmit light to the animal, making these pincushion-critters like big eyeballs on the seafloor; “we suggest a model in which the entire sea urchin, deploying its skeleton as PRC [photoreceptor cell] screening device, functions as a huge compound eye,” the authors said.
Warning; Speculation ahead;
- The eyes of God are upon us; not figuratively, but literally. ('The night has a thousand eyes' might well be the name of a hymn.)
"Shall he who made the eye not see?" wrote the Psalmist. Every ear and every eye belongs to God; how could he not see or hear?
"By every word you have spoken, shall you be judged." (If all is connected, and matter once created cannot be destroyed, no information is ever lost, and all is available to God.)
M. Johnson
Notes;
The Eyes Have It: Pro Software Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/05/2011
May 05, 2011 — You have a biological version of Photoshop in your eyes. That’s what Richard Robinson, a freelance science writer from Massachusetts, said in PLoS Biology.
2. When I say creationist, unless otherwise noted, I mean biblical creationist.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'You have a biological version of Photoshop in your eyes. That’s what Richard Robinson said in PLoS Biology.
"The eye is not a camera, and the retina is not a piece of film. Indeed, the retina might be better likened to a computer running Photoshop, given the extent of image processing that it performs before passing visual information along to the brain.'' [1.]
- So much for the 'idea' of Dawkins that the eye is a badly designed camera. What we see is that materialists always (always) underestimate the complexity of things. This is an unfailing rule; it's been true as long as the materialists have been giving us pronouncements (let's say several centuries, or more)
Believing that inert matter is the creator of all things, they necessarily believed that all things would be simple; and they've been proven wrong a million times. (Not that it's given them any humility; which is a story in itself, as you wonder how this is possible, how any creature could be so thick, so obtuse.)
The creationist on the other hand believes that an infinitely wise God created all things, and therefore is not surprised to see how complex things are (not that he's not astounded, not that he could have predicted the complexity in its details).
Over and over we see that biological organisms are not like machines but like software. This means that they were created by code not by mechanical application of physical laws working on matter; it means the source of all things is intelligence, not matter in motion, not random chance.
It takes intelligence to see, to produce vision; not mere mechanics. Matter couldn't build an eye because it has no intelligence and no foresight; has no goals. It takes intelligence to create code; as software is developed with a particular purpose in mind.
While it's a great feat to produce a Photoshop like piece of software (to run on a computer) it's orders of magnitude greater to produce 'Photoshop' in a living organism. By any reasonable analogy we should expect a greater intelligence was behind it, and that if it takes intelligence to operate Photoshop it takes intelligence to make eyesight possible, to write the code that makes it all happen automatically. (Despite what materialists say, the ID deduction is a sound one.)
This doesn't prove ID, but it makes any other explanation far more unlikely.
Dawkins was so impatient to dump on creation that he denounced the eye long before he had a clue what was involved in the process of human vision. The man has made a career of jumping to conclusions; to false conclusions that is. What sense does it make to critique something you don't understand? (But then, he's made a career out of doing just that.)
2. 'Robinson was discussing a new find from UC Berkeley that the retina employs both positive feedback and negative feedback systems to improve imaging, something that researchers had missed before in 50 years of study. [1.]
- And what else have they missed?
Every day the materialist has more and more 'miracles' to explain; explain by the process of blind chance and chemical reactions. Every day he sinks deeper into the quicksand. When his head finally goes under he'll realize how little of life he ever saw correctly.
Feedback systems are all the evidence anyone needs to junk the idea of undirected materialism having created the biosphere. There are no feedback systems in inert matter; feedback systems have to be designed and built.
3. “The human eye long ago solved a problem common to both digital and film cameras: how to get good contrast in an image while also capturing faint detail,” the article said, with the headline announcing that the eye does the better job. [1.]
- Matter doesn't (cannot) solve problems, because it has none. What problems could a rock possibly have? How to pay the taxes :=}
Only personal agents solve problems; only intelligent agents solve difficult problems. If the eye works better than any digital camera, it's because it had a designer more intelligent than man. If RD can't see that, it's because he doesn't want to. (Maybe the eye only 'appears' to work better than a camera, maybe it only 'appears' to work like software, maybe it only appears to make the critique of dawkins obsolete and fallacious. Yes, that must be it; it only 'appears' that RD is wrong about things.
4. 'Speaking of vision, eyesight has been found where biologists might have least expected it – in sea urchins... European scientists publishing in PNAS show that the spines transmit light to the animal, making these pincushion-critters like big eyeballs on the seafloor; “we suggest a model in which the entire sea urchin, deploying its skeleton as PRC [photoreceptor cell] screening device, functions as a huge compound eye,” the authors said.
Warning; Speculation ahead;
- The eyes of God are upon us; not figuratively, but literally. ('The night has a thousand eyes' might well be the name of a hymn.)
"Shall he who made the eye not see?" wrote the Psalmist. Every ear and every eye belongs to God; how could he not see or hear?
"By every word you have spoken, shall you be judged." (If all is connected, and matter once created cannot be destroyed, no information is ever lost, and all is available to God.)
M. Johnson
Notes;
The Eyes Have It: Pro Software Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/05/2011
May 05, 2011 — You have a biological version of Photoshop in your eyes. That’s what Richard Robinson, a freelance science writer from Massachusetts, said in PLoS Biology.
2. When I say creationist, unless otherwise noted, I mean biblical creationist.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Is Darwinism cracking at the seams?
Anomalies to the textbook version of evolution theory continue to be uncovered, but they don't seem to unsettle its adherents. One wonders how much evidence it will take to disprove the materialist model of origins.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'A good scientific theory should predict what is observed. When the theory is confronted with unexpected evidence, should the theory be jettisoned or modified?
'George Poinar at Oregon State is trying to put together the evolution of nematodes (roundworms), which he thinks originated a billion years ago as one of the earliest forms of multicellular life. Here is his explanation for their origin: “They literally emerged from the primordial ooze.” [1.]
- Now that's science boys and girls, not that silly creationist stuff; here we have hard science.
Over half seem parasitic. How can creatures that emerge from the mud be parasites? What would they be parasites on? (i.e. if the were the first or nearly the first creatures to evolve out of the mud.)
2. 'Even though Poinar just wrote a book on nematode evolution, “There’s still a huge amount we don’t know about nematodes,” he admitted – like maybe how something this complex could literally emerge from ooze.
- This 'problem' of nematode emergence is only a problem if you believe the fossil layers reveal the history of billions of years of evolution. It seems clear to me that they don't; and I offer this as evidence. Mud doesn't evolve people... at least not the mud where I live. It seems resistant to evolution for some reason.
Apparently evolution requires mud capable of evolving. Where you get this mud no one seems to know. Maybe instead of looking for the missing link, people should look for the missing mud.
How evolution can be a 'fact' when scientists don't even know where the nematode came from, I don't know. (Maybe the answer is buried in the mud.) Evolution is basically a mud science I guess; if you have evolvable mud, then you can be sure something will emerge from the mud (complete with a body of working parts).
When God fashions Adam out of the mud (clay) it's seen as a fairy tale, when the mud itself fashions a creature it's seen as science :=}
Mud without intelligence is mud my friends; don't we at least know that much after all our studies?
"It's miracle making mud folks, if you're set to create a new planetary world, get yourself some today. It's guaranteed intelligence free."
3. Evolution by subtraction:
'Clearly, a huge amount of new genetic information would have had to accompany the growth of Darwin’s tree of life from root to branch tips. It would also be expected that closely related species would have closely related genomes. That’s apparently not the case with the lab plant Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) and the lyre-leaved rock cress.
A press release from Max Planck Institute began, “It would appear reasonable to assume that two closely related plant species would have similar genetic blueprints.” But the lyre-leaved rock cress has a genome fifty percent bigger than the other; “Moreover, these changes arose over a very short period in evolutionary terms.”
- Over and over this is what we see; subtraction not addition (of information) This isn't evolution but devolution; just as biblical creation predicts.
Again we see researchers misled by a fallacious understanding of the fossil rocks. (Question anything, but don't question that.) Sooner or later (in an effort to save evolutionary theory) Darwinists will have to throw out the current model of the fossil record; and they'll have to do it before the continuing contradictions ruin their theory altogether. For the evolutionist, it's a case of either Darwinism being wrong or the fossil model being wrong. (In my opinion it's both.)
4. 'Birds evolved to wash themselves. Pigs evolved to lie in the mud. Can opposite outcomes be ascribed to a scientific law? Victoria Gill at the BBC News had no problem with this, announcing cheerfully and confidently alongside of a contented pig lying in slop, “Pigs have ‘evolved to love mud’”.
- Apparently it's Darwinists who evolved to love mud (see story above about nematodes) If you explain everything in terms of a dumb theory you will be forced to make a never ending series of dumb statements; like the one above for instance.
i.e. if evolution works by blind chance (i.e. is dumb) then the explanation for things is necessarily going to be simple or simplistic. Sophisticated (complex) explanations are ruled out before you start. If you ban intelligence as an explanation your available alternatives will necessarily be dumb. What we see here (and elsewhere) is intelligent people being forced to interpret the world in terms of a dumb theory. Their intelligence is being wasted.
If it's all a matter of chance why not just throw up your hands and say ''stuff happens"? (We might wonder how intelligent people can be to restrict themselves to a theory that's both dumb and impossible, but it's not a matter of intelligence but of an indoctrination into materialism.)
Of course pigs don't love anything, not even mud. It's mere equivocation to use the term 'love' so loosely. Maybe in a world of porn and hookups, no one cares about love anymore. (Materialists have turned our planet into a pornoverse.)
One of the things I most hate about Darwinism is the havoc it's played with our language. Evolution having become de rigeur, equivocation is now the flavor of the day; and has poisoned our communal conversation so thoroughly it's hard to speak sensibly on any subject. (e.g. all animals, including insects have babies, and pigs love mud, and chickens prize their eggs, and wolves have partners, and humans are animals, and birds sing, and whales compose symphonies, and apes speak, and on and on.)
Darwinspeak is a true curse; its own punishment on a culture that's rejected its creator.
5. 'She quoted Mark Bracke [Wageningen University] speculating, “Liking shallow water could have been a point in the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals.” After all, he said to his eager reporter, “We all evolved from fish, so it could be that this motivation to be in water could be something that was preserved in animals that are able to do so.”
- Motivation! (see above) Even if this fanciful notion were true, you cannot conflate motivation and instinct.
This nonsense is what happens when scientists reject empiricism for Darwinian daydreaming. (Can we please give up this pipe smoking speculation and get back to real science?)
There can be no real science of origins; all we have, and all we will likely ever have, are speculations of one variety or another. If there is such a shortage of scientists as we're told, why don't we take some of these useless toilers of the Darwinian sea, and employ them more profitably?
I consider the whale story one of the most preposterous of all Darwinian tales, and the most comical. (Would that I could live long enough to see this icon shattered.)
Notice that our friend (Bracke) talks about how 'we' all evolved from fish; we being all us organisms. He puts human beings and nematodes in the same class apparently. (More equivocation.)
Of course no one saw all creatures 'evolve' from fish (''we're all fish now") but apparently this doesn't matter, being an empiricist is too limiting I guess. This notion is a deduction made from the Darwinian (Lyellian) interpretation of the fossil beds. The model is nearly 100 percent interpretation, and if the interpretation is wrong, so are all the deductions made from the original premise.
In place of evolution's pseudo science of origins, biblical creation offers a history of origins. Speculation or history, take your pick. [2.]
Notes;
1. Evolution Bends to Fit the Evidence Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/02/2011
May 02, 2011 — 'A good scientific theory should predict what is observed. When the theory is confronted with unexpected evidence, should the theory be jettisoned or modified?
2. Such is the nature of unbelief that even if we could travel back in time and prove Adam wrote the first chapters of Genesis, the atheist wouldn't accept it the historical account of origins. "Well, I admit he wrote it, but he obviously didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Evolution is a fact, just look at the fossil record."
Quotes and comments;
1. 'A good scientific theory should predict what is observed. When the theory is confronted with unexpected evidence, should the theory be jettisoned or modified?
'George Poinar at Oregon State is trying to put together the evolution of nematodes (roundworms), which he thinks originated a billion years ago as one of the earliest forms of multicellular life. Here is his explanation for their origin: “They literally emerged from the primordial ooze.” [1.]
- Now that's science boys and girls, not that silly creationist stuff; here we have hard science.
Over half seem parasitic. How can creatures that emerge from the mud be parasites? What would they be parasites on? (i.e. if the were the first or nearly the first creatures to evolve out of the mud.)
2. 'Even though Poinar just wrote a book on nematode evolution, “There’s still a huge amount we don’t know about nematodes,” he admitted – like maybe how something this complex could literally emerge from ooze.
- This 'problem' of nematode emergence is only a problem if you believe the fossil layers reveal the history of billions of years of evolution. It seems clear to me that they don't; and I offer this as evidence. Mud doesn't evolve people... at least not the mud where I live. It seems resistant to evolution for some reason.
Apparently evolution requires mud capable of evolving. Where you get this mud no one seems to know. Maybe instead of looking for the missing link, people should look for the missing mud.
How evolution can be a 'fact' when scientists don't even know where the nematode came from, I don't know. (Maybe the answer is buried in the mud.) Evolution is basically a mud science I guess; if you have evolvable mud, then you can be sure something will emerge from the mud (complete with a body of working parts).
When God fashions Adam out of the mud (clay) it's seen as a fairy tale, when the mud itself fashions a creature it's seen as science :=}
Mud without intelligence is mud my friends; don't we at least know that much after all our studies?
"It's miracle making mud folks, if you're set to create a new planetary world, get yourself some today. It's guaranteed intelligence free."
3. Evolution by subtraction:
'Clearly, a huge amount of new genetic information would have had to accompany the growth of Darwin’s tree of life from root to branch tips. It would also be expected that closely related species would have closely related genomes. That’s apparently not the case with the lab plant Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) and the lyre-leaved rock cress.
A press release from Max Planck Institute began, “It would appear reasonable to assume that two closely related plant species would have similar genetic blueprints.” But the lyre-leaved rock cress has a genome fifty percent bigger than the other; “Moreover, these changes arose over a very short period in evolutionary terms.”
- Over and over this is what we see; subtraction not addition (of information) This isn't evolution but devolution; just as biblical creation predicts.
Again we see researchers misled by a fallacious understanding of the fossil rocks. (Question anything, but don't question that.) Sooner or later (in an effort to save evolutionary theory) Darwinists will have to throw out the current model of the fossil record; and they'll have to do it before the continuing contradictions ruin their theory altogether. For the evolutionist, it's a case of either Darwinism being wrong or the fossil model being wrong. (In my opinion it's both.)
4. 'Birds evolved to wash themselves. Pigs evolved to lie in the mud. Can opposite outcomes be ascribed to a scientific law? Victoria Gill at the BBC News had no problem with this, announcing cheerfully and confidently alongside of a contented pig lying in slop, “Pigs have ‘evolved to love mud’”.
- Apparently it's Darwinists who evolved to love mud (see story above about nematodes) If you explain everything in terms of a dumb theory you will be forced to make a never ending series of dumb statements; like the one above for instance.
i.e. if evolution works by blind chance (i.e. is dumb) then the explanation for things is necessarily going to be simple or simplistic. Sophisticated (complex) explanations are ruled out before you start. If you ban intelligence as an explanation your available alternatives will necessarily be dumb. What we see here (and elsewhere) is intelligent people being forced to interpret the world in terms of a dumb theory. Their intelligence is being wasted.
If it's all a matter of chance why not just throw up your hands and say ''stuff happens"? (We might wonder how intelligent people can be to restrict themselves to a theory that's both dumb and impossible, but it's not a matter of intelligence but of an indoctrination into materialism.)
Of course pigs don't love anything, not even mud. It's mere equivocation to use the term 'love' so loosely. Maybe in a world of porn and hookups, no one cares about love anymore. (Materialists have turned our planet into a pornoverse.)
One of the things I most hate about Darwinism is the havoc it's played with our language. Evolution having become de rigeur, equivocation is now the flavor of the day; and has poisoned our communal conversation so thoroughly it's hard to speak sensibly on any subject. (e.g. all animals, including insects have babies, and pigs love mud, and chickens prize their eggs, and wolves have partners, and humans are animals, and birds sing, and whales compose symphonies, and apes speak, and on and on.)
Darwinspeak is a true curse; its own punishment on a culture that's rejected its creator.
5. 'She quoted Mark Bracke [Wageningen University] speculating, “Liking shallow water could have been a point in the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals.” After all, he said to his eager reporter, “We all evolved from fish, so it could be that this motivation to be in water could be something that was preserved in animals that are able to do so.”
- Motivation! (see above) Even if this fanciful notion were true, you cannot conflate motivation and instinct.
This nonsense is what happens when scientists reject empiricism for Darwinian daydreaming. (Can we please give up this pipe smoking speculation and get back to real science?)
There can be no real science of origins; all we have, and all we will likely ever have, are speculations of one variety or another. If there is such a shortage of scientists as we're told, why don't we take some of these useless toilers of the Darwinian sea, and employ them more profitably?
I consider the whale story one of the most preposterous of all Darwinian tales, and the most comical. (Would that I could live long enough to see this icon shattered.)
Notice that our friend (Bracke) talks about how 'we' all evolved from fish; we being all us organisms. He puts human beings and nematodes in the same class apparently. (More equivocation.)
Of course no one saw all creatures 'evolve' from fish (''we're all fish now") but apparently this doesn't matter, being an empiricist is too limiting I guess. This notion is a deduction made from the Darwinian (Lyellian) interpretation of the fossil beds. The model is nearly 100 percent interpretation, and if the interpretation is wrong, so are all the deductions made from the original premise.
In place of evolution's pseudo science of origins, biblical creation offers a history of origins. Speculation or history, take your pick. [2.]
Notes;
1. Evolution Bends to Fit the Evidence Creation/Evolution Headlines 05/02/2011
May 02, 2011 — 'A good scientific theory should predict what is observed. When the theory is confronted with unexpected evidence, should the theory be jettisoned or modified?
2. Such is the nature of unbelief that even if we could travel back in time and prove Adam wrote the first chapters of Genesis, the atheist wouldn't accept it the historical account of origins. "Well, I admit he wrote it, but he obviously didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Evolution is a fact, just look at the fossil record."
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Calculating God; or, who's in charge here?
A key concern for any worldview is the matter of authority; of who has the ultimate authority in the system. As RJR used to say; authority is an inescapable concept.
Quotes and comments;
1. The natural man ''thinks of himself as the ultimate judge of what can and cannot be.He will not allow any authority to stand above him, revealing to him what may or may not have happened in the past...'' [1.]
Let;s imagine that one fine day (in May) an alien spaceship (from an obviously advanced species) shows up on our doorstep. (If it can happen in the pages of SF I see no reason it can't happen in reality. Are these writers not our new prophets? Can they all be wrong?) Let's say these aliens are doing some kind of bureaucratic check up. They tell mankind the (horrible) truth; man did not evolve, they say (doing the alien equivalent of laughing) but was a creation of theirs in the distant past.
"How long ago?"
"It's not important."
Now, having placed this scenario in view, we'll ask a question. What do you think our scientific leaders would say to this? How do you think they'd respond? Do you think they'd accept this 'fact' (of small c creation) or would they reject it, and maintain a belief in (M2M) evolution? (Let's add that these aliens are far more advanced in technology, etc. than we earthlings are, that they can prove they've been touring the galaxy for millions of years.
I don't know your answer might be, but I'm sure our elite would not accept the 'truth' of creation, but would continue to believe in the 'myth' of Evolution.
"They can't prove this," someone would say. "We all know evolution is a fact, so they must be lying."
"Why would they lie?"
"How do I know?"
"We can't accept this, it would mean the end of science, it would prove that all our science is wrong, that our methods are wrong. It would mean the creationists could claim they were right, or at least on the right track, and so on."
"What will we do?''
''We'll just wait for them to leave, and then claim it never happened, they never said it, or it was a bad translation ad they never meant it, or they were just engaging in a humorous prank,'' says a cooler voice. "Don't worry. We can handle it."
"But what if it's true?"
"Doesn't matter if it is or it isn't."
Warning; speculation ahead;
Isn't it amazing how well SF writers (and I'm a failed one) can get inside the heads of aliens (even if they don't have any) and can internalize alien psychology? I find this impressive. How'z cum? as R.C. Sproul likes to quip. Is it because man has lost (forgotten) his true identity, and has become alien-ated from God? Just a thought.
Summary;
If we are looking for transcendent wisdom we can either look to aliens for it, or we can look to God. Despite the talk about aliens helping save mankind with advanced knowledge and thinking, it's clear to me that the natural (apostate) man will never accept an authority higher than his own. If I ever saw it happen, I'd fall out of my hyper-space, inter-dimensional traveling pod. (You can see why I failed.)
Mike Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 310
2. The natural man claims that he's competent to judge who should have authority over mankind; the Bible (God's word) says that he's not competent to judge.
3. I wasn't being entirely serious in my speculations.
4. My title makes an oblique reference to 'Calculating God' by Robert Sawyer. (As a Canadian I'm required by law, to read him.)
Quotes and comments;
1. The natural man ''thinks of himself as the ultimate judge of what can and cannot be.He will not allow any authority to stand above him, revealing to him what may or may not have happened in the past...'' [1.]
Let;s imagine that one fine day (in May) an alien spaceship (from an obviously advanced species) shows up on our doorstep. (If it can happen in the pages of SF I see no reason it can't happen in reality. Are these writers not our new prophets? Can they all be wrong?) Let's say these aliens are doing some kind of bureaucratic check up. They tell mankind the (horrible) truth; man did not evolve, they say (doing the alien equivalent of laughing) but was a creation of theirs in the distant past.
"How long ago?"
"It's not important."
Now, having placed this scenario in view, we'll ask a question. What do you think our scientific leaders would say to this? How do you think they'd respond? Do you think they'd accept this 'fact' (of small c creation) or would they reject it, and maintain a belief in (M2M) evolution? (Let's add that these aliens are far more advanced in technology, etc. than we earthlings are, that they can prove they've been touring the galaxy for millions of years.
I don't know your answer might be, but I'm sure our elite would not accept the 'truth' of creation, but would continue to believe in the 'myth' of Evolution.
"They can't prove this," someone would say. "We all know evolution is a fact, so they must be lying."
"Why would they lie?"
"How do I know?"
"We can't accept this, it would mean the end of science, it would prove that all our science is wrong, that our methods are wrong. It would mean the creationists could claim they were right, or at least on the right track, and so on."
"What will we do?''
''We'll just wait for them to leave, and then claim it never happened, they never said it, or it was a bad translation ad they never meant it, or they were just engaging in a humorous prank,'' says a cooler voice. "Don't worry. We can handle it."
"But what if it's true?"
"Doesn't matter if it is or it isn't."
Warning; speculation ahead;
Isn't it amazing how well SF writers (and I'm a failed one) can get inside the heads of aliens (even if they don't have any) and can internalize alien psychology? I find this impressive. How'z cum? as R.C. Sproul likes to quip. Is it because man has lost (forgotten) his true identity, and has become alien-ated from God? Just a thought.
Summary;
If we are looking for transcendent wisdom we can either look to aliens for it, or we can look to God. Despite the talk about aliens helping save mankind with advanced knowledge and thinking, it's clear to me that the natural (apostate) man will never accept an authority higher than his own. If I ever saw it happen, I'd fall out of my hyper-space, inter-dimensional traveling pod. (You can see why I failed.)
Mike Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 310
2. The natural man claims that he's competent to judge who should have authority over mankind; the Bible (God's word) says that he's not competent to judge.
3. I wasn't being entirely serious in my speculations.
4. My title makes an oblique reference to 'Calculating God' by Robert Sawyer. (As a Canadian I'm required by law, to read him.)
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Notes on emergence; or, an alien love story; starring Carl Sagan
The closing down of the Allen telescope array was a sad event for SETI fans. The whole search for extraterrestrial life (with its speculations about aliens) is an intriguing one; and one I think reveals a lot about human psychology.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Bob McDonald, commenting on CBC News, feels SETI is worth a lot more than the tens of millions spent on the royal wedding. Just two to three million could have been used to keep SETI going. “That tiny sum pays for a group of very intelligent and highly accomplished people to look for the answer to a fundamental human question, while many times that amount will be spent on security alone for the wedding of two people who have not really accomplished that much.” [2.]
2. 'One of the fundamental unanswered questions in science is whether there is life beyond Earth. [2.]
- I'm interested in why he (or anyone) thinks this is a 'fundamental human question'. Is it? Why is it? How do we explain this? If nothing makes sense apart from evolution (and of course pizza) what's the evolutionary explanation for SETI? What could this possibly have to do with reproduction success rates? Give a slight tug on evolution theory and it unravels. E. theory can't explain this odd human passion; nor can it explain most of the important things in human experience.
If all is merely matter in motion how do we explain that a bit of matter here on earth cares about bits of matter in outer space, in the rest of the universe. That makes no sense to me. Matter doesn't care about anything. The fact McDonald cares about finding aliens is all the evidence he needs to know materialism is a fallacious idea. Materialism is as illusory as green tentacled aliens. If he'd analyze what he said he'd see this.
The materialist can't account for human experience, but instead of curing him of his delusion he pays no attention to this damning bit of knowledge. What he does instead is to say; well, I do care, therefore this creationist is wrong. i.e. he doesn't doubt his materialism, just takes it for granted as true.
If pressed he offers up the idea of emergence. i.e. "yes, it's true Mr. creationist, that matter doesn't care, but people do, and people have emerged from matter and are (obviously you twit) different from matter." The concept of emergence is used to knock down all arguments against materialism.
The concept of emergence is just a ruse in my opinion; nothing but a label on ignorance; a meaningless concept when used in this matter. What we aren't given is an account of how it is philosophical concern (not to mention obsession) can happen in a materialist universe; ie. how does the impersonal become personal. To merely say ''well it emerged I guess'' is to say nothing at all.
3. "The chances of aliens finding the Voyagers in the vast emptiness of space are small—some say infinitesimal—but we took our jobs seriously," recalls team member Ann Druyan. "From the moment when Carl first broached the project to Tim Ferris and me, it felt mythic." [3.]
- It felt mythic she says. I'm not sure what mythic feels like, but how is it a bit of matter can feel 'mythic' about aliens? I don't know how people can believe the theory of cosmic [Cosmos] evolution. The theory demands that a rock transform into a living organism capable of feeling 'nostalgic' for remote life forms it has never seen. I see no way that's possible. The endless stories on how this might have happened (i.e. OOL research) don't impress me in the slightest; one might say they're mythic. (Actually I take back what I said earlier. I do know what it feels like to experience the mythic; I experience it when I read OOL stories.)
Materialism can't give a cogent account for the Voyager love story. (It can't give a good account of much at all when it comes to human experience.) How is it such a worldview is so popular when it fails so badly to offer foundational explanations? Why is it people don't care about this? Why do they care more about phantoms called aliens and nothing about philosophical consistency or cohesion?
4. "I remember sitting around the kitchen table making these huge decisions about what to put on and what to leave off," recalls Druyan. "We couldn't help but appreciate the enormous responsibility to create a cultural Noah's Ark with a shelf life of hundreds of millions of years." [3.]
- They didn't seem to take their responsibility all that seriously when you consider they might have given some alien race the opportunity to wipe out the entire human race. They violated a basic principle; namely don't take a needless risk. What right did they have to put everyone at risk by their publicity stunt?
Remember; these people are merely bits of matter in terms of materialism; a good materialist has to explain all this behavior (thought, etc.) solely in terms of physics. (No wonder they want to contact aliens, no mere human is up to the above task :=}
Maybe the SETI quest isn't really about finding aliens per se; but about finding someone who can explain OOL; someone who can give a believable account of what is now only a miracle. (Though I would argue that a rock [planet earth] managing to build and send out a space ship would be a miracle in itself.)
Among the gifts Voyager bears is 'the brain waves of a young women in love.' (No SF magazine cover of an alien attacking a bimbo? What a missed opportunity.)
5. "I had this idea," recalls Druyan, "that we should put someone's EEG on the record. We know that EEG patterns register some changes in thought. Would it be possible, I wondered, for a highly advanced technology of several million years from now to actually decipher human thoughts?" [3.]
- It doesn't get wackier than that (he said hopefully). How anyone can conflate squiggles on a page with thought I don't know. (Thus reductionism makes fools out of anyone who comes in 'contact' with it.
6. "My feelings as a 27 year old woman, madly fallen in love, they're on that record,” says Druyan. "It's forever. It'll be true 100 million years from now. For me Voyager is a kind of joy so powerful, it robs you of your fear of death." [3.]
- I won't pretend I understand that, but I see evidence here that the SETI project is somehow connected with the idea of immortality, and or the fear of death.
I don't know how she can conflate an image of brain wave patterns with her feelings of being in love. I guess we could call this an example of Reductionism playing the trickster.
7. 'It has been pointed out that the most probable finders of Voyager will be … us. Eventually, technology may allow humans to overtake and recover the distant probes. In that case, they will be reduced to mere time capsules from the year 1977. [3.]
- If we do catch up with it, maybe we could switch the Beatles for the Rolling Stones, or some Dylan :=}
8. 'Arthur C. Clarke recognized this possibility and suggested adding a note to the Golden Record: "Please leave me alone; let me go on to the stars." [3.]
- I note that he said leave 'me' alone. i.e. this is evidence people into SETI are projecting their own psychologies onto Voyager (etc.) It's not really about aliens but about them. It's about their search for something.
Apparently some people want materialism to be true so badly that they're not 'capable' of critically examining the theory, of accepting the sheer impossibility of it, or of examining the oddity of a bit of matter caring about other bits of matter. (Is it that they want materialism to be true? or is it that they don't want God to exist? What's the stronger drive? Maybe they're so connected that it's impossible to say.)
Whatever the love story here is, it's not love for God. It's love for self or love for aliens; since there are no aliens as far as we know, it can only be love for self.
Maybe that's not it; maybe what's going on here is a desire to defend materialism, a desire to defend the act of rejecting God. Maybe the SETI types want to discover aliens to prove to themselves (and everyone else) that they are right about a-theism. Maybe they get involved out of guilt.
9. ''Notwithstanding the low odds of interception, the Voyager Record served as a statement of earthlings to earthlings. The video clip from NASA ends, “What are the odds of a race of primates evolving sentience, developing spaceflight, and sending the sound of barking dogs into the cosmos? Expect the unexpected indeed.“ [1.]
- How do you 'evolve' a passion for ETs? That would appear to be impossible would it not?
What are the odds? Zero; (or as close to zero as you can get).
Summary;
What I think we see in the search for extraterrestrial life, is the search for a substitute for God. We see this search played out in the pages of sf, with its myriad of 'god machines' (called such by the authors themselves) and awesome relics, and awe inspiring aliens. [4.] Evidence for the Bible's claim (echoed by Calvin) that all men know god is the fact aliens have all the attributes of God. e.g. they're at least nearly omniscient; nearly omnipotent; can read minds, send thoughts telepathically, predict the future, etc.
Augustine said 'all men are restless till they find thee' and that man had a God shaped vacuum in his heart. How big the hole in man's heart is, can be seen by the fact it takes the whole universe to even begin to get the job done. I suspect the project to find aliens will only be successful as long as its unsuccessful; that if aliens are found man will still be restless, still need something to fill the hole in his heart.
Cosmic evolution doesn't come remotely close to being able to explain this search for God (or for a god substitute). There's no possible reason man needs such an ability and capacity of this kind, if he's just an animal. (I can't imagine animals care about the SETI project; I can't imagine any of them are sad one of the projects got shut down.)
Men scan the skies for signs of ET, when they'd be better off scanning their own consciousness. The SETI project is all the evidence anyone could need that Materialism is a false metaphysics.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. SETI in Reverse Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/29/2011
April 29, 2011 — The SETI Institute has had to close down its search with the Allen Telescope Array (08/12/2010) due to lack of funds.'
2. Big questions and big weddings - Bob McDonald
- the money wasted (surely not) on the Royal wedding could have been better spent on the Allen project complained McDonald.
- how could he say these people haven't done very much? They wave beautifully, they wear clothes well, they smile wonderfully. I could name any number of things they do.
3. Voyager, the love story, April 29, 2011 By Dr. Tony Phillips
- there's nothing like the love for an alien to arouse the human imagination, and send his emotions soaring.
4. Much SF is concerned with presenting the reader with an object or being that the reader can be in awe of. As humans we hunger for the awesome. Here's an example of this 'awesome' storytelling; from 'Alone' by Robert Reed [Godlike Machines ed. J. Strahan]
'The hull was gray and smooth, gray and empty, and in every direction it fell away gradually,
vanishing where the cold black of the sky pretended to touch what was real.
What was real was the Great Ship. Nothing else enjoyed substance or true value.
Nothing else in Creation could be felt, much less understood. The Ship was a
sphere of perfect hyperfiber, world-sized and enduring, while the sky was only
a boundless vacuum punctuated with lost stars and the occasional swirls of
distant galaxies.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Bob McDonald, commenting on CBC News, feels SETI is worth a lot more than the tens of millions spent on the royal wedding. Just two to three million could have been used to keep SETI going. “That tiny sum pays for a group of very intelligent and highly accomplished people to look for the answer to a fundamental human question, while many times that amount will be spent on security alone for the wedding of two people who have not really accomplished that much.” [2.]
2. 'One of the fundamental unanswered questions in science is whether there is life beyond Earth. [2.]
- I'm interested in why he (or anyone) thinks this is a 'fundamental human question'. Is it? Why is it? How do we explain this? If nothing makes sense apart from evolution (and of course pizza) what's the evolutionary explanation for SETI? What could this possibly have to do with reproduction success rates? Give a slight tug on evolution theory and it unravels. E. theory can't explain this odd human passion; nor can it explain most of the important things in human experience.
If all is merely matter in motion how do we explain that a bit of matter here on earth cares about bits of matter in outer space, in the rest of the universe. That makes no sense to me. Matter doesn't care about anything. The fact McDonald cares about finding aliens is all the evidence he needs to know materialism is a fallacious idea. Materialism is as illusory as green tentacled aliens. If he'd analyze what he said he'd see this.
The materialist can't account for human experience, but instead of curing him of his delusion he pays no attention to this damning bit of knowledge. What he does instead is to say; well, I do care, therefore this creationist is wrong. i.e. he doesn't doubt his materialism, just takes it for granted as true.
If pressed he offers up the idea of emergence. i.e. "yes, it's true Mr. creationist, that matter doesn't care, but people do, and people have emerged from matter and are (obviously you twit) different from matter." The concept of emergence is used to knock down all arguments against materialism.
The concept of emergence is just a ruse in my opinion; nothing but a label on ignorance; a meaningless concept when used in this matter. What we aren't given is an account of how it is philosophical concern (not to mention obsession) can happen in a materialist universe; ie. how does the impersonal become personal. To merely say ''well it emerged I guess'' is to say nothing at all.
3. "The chances of aliens finding the Voyagers in the vast emptiness of space are small—some say infinitesimal—but we took our jobs seriously," recalls team member Ann Druyan. "From the moment when Carl first broached the project to Tim Ferris and me, it felt mythic." [3.]
- It felt mythic she says. I'm not sure what mythic feels like, but how is it a bit of matter can feel 'mythic' about aliens? I don't know how people can believe the theory of cosmic [Cosmos] evolution. The theory demands that a rock transform into a living organism capable of feeling 'nostalgic' for remote life forms it has never seen. I see no way that's possible. The endless stories on how this might have happened (i.e. OOL research) don't impress me in the slightest; one might say they're mythic. (Actually I take back what I said earlier. I do know what it feels like to experience the mythic; I experience it when I read OOL stories.)
Materialism can't give a cogent account for the Voyager love story. (It can't give a good account of much at all when it comes to human experience.) How is it such a worldview is so popular when it fails so badly to offer foundational explanations? Why is it people don't care about this? Why do they care more about phantoms called aliens and nothing about philosophical consistency or cohesion?
4. "I remember sitting around the kitchen table making these huge decisions about what to put on and what to leave off," recalls Druyan. "We couldn't help but appreciate the enormous responsibility to create a cultural Noah's Ark with a shelf life of hundreds of millions of years." [3.]
- They didn't seem to take their responsibility all that seriously when you consider they might have given some alien race the opportunity to wipe out the entire human race. They violated a basic principle; namely don't take a needless risk. What right did they have to put everyone at risk by their publicity stunt?
Remember; these people are merely bits of matter in terms of materialism; a good materialist has to explain all this behavior (thought, etc.) solely in terms of physics. (No wonder they want to contact aliens, no mere human is up to the above task :=}
Maybe the SETI quest isn't really about finding aliens per se; but about finding someone who can explain OOL; someone who can give a believable account of what is now only a miracle. (Though I would argue that a rock [planet earth] managing to build and send out a space ship would be a miracle in itself.)
Among the gifts Voyager bears is 'the brain waves of a young women in love.' (No SF magazine cover of an alien attacking a bimbo? What a missed opportunity.)
5. "I had this idea," recalls Druyan, "that we should put someone's EEG on the record. We know that EEG patterns register some changes in thought. Would it be possible, I wondered, for a highly advanced technology of several million years from now to actually decipher human thoughts?" [3.]
- It doesn't get wackier than that (he said hopefully). How anyone can conflate squiggles on a page with thought I don't know. (Thus reductionism makes fools out of anyone who comes in 'contact' with it.
6. "My feelings as a 27 year old woman, madly fallen in love, they're on that record,” says Druyan. "It's forever. It'll be true 100 million years from now. For me Voyager is a kind of joy so powerful, it robs you of your fear of death." [3.]
- I won't pretend I understand that, but I see evidence here that the SETI project is somehow connected with the idea of immortality, and or the fear of death.
I don't know how she can conflate an image of brain wave patterns with her feelings of being in love. I guess we could call this an example of Reductionism playing the trickster.
7. 'It has been pointed out that the most probable finders of Voyager will be … us. Eventually, technology may allow humans to overtake and recover the distant probes. In that case, they will be reduced to mere time capsules from the year 1977. [3.]
- If we do catch up with it, maybe we could switch the Beatles for the Rolling Stones, or some Dylan :=}
8. 'Arthur C. Clarke recognized this possibility and suggested adding a note to the Golden Record: "Please leave me alone; let me go on to the stars." [3.]
- I note that he said leave 'me' alone. i.e. this is evidence people into SETI are projecting their own psychologies onto Voyager (etc.) It's not really about aliens but about them. It's about their search for something.
Apparently some people want materialism to be true so badly that they're not 'capable' of critically examining the theory, of accepting the sheer impossibility of it, or of examining the oddity of a bit of matter caring about other bits of matter. (Is it that they want materialism to be true? or is it that they don't want God to exist? What's the stronger drive? Maybe they're so connected that it's impossible to say.)
Whatever the love story here is, it's not love for God. It's love for self or love for aliens; since there are no aliens as far as we know, it can only be love for self.
Maybe that's not it; maybe what's going on here is a desire to defend materialism, a desire to defend the act of rejecting God. Maybe the SETI types want to discover aliens to prove to themselves (and everyone else) that they are right about a-theism. Maybe they get involved out of guilt.
9. ''Notwithstanding the low odds of interception, the Voyager Record served as a statement of earthlings to earthlings. The video clip from NASA ends, “What are the odds of a race of primates evolving sentience, developing spaceflight, and sending the sound of barking dogs into the cosmos? Expect the unexpected indeed.“ [1.]
- How do you 'evolve' a passion for ETs? That would appear to be impossible would it not?
What are the odds? Zero; (or as close to zero as you can get).
Summary;
What I think we see in the search for extraterrestrial life, is the search for a substitute for God. We see this search played out in the pages of sf, with its myriad of 'god machines' (called such by the authors themselves) and awesome relics, and awe inspiring aliens. [4.] Evidence for the Bible's claim (echoed by Calvin) that all men know god is the fact aliens have all the attributes of God. e.g. they're at least nearly omniscient; nearly omnipotent; can read minds, send thoughts telepathically, predict the future, etc.
Augustine said 'all men are restless till they find thee' and that man had a God shaped vacuum in his heart. How big the hole in man's heart is, can be seen by the fact it takes the whole universe to even begin to get the job done. I suspect the project to find aliens will only be successful as long as its unsuccessful; that if aliens are found man will still be restless, still need something to fill the hole in his heart.
Cosmic evolution doesn't come remotely close to being able to explain this search for God (or for a god substitute). There's no possible reason man needs such an ability and capacity of this kind, if he's just an animal. (I can't imagine animals care about the SETI project; I can't imagine any of them are sad one of the projects got shut down.)
Men scan the skies for signs of ET, when they'd be better off scanning their own consciousness. The SETI project is all the evidence anyone could need that Materialism is a false metaphysics.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. SETI in Reverse Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/29/2011
April 29, 2011 — The SETI Institute has had to close down its search with the Allen Telescope Array (08/12/2010) due to lack of funds.'
2. Big questions and big weddings - Bob McDonald
- the money wasted (surely not) on the Royal wedding could have been better spent on the Allen project complained McDonald.
- how could he say these people haven't done very much? They wave beautifully, they wear clothes well, they smile wonderfully. I could name any number of things they do.
3. Voyager, the love story, April 29, 2011 By Dr. Tony Phillips
- there's nothing like the love for an alien to arouse the human imagination, and send his emotions soaring.
4. Much SF is concerned with presenting the reader with an object or being that the reader can be in awe of. As humans we hunger for the awesome. Here's an example of this 'awesome' storytelling; from 'Alone' by Robert Reed [Godlike Machines ed. J. Strahan]
'The hull was gray and smooth, gray and empty, and in every direction it fell away gradually,
vanishing where the cold black of the sky pretended to touch what was real.
What was real was the Great Ship. Nothing else enjoyed substance or true value.
Nothing else in Creation could be felt, much less understood. The Ship was a
sphere of perfect hyperfiber, world-sized and enduring, while the sky was only
a boundless vacuum punctuated with lost stars and the occasional swirls of
distant galaxies.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The slow miracles of materialism
In chapter 12 of his book 'The Information' James Gleick offers us some speculation about the origin of life.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Whatever the basic processes involved, physical or biological, something is under way that begins to resemble computation. [1.]
- Whatever is underway? This is an admission no one (in OOL research) has a clue.
Computation? As far as we know intelligent agents are the only ones capable of computation; either they are the ones who compute, or they are the ones who give this ability to other objects.
So we ask how it is that inert matter can begin to compute? How is it that mere matter can do computations like e = mc2? This appears to be nothing but wishful thinking by the materialist. He can give us no explanation of how this is possible. This is akin to saying a rock can learn to do calculus.
2. 'He applied the idea of logical depth to the problem of self-organization: the question of how complex structures develop in nature. Evolution starts with simple initial conditions; complexity arises, apparently building on itself. [1.]
- Complexity arises? He writes this as if it means something, when it means nothing at all. It's meaningless. This isn't science; no one observed or observes this. This is merely theory dependent speculation. e.g. if materialism is true, we suspect initial conditions must have been simple.
We know how complex structures develop, we don't need to speculate about it. Complex structures develop by the expression of genetic code; the code comes first and the structure after. We know the only source code comes from; intelligence. The great 'problem' that materialists talk about is no problem at all; it's only a 'problem' if you reject God and creation.
3. Let's take a look at the word Compute;
1. 'To determine by mathematics, especially by numerical methods: e.g. computed the tax due.
- As far as I know, rocks have no need to compute anything, and have been left curiously exempt from paying taxes.
Gleick knows how absurd it is to say matter computes things, so he qualifies (in good Fabian fashion) by saying matter 'begins' to compute. This allows the materialist miracle to occur you see. Apparently any miracle is possible if it happens slowly, in stages.
Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick p. 342
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Whatever the basic processes involved, physical or biological, something is under way that begins to resemble computation. [1.]
- Whatever is underway? This is an admission no one (in OOL research) has a clue.
Computation? As far as we know intelligent agents are the only ones capable of computation; either they are the ones who compute, or they are the ones who give this ability to other objects.
So we ask how it is that inert matter can begin to compute? How is it that mere matter can do computations like e = mc2? This appears to be nothing but wishful thinking by the materialist. He can give us no explanation of how this is possible. This is akin to saying a rock can learn to do calculus.
2. 'He applied the idea of logical depth to the problem of self-organization: the question of how complex structures develop in nature. Evolution starts with simple initial conditions; complexity arises, apparently building on itself. [1.]
- Complexity arises? He writes this as if it means something, when it means nothing at all. It's meaningless. This isn't science; no one observed or observes this. This is merely theory dependent speculation. e.g. if materialism is true, we suspect initial conditions must have been simple.
We know how complex structures develop, we don't need to speculate about it. Complex structures develop by the expression of genetic code; the code comes first and the structure after. We know the only source code comes from; intelligence. The great 'problem' that materialists talk about is no problem at all; it's only a 'problem' if you reject God and creation.
3. Let's take a look at the word Compute;
1. 'To determine by mathematics, especially by numerical methods: e.g. computed the tax due.
- As far as I know, rocks have no need to compute anything, and have been left curiously exempt from paying taxes.
Gleick knows how absurd it is to say matter computes things, so he qualifies (in good Fabian fashion) by saying matter 'begins' to compute. This allows the materialist miracle to occur you see. Apparently any miracle is possible if it happens slowly, in stages.
Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick p. 342
Monday, May 9, 2011
Browsing the Logosphere
The field of mimetics depends upon god's revelation (of Himself) in creation. It's more than a metaphor to say researchers are reading God's book of creation; this is literal truth.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'We all know how they crawl, but did you know caterpillars invented the wheel? “Some caterpillars have the extraordinary ability to rapidly curl themselves into a wheel and propel themselves away from predators,” the article said. “This highly dynamic process, called ballistic rolling, is one of the fastest wheeling behaviours in nature.” [1.]
- How is it that with this example in front of them some civilizations didn't invent the wheel? Was it because they didn't notice it? Didn't make a connection to human locomotion? because they didn't think creatively? because the wheel was forbidden? God gave them all the help they needed; even if they didn't take advantage of it.
To study a creature is to read the mind of God; or let's say, to acquaint yourself with with one of His thoughts (to acquaint yourself at least partially with divine intelligence.) God gave us all the information we would ever need, when he created the world we (by his grace) live on. The creation is the greatest library ever assembled; and it's free for every man, available to every child. You don't need a library card, all you need is eyes and ears.
We are all creationists; the only difference between the Christian and the materialist is that the christian gives God the credit for the biosphere (the Logosphere as I like to call it) and the materialist does not. We live within God's revelation of himself; we ''live, move and have our existence'' within a steady stream of intelligently composed information. We live within God's mind made incarnate.
I believe this library contains all the knowledge man needs to survive and thrive on planet earth; even knowledge such as that needed to predict earthquakes and avoid them. God has provided for our every need. That we neglect and abuse this gift is no fault of His. If man would rather spend his days high on hallucinogens rather in study of creation is no fault of god's. That man would rather waste his time in hedonistic pursuits than study is man's fault alone. Man has suffered greatly from disease and famine down the millenia, but it has been his own fault; due to his own lack of diligence and study.
"All the treasures of wisdom are found in Christ,'' wrote the apostle Paul, echoing earlier Biblical writers, who wrote of the great wisdom with which god had created the world.) Most of what we call natural evil has not be the fault of god, but the fault of man. (The 'evil' that isn't directly the fault of man, through ignorance, sloth, etc. is the the result of the Fall, which was caused by man's rebellion. eg. mutation.) [2.]
Praise and worship is the only proper response to this great gift; to this great gift giver. (No teacher ever did a fraction as much for his or her students. No lesson has ever been as inspiring as the one God gives all of us every day.) God is our source of wisdom; both creaturely and divine. He is our teacher and our judge; our prophet, king and savior. If man doesn't affirm God's existence it's because he's spiritually dead; poisoned by his own sin and rebellion.
Notes;
1. Animal Tricks Inspire Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/26/2011
2. Is it possible to create a world that doesn't suffer from mutations? I don't know. God (who is infinitely wiser than any of us) tells us 'death' came by sin, so I have to assume that it is possible, even though I don't see how. (I take the position that when Genesis speaks of death coming by sin it's referring strictly to humans.) There's much we can't be certain about at the present time, and may never know for sure.
3. The Logosphere is a data stream that had/has an intelligent source, and that is intelligible.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'We all know how they crawl, but did you know caterpillars invented the wheel? “Some caterpillars have the extraordinary ability to rapidly curl themselves into a wheel and propel themselves away from predators,” the article said. “This highly dynamic process, called ballistic rolling, is one of the fastest wheeling behaviours in nature.” [1.]
- How is it that with this example in front of them some civilizations didn't invent the wheel? Was it because they didn't notice it? Didn't make a connection to human locomotion? because they didn't think creatively? because the wheel was forbidden? God gave them all the help they needed; even if they didn't take advantage of it.
To study a creature is to read the mind of God; or let's say, to acquaint yourself with with one of His thoughts (to acquaint yourself at least partially with divine intelligence.) God gave us all the information we would ever need, when he created the world we (by his grace) live on. The creation is the greatest library ever assembled; and it's free for every man, available to every child. You don't need a library card, all you need is eyes and ears.
We are all creationists; the only difference between the Christian and the materialist is that the christian gives God the credit for the biosphere (the Logosphere as I like to call it) and the materialist does not. We live within God's revelation of himself; we ''live, move and have our existence'' within a steady stream of intelligently composed information. We live within God's mind made incarnate.
I believe this library contains all the knowledge man needs to survive and thrive on planet earth; even knowledge such as that needed to predict earthquakes and avoid them. God has provided for our every need. That we neglect and abuse this gift is no fault of His. If man would rather spend his days high on hallucinogens rather in study of creation is no fault of god's. That man would rather waste his time in hedonistic pursuits than study is man's fault alone. Man has suffered greatly from disease and famine down the millenia, but it has been his own fault; due to his own lack of diligence and study.
"All the treasures of wisdom are found in Christ,'' wrote the apostle Paul, echoing earlier Biblical writers, who wrote of the great wisdom with which god had created the world.) Most of what we call natural evil has not be the fault of god, but the fault of man. (The 'evil' that isn't directly the fault of man, through ignorance, sloth, etc. is the the result of the Fall, which was caused by man's rebellion. eg. mutation.) [2.]
Praise and worship is the only proper response to this great gift; to this great gift giver. (No teacher ever did a fraction as much for his or her students. No lesson has ever been as inspiring as the one God gives all of us every day.) God is our source of wisdom; both creaturely and divine. He is our teacher and our judge; our prophet, king and savior. If man doesn't affirm God's existence it's because he's spiritually dead; poisoned by his own sin and rebellion.
Notes;
1. Animal Tricks Inspire Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/26/2011
2. Is it possible to create a world that doesn't suffer from mutations? I don't know. God (who is infinitely wiser than any of us) tells us 'death' came by sin, so I have to assume that it is possible, even though I don't see how. (I take the position that when Genesis speaks of death coming by sin it's referring strictly to humans.) There's much we can't be certain about at the present time, and may never know for sure.
3. The Logosphere is a data stream that had/has an intelligent source, and that is intelligible.
Friday, May 6, 2011
What is Hell?
The 'new atheists' like to use the 'horrors of hell' as a way to mock Christianity. It's an outrage, they say. How can anyone hold to such an evil doctrine? What is Hell? Is it real or just a delusion? [Warning; speculation up ahead.]
Quotes and comments;
1. "...you deserve to live forever without God if you do not own and glorify Him as your creator..." [1.]
- In our day (degenerate as it is in so many ways) even so called Reformed theologians and pastors have abandoned the doctrine of Hell. (eg. John Stott) I don't think anyone knows in any kind of exact way what hell is. All the bible clearly reveals to us is that it will be eternal separation from God, and from God's people. If that's all it is, it would be more than enough to fear it, and to see an existence in such a 'universe' as a horrible, painful thing.
If there are one or more universes beyond our own (as cosmologists are beginning to claim) maybe this is what they or it are for. Maybe hell is living in a universe utterly devoid of God and his influence. If man were spiritually alive this would be a fiercesome thing to contemplate. It would mean never meeting Christ or his redeemed. It would mean never living with him for a day, let alone eternity. It would mean never being free of the torments of sin. It would mean never learning the answers to questions that now seem unsolvable mysteries.
To the Christian this would be a horrible thing, and well deserving the name hell. This would mean little or nothing (I assume) to the non-christian. He might even look forward to an existence in the universe called hell. After all, don't some people dream of living forever? Isn't that what the 'transhumanist' movement is all about? Maybe hell is the process of men becoming machines, and losing their humanity. Maybe hell is the 'throwing off' of the image of God. (I don't know if that's possible.)
Is hell a horrific idea? To me it is, I certainly don't want to end up there. So the new atheists are right in saying hell is a horrible idea, but not in the way they suppose. Who knows, maybe hell only looks bad from the outside, from the Christian point of view. (e.g. "If I were to end up in such a place I would feel as if I were on fire, walking through a wasteland of fire, in constant pain and torment.") Maybe it won't seem bad from the inside, by the people living there.
Will people in hell live forever? I don't know. There is no dictionary I can go to that tells me how long the 'forever' in the bible is. Perhaps it (eternity) is forever, perhaps it's only a long time, or as long as one desires.
Can people in hell die? I don't know. Perhaps they can if they want to. Will they want to? Maybe some will and some won't.
Will people be miserable in hell? Perhaps some will and some won't.
Will anyone in hell desire to be in heaven? I don't know; but that would be hell indeed.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen/p.128
- quote is from Van Til's pamphlet 'Why I believe in God'
2. I'm not claiming that all of what I've written above is necessarily true.
- I guess that went without saying didn't it.
Quotes and comments;
1. "...you deserve to live forever without God if you do not own and glorify Him as your creator..." [1.]
- In our day (degenerate as it is in so many ways) even so called Reformed theologians and pastors have abandoned the doctrine of Hell. (eg. John Stott) I don't think anyone knows in any kind of exact way what hell is. All the bible clearly reveals to us is that it will be eternal separation from God, and from God's people. If that's all it is, it would be more than enough to fear it, and to see an existence in such a 'universe' as a horrible, painful thing.
If there are one or more universes beyond our own (as cosmologists are beginning to claim) maybe this is what they or it are for. Maybe hell is living in a universe utterly devoid of God and his influence. If man were spiritually alive this would be a fiercesome thing to contemplate. It would mean never meeting Christ or his redeemed. It would mean never living with him for a day, let alone eternity. It would mean never being free of the torments of sin. It would mean never learning the answers to questions that now seem unsolvable mysteries.
To the Christian this would be a horrible thing, and well deserving the name hell. This would mean little or nothing (I assume) to the non-christian. He might even look forward to an existence in the universe called hell. After all, don't some people dream of living forever? Isn't that what the 'transhumanist' movement is all about? Maybe hell is the process of men becoming machines, and losing their humanity. Maybe hell is the 'throwing off' of the image of God. (I don't know if that's possible.)
Is hell a horrific idea? To me it is, I certainly don't want to end up there. So the new atheists are right in saying hell is a horrible idea, but not in the way they suppose. Who knows, maybe hell only looks bad from the outside, from the Christian point of view. (e.g. "If I were to end up in such a place I would feel as if I were on fire, walking through a wasteland of fire, in constant pain and torment.") Maybe it won't seem bad from the inside, by the people living there.
Will people in hell live forever? I don't know. There is no dictionary I can go to that tells me how long the 'forever' in the bible is. Perhaps it (eternity) is forever, perhaps it's only a long time, or as long as one desires.
Can people in hell die? I don't know. Perhaps they can if they want to. Will they want to? Maybe some will and some won't.
Will people be miserable in hell? Perhaps some will and some won't.
Will anyone in hell desire to be in heaven? I don't know; but that would be hell indeed.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen/p.128
- quote is from Van Til's pamphlet 'Why I believe in God'
2. I'm not claiming that all of what I've written above is necessarily true.
- I guess that went without saying didn't it.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
An early prediction of man's greatness
The atheist in our day likes to claim that people believe what the Bible says simply because they have to. This is a distortion of the actual case. I believe the Bible is what it says it is because what I read there impresses me it is indeed the word of God.
It's easy to forget how 'spot on' the Bible was in its characterization of man. In the first few chapters of Genesis (written originally perhaps 6000 years ago) we read that man was created in God's image. We can see this as a prediction of man's future greatness. It expresses a profound understanding of man's intellectual capacities.
Remember that this was before the pyramids, before Pythagoras, before Euclid and Galen, before the Parthenon and Plato, before the great cathedrals, before the universities, before Kepler and Newton, before the microscope and the computer.
Thousands of years before all this (evidence of man's greatness) when man was still dressed in animal skins, the writer of Genesis tells us man was made in the image of God (the all wise creator of heaven and earth). If that's not enough to knock your socks off - you aren't wearing any :=} I find this to be a staggering confirmation of the Bible's divine origin; confirmation it is what it claims to be.
Summary;
I'm afraid people are so used to hearing the phrase 'in the image of God' that they've lost sight of how staggering an idea (conception of reality) this is. Only the One who created man truly knows who he is, and what he's capable of.
Notes;
1. I agree with the scholars who claim Genesis was likely compiled by Moses (and or those associated with him) from ancient records that went back to the pre-Flood world, and all the way back to creation and Adam.
- e.g. all throughout Genesis, new passages are introduced by the phrase ''these are the records of..."
2. I'm aware that the 'liberal' (Humanist) scholar rejects the above view; but even given that, Genesis still stands as an amazing 'prediction' or understanding of man's intellectual capacity.
It's easy to forget how 'spot on' the Bible was in its characterization of man. In the first few chapters of Genesis (written originally perhaps 6000 years ago) we read that man was created in God's image. We can see this as a prediction of man's future greatness. It expresses a profound understanding of man's intellectual capacities.
Remember that this was before the pyramids, before Pythagoras, before Euclid and Galen, before the Parthenon and Plato, before the great cathedrals, before the universities, before Kepler and Newton, before the microscope and the computer.
Thousands of years before all this (evidence of man's greatness) when man was still dressed in animal skins, the writer of Genesis tells us man was made in the image of God (the all wise creator of heaven and earth). If that's not enough to knock your socks off - you aren't wearing any :=} I find this to be a staggering confirmation of the Bible's divine origin; confirmation it is what it claims to be.
Summary;
I'm afraid people are so used to hearing the phrase 'in the image of God' that they've lost sight of how staggering an idea (conception of reality) this is. Only the One who created man truly knows who he is, and what he's capable of.
Notes;
1. I agree with the scholars who claim Genesis was likely compiled by Moses (and or those associated with him) from ancient records that went back to the pre-Flood world, and all the way back to creation and Adam.
- e.g. all throughout Genesis, new passages are introduced by the phrase ''these are the records of..."
2. I'm aware that the 'liberal' (Humanist) scholar rejects the above view; but even given that, Genesis still stands as an amazing 'prediction' or understanding of man's intellectual capacity.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
A refutation of Richard Dawkins
When he makes his attacks on Christianity, Richard Dawkins doesn't have an epistemological leg to stand on. Given his worldview he has no basis for the criticisms he makes.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'New Scientist has posted several articles recently about the subject [free will]. In one, MacGregor Campbell promoted the answer from some secular neuroscientists that free will is an illusion.
The video states without criticism that “every choice you have ever made was predetermined billions of years ago at the moment of the big bang...” [1.]
- That my friends is the ugly reality of materialism. A consistent application of its message would entail the death of all we consider human.
In other words, Einstein formulating his famous equation was just a matter of physics; a moment predetermined at the moment of the big bang. This show us the falseness and inadequacy of materialism to provide the foundation for a livable worldview.
If my every 'choice' was predetermined, it wasn't a choice then was it?
Notice how materialists will tell you how evil the Bible's message of predestination is... but then have a secular version of their own? They don't seem to find anything evil about that. Ever wonder why that is? (I don't think you'll have to ponder the question long to get an answer.)
Christianity asserts that both God's predestination and man's freedom are possible. How this can be we don't know; we must accept God's word for it, accept that he is much more wise than we, that he comprehends the true nature of reality while we do not.
There can be no freedom for the materialist; not if he's honest.
That the materialist believes this metaphysical view, but then goes on to criticize Christians makes no sense at all. e.g. the anti-theist campaign of Rich Dawkins. [2.] There's utter hypocrisy in 'preaching' change to people who aren't free. You have no right to criticize someone if they bear no responsibility for their behavior. Dawkins shows himself to be an intellectual buffoon. On the basis of his very own worldview, he has no basis for criticizing anything. If all was determined at the moment of the big bang he should shut his cake hole.
How this scenario can explain the fact I'm a creationist and Dawkins is a materialist I don't know. Was the Big Bang undecided about the origins issue, and what had caused it? Maybe MacGregor can tell us :=}
2. 'As scientific justification for these radically deterministic views, the narrator says, “Many neuroscientists think that what we call free will is just the result of electrical and chemical signals in the brain, explainable ultimately by the laws of physics.” [1.]
- I take it this means there is no free will.
If there is no free will how could you know this? i.e. how could you know anything? If you're not free to accept or reject an idea about X, you can't be said to know X. All you have is an opinion. We see here that m. destroys the ability to have knowledge. If we do have knowledge (and I think we do) it's only because materialism isn't true.
If there is no free will, all my opinions were forced onto me; the outcome of a chain of reactions going back to the Big Bang, and thus I have no knowledge, and can acquire no knowledge. i.e. not in the sense we think of knowledge. (My opinion might be correct but I couldn't be said to know it. I wouldn't be able to justify holding it... as I had no choice in the matter.)
If neuroscieentists had no free will why would their opinions be worth listening to? They're not speaking trruth to the universe, but are only repeating opinions, are only repeating opinions under duress.
If there is no free will it's hard to imagine how creativity is possible. Doesn't creativity depend on freedom?
If there were no free will it's hard to see how people could even think. At best we would be animal type robots. Isn't thinking evidence for free will?
The language here is confusing. If free will is the 'result of' electrical and chemical signals it would still exist... but I don't think this is what the author means. I think he's claiming free will is an illusion. (If it was merely an illusion how would you know this?)
3. “Free will: the illusion we can’t live without.” [1.]
- An illusion we can't live without is a strange kind of illusion isn't it? We normally think of an illusion as something we don't need; as something we can easily live without.
One wonders how X can be an illusion if it's necessary for our survival. Isn't that too a strange kind of illusion? Isn't the fact we can't live without it evidence the claim is false?
Scientists can't tell us whether we have free will or not. Scientists can't tell us whether all acts were predetermined in the big bang. The belief the lab coats can answer all questions is a delusion; a delusion called scientism.
In terms of biblical creation, an 'illusion' we can't (honestly) live without isn't an illusion; not God, and not free will. (The same goes for truth, moral truth, love, reality, Design, the mind, etc.)
4. 'freelance writer Dan Jones again gave the scientific edge to neuroscientists who present the “manifest truth of determinism”. [1.]
- If materialism were true, there would be no truth. The concept is meaningless in a universe determined by matter in motion. A little reflection shows this I believe. (I guess science types don't think they have to study philosophy anymore. Maybe they think they can discover philosophical truths in the lab, or see them in a microscope.)
To acquire true knowledge a subject must be free of the cause and effect chain of material determinism. He must transcend the mere flow of matter. If he doesn't transcend matter, his opinion is just the 'opinion' of matter on matter; ie. it's not a truth claim but a chemical reaction.
Can there be truth without error? but if all is matter in motion there can be no error. ie. how can a chemical reaction be an error?
If the Big Bang produced richard dawkins what produced the big bang? Something very strange must have been going on :=}
This notion plays havoc with our theories of causation. It reduces all causal agents to one; ie. the big bang is the cause of everything.
eg. Q. What caused me to spill my coffee? A. the big bang. (Since the cosmologists can't tell us what caused the big bang, the final cause of everything is a mystery.)
Q. What caused X, Y, or Z? A. Who knows? Stuff happens.
If you reject God and creation, this is the hopeless position you find yourself in. i.e. the cause of all things is unknown. God is thrown out in favor of the unknown. This is an unknown that will never be known; so the only alternative to creation is to have no answer at all.
Addendum;
5. 'He made matter-of-fact statements claiming materialism is scientific truth, such as Francis Crick’s remark, “you are nothing but a pack of neurons.”
- When you read phrases like 'nothing but' you know you're being fed some reductionism.
Crick is wrong. The most vital aspect of a human being is not the matter he's made of (e.g. neurons) but the information that has coded that matter. i.e. you are matter plus information; you are informed matter. (You are information made incarnate.)
I deny the claim matter in motion can compose true (specified, complex) information. We only know of one source of life giving information.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. Scientists Invade Religion Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/21/2011
2. Squawkin' Dawkins as I call him.
- Although Dawkins speaks of the 'god delusion' in reality, given his metaphysics, everything has to be an illusion. His model of reality claims that only matter exists, and that reality exists at the invisible level. He claims man is a 'robot slave' that is manipulated by genes. Every thought of man then is gene given; has its source in the gene's desire to reproduce, and thus can't be trusted to reflect reality. Given all this he has no way to posit truth or reality. Everything must be an illusion given that metaphysics and that epistem0logy. When he looks in the mirror he sees an illusion. When he looks out the window he sees an illusion. There cannot be something called reality for such a worldview.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'New Scientist has posted several articles recently about the subject [free will]. In one, MacGregor Campbell promoted the answer from some secular neuroscientists that free will is an illusion.
The video states without criticism that “every choice you have ever made was predetermined billions of years ago at the moment of the big bang...” [1.]
- That my friends is the ugly reality of materialism. A consistent application of its message would entail the death of all we consider human.
In other words, Einstein formulating his famous equation was just a matter of physics; a moment predetermined at the moment of the big bang. This show us the falseness and inadequacy of materialism to provide the foundation for a livable worldview.
If my every 'choice' was predetermined, it wasn't a choice then was it?
Notice how materialists will tell you how evil the Bible's message of predestination is... but then have a secular version of their own? They don't seem to find anything evil about that. Ever wonder why that is? (I don't think you'll have to ponder the question long to get an answer.)
Christianity asserts that both God's predestination and man's freedom are possible. How this can be we don't know; we must accept God's word for it, accept that he is much more wise than we, that he comprehends the true nature of reality while we do not.
There can be no freedom for the materialist; not if he's honest.
That the materialist believes this metaphysical view, but then goes on to criticize Christians makes no sense at all. e.g. the anti-theist campaign of Rich Dawkins. [2.] There's utter hypocrisy in 'preaching' change to people who aren't free. You have no right to criticize someone if they bear no responsibility for their behavior. Dawkins shows himself to be an intellectual buffoon. On the basis of his very own worldview, he has no basis for criticizing anything. If all was determined at the moment of the big bang he should shut his cake hole.
How this scenario can explain the fact I'm a creationist and Dawkins is a materialist I don't know. Was the Big Bang undecided about the origins issue, and what had caused it? Maybe MacGregor can tell us :=}
2. 'As scientific justification for these radically deterministic views, the narrator says, “Many neuroscientists think that what we call free will is just the result of electrical and chemical signals in the brain, explainable ultimately by the laws of physics.” [1.]
- I take it this means there is no free will.
If there is no free will how could you know this? i.e. how could you know anything? If you're not free to accept or reject an idea about X, you can't be said to know X. All you have is an opinion. We see here that m. destroys the ability to have knowledge. If we do have knowledge (and I think we do) it's only because materialism isn't true.
If there is no free will, all my opinions were forced onto me; the outcome of a chain of reactions going back to the Big Bang, and thus I have no knowledge, and can acquire no knowledge. i.e. not in the sense we think of knowledge. (My opinion might be correct but I couldn't be said to know it. I wouldn't be able to justify holding it... as I had no choice in the matter.)
If neuroscieentists had no free will why would their opinions be worth listening to? They're not speaking trruth to the universe, but are only repeating opinions, are only repeating opinions under duress.
If there is no free will it's hard to imagine how creativity is possible. Doesn't creativity depend on freedom?
If there were no free will it's hard to see how people could even think. At best we would be animal type robots. Isn't thinking evidence for free will?
The language here is confusing. If free will is the 'result of' electrical and chemical signals it would still exist... but I don't think this is what the author means. I think he's claiming free will is an illusion. (If it was merely an illusion how would you know this?)
3. “Free will: the illusion we can’t live without.” [1.]
- An illusion we can't live without is a strange kind of illusion isn't it? We normally think of an illusion as something we don't need; as something we can easily live without.
One wonders how X can be an illusion if it's necessary for our survival. Isn't that too a strange kind of illusion? Isn't the fact we can't live without it evidence the claim is false?
Scientists can't tell us whether we have free will or not. Scientists can't tell us whether all acts were predetermined in the big bang. The belief the lab coats can answer all questions is a delusion; a delusion called scientism.
In terms of biblical creation, an 'illusion' we can't (honestly) live without isn't an illusion; not God, and not free will. (The same goes for truth, moral truth, love, reality, Design, the mind, etc.)
4. 'freelance writer Dan Jones again gave the scientific edge to neuroscientists who present the “manifest truth of determinism”. [1.]
- If materialism were true, there would be no truth. The concept is meaningless in a universe determined by matter in motion. A little reflection shows this I believe. (I guess science types don't think they have to study philosophy anymore. Maybe they think they can discover philosophical truths in the lab, or see them in a microscope.)
To acquire true knowledge a subject must be free of the cause and effect chain of material determinism. He must transcend the mere flow of matter. If he doesn't transcend matter, his opinion is just the 'opinion' of matter on matter; ie. it's not a truth claim but a chemical reaction.
Can there be truth without error? but if all is matter in motion there can be no error. ie. how can a chemical reaction be an error?
If the Big Bang produced richard dawkins what produced the big bang? Something very strange must have been going on :=}
This notion plays havoc with our theories of causation. It reduces all causal agents to one; ie. the big bang is the cause of everything.
eg. Q. What caused me to spill my coffee? A. the big bang. (Since the cosmologists can't tell us what caused the big bang, the final cause of everything is a mystery.)
Q. What caused X, Y, or Z? A. Who knows? Stuff happens.
If you reject God and creation, this is the hopeless position you find yourself in. i.e. the cause of all things is unknown. God is thrown out in favor of the unknown. This is an unknown that will never be known; so the only alternative to creation is to have no answer at all.
Addendum;
5. 'He made matter-of-fact statements claiming materialism is scientific truth, such as Francis Crick’s remark, “you are nothing but a pack of neurons.”
- When you read phrases like 'nothing but' you know you're being fed some reductionism.
Crick is wrong. The most vital aspect of a human being is not the matter he's made of (e.g. neurons) but the information that has coded that matter. i.e. you are matter plus information; you are informed matter. (You are information made incarnate.)
I deny the claim matter in motion can compose true (specified, complex) information. We only know of one source of life giving information.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. Scientists Invade Religion Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/21/2011
2. Squawkin' Dawkins as I call him.
- Although Dawkins speaks of the 'god delusion' in reality, given his metaphysics, everything has to be an illusion. His model of reality claims that only matter exists, and that reality exists at the invisible level. He claims man is a 'robot slave' that is manipulated by genes. Every thought of man then is gene given; has its source in the gene's desire to reproduce, and thus can't be trusted to reflect reality. Given all this he has no way to posit truth or reality. Everything must be an illusion given that metaphysics and that epistem0logy. When he looks in the mirror he sees an illusion. When he looks out the window he sees an illusion. There cannot be something called reality for such a worldview.
Monday, May 2, 2011
All men know God
People in our day claim the evidence for God's existence is either slim or none. The bible has a different take. It declares that all men know God, that the evidence for his existence is inescapable.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'God has revealed himself to all men, providing evidence that justifies belief in his existence and character...' [1.]
- Men can't escape the evidence for God. It's everywhere he looks; from the microscopic to the macroscopic; from the microsphere to the macroshere; from the cell to the seashell, from the tree to the birds, form the Manatee to the mind of man. From the size of DNA to the size of the cosmos. (Some men are staggered by the size of the universe, and hold this out as 'evidence' God doesn't exist. "Why would God have created such a vast surplus" they ask. The size of the universe is nothing compared to the staggering complexity of the cell. Men should be far more impressed by the tiny cell than they are by the vast universe.
The evidence for God's existence is available to all men; no one has gone without it (been cut off from it). The evidence has been available to all men - and it has impressed all men. No one has failed to be impressed with the world, with the universe. From the very beginning men have been astounded by the world (the logosphere) and the creatures in it. They've studied the world, wrote poems in praise of it, sung songs about it, wrote endless books about it. To say they've been impressed would be an understatement.
What men have not always done is give God the credit. Men have been liberal in their praise of the creation, but stingy in their praise of the Creator.
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p.184
Quotes and comments;
1. 'God has revealed himself to all men, providing evidence that justifies belief in his existence and character...' [1.]
- Men can't escape the evidence for God. It's everywhere he looks; from the microscopic to the macroscopic; from the microsphere to the macroshere; from the cell to the seashell, from the tree to the birds, form the Manatee to the mind of man. From the size of DNA to the size of the cosmos. (Some men are staggered by the size of the universe, and hold this out as 'evidence' God doesn't exist. "Why would God have created such a vast surplus" they ask. The size of the universe is nothing compared to the staggering complexity of the cell. Men should be far more impressed by the tiny cell than they are by the vast universe.
The evidence for God's existence is available to all men; no one has gone without it (been cut off from it). The evidence has been available to all men - and it has impressed all men. No one has failed to be impressed with the world, with the universe. From the very beginning men have been astounded by the world (the logosphere) and the creatures in it. They've studied the world, wrote poems in praise of it, sung songs about it, wrote endless books about it. To say they've been impressed would be an understatement.
What men have not always done is give God the credit. Men have been liberal in their praise of the creation, but stingy in their praise of the Creator.
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p.184
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)