Archive for the ‘black holes’ Category

DOES LIFE EXIST BEYOND OUR SOLAR SYSTEM?

October 3, 2014

What is required for life to exist on our planet is extremely complex, intricately balanced and fine-tuned in relation to the size and position of the earth, the sun and other planets, size and position of our moon, our planet’s magnetosphere and various atmospheric layers, the abundance of water, various oceanic and weather patterns and even the temperature, size and properties of the earth’s inner core.  And, this is only a small fraction of the balanced complex reality necessary for our existence.

Because of this, some scientists still insist life may be extremely rare in the universe.  But it appears exo-planets may far outnumber the stars and today, many if not most scientists believe life is probably abundant in the cosmos.  Perhaps few of us stop to consider how truly different, diverse and complex life in the larger universal reality, may in fact be.

Most books and films featuring aliens assume beings more intelligent than ourselves would have superior technology and travel in advanced starships, which isn’t necessarily true.  They are often portrayed as creatures prone to violence and oppression like ourselves, which also isn’t necessarily true.

Human technology arises out of our specific needs for survival. While other forms of life on earth build webs, nests and some even use sticks as tools, what is called “technology” is essentially viewed as being unique to humans. If food was easily and readily available and there was no violence or daily struggle to survive, human technology might not have ever arisen on earth.

Where there is no farming or struggle to eat, there may be no concept of a wheel or plow.  Where there’s no hunting for food and no war, there may be no concept of a knife, spear, bow and arrow or other basic implements at the root of our technology.

Would forms of life more intelligent than ourselves necessarily have any concept of science and education? Would they wear clothing or need to build structures to protect themselves from the elements in a perhaps far less hostile environment?  We can’t even begin to imagine what life would be like without violence and a daily struggle for food, shelter and protection.

At least one scientist has proposed life might exist on giant gas planets, hovering in the atmosphere with no need of a solid surface.  We often assume far too much based on our own tiny window of experience.  The experience of intelligent beings on other worlds may be far different than our own.

We know life on earth is incredibly complex and diverse, even among microbial kingdoms. We can only wonder what it might be like to live on a world far less violent and prone to disease, starvation and death than our own.  Given the abundance and complexity of life on earth and the size and scope of the universe, we can only marvel and remain in awe of the infinite possibilities.

Perhaps a better question is, what might life elsewhere be like?

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

IS ATHEISM SCIENTIFIC? [ Plain English Edition ]

September 21, 2014

Historians say no one knows for certain who designed Stonehenge or exactly how it was constructed. However, scientists have long assumed someone created Stonehenge, rather than proposing it randomly appeared. This is the most likely conclusion based on the observable evidence. Historically, what science “believes” is what appears to be true, unless and until proven otherwise.

Descartes first principle of philosophy, science and reason states: “Accept nothing as true that is not self-evident”. And, the history of science tracing prior to ancient Greece on into the present, clearly represents a history of belief based on self-evidence. What humans call “science” when applied correctly, remains what is evidently true based on the known evidence.

Just as all known evidence indicates for every action there is a reaction, all known evidence indicates no action occurs by it’s own volition. All known evidence indicates a universe filled with energy, light, motion and “zillions” of complex parts within ever greater complexity of parts, containing intelligent finite beings of conscience and conscious awareness, requires Primary Cause and Creative Intelligence.

Supporting evidence is required to overturn previously held positions by the majority of scientists. Thus, the correct postulate of true science remains “Eternal Creator(s)” until proven otherwise.

Pretending “science” is somehow different than belief in God is an obvious lie. Just as scientists “believe” in black holes and invisible light based on mirrored evidence, much more so mirrored evidence of our Creator is overwhelmingly self-evident. Just as the burden of proof remained on Copernicus to overturn what otherwise appeared to be true, the burden of proof remains on atheists, as all known evidence indicates the opposite conclusion.

Basic to wisdom, education, reason and survival itself, is to try to understand and separate what is really true, from whatever fiction the cultures and religions we are born into claim is true. As Jesus implied, if we don’t know what is true, we have no hope of being free.

What we believe does not dictate what is true. Rather, what is true about how the universe and life came to be remains the same, regardless of what we believe or, fail to believe. And whether we label it “science”, “religion”, “philosophy”, “education” or something else, what is actually true remains the same.

Some claim to be “agnostic”, as if this insulates them from providing evidence. Those saying there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, are trying to sell the rest of us the greatest of all human superstitions, that the universe either did or could have magically randomly appeared. Such positions, however far-fetched, require supporting evidence, the same as any other claim.

A virus is several powers of ten larger in comparison to us, than we are compared to just the known universe. Pretending there is no God is like a virus inside of a microbe hiding under a microchip inside of an ivory computer tower, pretending the computer magically randomly appeared and self-assembled, only infinitely more preposterous.

Is atheism scientific? You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

DO SPECIES EVOLVE FROM OTHER SPECIES?

September 21, 2014

One of the most blindly accepted and rarely thought through very carefully claims of modern science is, that species “evolve” from other species. This concept is indoctrinated into the impressionable minds of modern students from elementary school forward. But, is this in fact really true?

What appears to be actually true, based on the modern evidence, is that all of life is constantly adapting and changing in reaction to an ever-changing universal environment. This is more fairly and accurately described as “life in transition” rather than evolution.

While all of life continues to adapt and change, human beings have invented a system that artificially divides life up into categories like “species”, “genus”, “family” and so on. Such artificial divisions obviously have no bearing on how life either happens to exist or functions in true universal reality.

It is neither logical, rational or reasonable to claim that a “species”, an arbitrary artificial division of human science, gives rise to another artificial division. Such a claim is misleading, as what we call birds and snakes and all of life adapted and changed prior to the existence of any concept of species. Life long has and continues to function as it does, regardless of how human beings choose to classify and divide life up.

If someone creates an apple pie and then, someone else slices the pie into twelve pieces, it isn’t true that one of the pieces gave rise to one of the other pieces. Rather, someone created the whole pie and then, someone else arbitrarily divided it into pieces. Individual pieces of the pie have no relevance to how the pie either came to be or functions.

Even if individual pieces of the pie were observed to be constantly adapting and changing, such changes would be due to the nature of how the entire pie was created, rather than being caused by specific individual pieces. If the pie was instead divided into six or four pieces or, if the pie was left uncut, it would still have come into existence in the same way and, it would still function in the same way.

This is also true of the whole pie of life. Whether we call all birds simply a “bird” or divide birds up into many species, this doesn’t change how birds either came to be or function within true universal reality. Human interpretations, invented names and artificial divisions of life do not and cannot rationally dictate how life either came to be or functions.

Based on the modern evidence, it is fair to conclude that all of life is created to adapt and change within constantly changing universal environments, so that life itself can survive. This is what the known evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates when human prejudice is stripped away.

Do species really evolve from other species? Or, is modern science just pulling our chain, denying the overwhelming evidence of Who is behind the DNA chain of life and larger universal reality? You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

IS RICHARD DAWKINS REALLY A SCIENTIST?

September 21, 2014

Atheists often claim “atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods.” This statement is a lie unto itself, containing several claims: 1) Atheism makes no claims; 2) It’s doubtful there is a God; 3) It’s doubtful the universe is created; 4) Atheism is the default position; 5) The Encyclopedia Britannica definition of atheism is wrong.

Rather than providing evidence for his baseless positions as required by the rules of science and evidence, Richard Dawkins instead attempts to ridicule and marginalize Francis Collins and other scientists who believe in God. He compares their scientific positions to belief in the spaghetti monster, while branding everyone who believes in God as delusional.

This is a gross contradiction of logic, science and reason and the very worst example of trying to compare apples with oranges imaginable. The obvious reason being, if we eliminate the spaghetti monster, we aren’t left having to explain our existence along with the rest of the universe.

The true default position of science is that there is a physical reality called “universe”. The default question of science then becomes, how and why is there a universe? Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this, stating that the “God question” is “central to all of science” and cannot be ignored.

Mr. Dawkins then contradicts himself, claiming the “onus” belongs on those who say there is a God. The “onus” remains on every human being to explain how and why there is a physical reality called universe. Atheists and agnostics don’t get a pass on the “God question” any more than the rest of us.

And, the history of science clearly demonstrates that the onus belongs on anyone contradicting previously held positions of the majority of scientists. To say atheists aren’t required to provide supporting evidence for their baseless superstitions, is to say Copernicus could have just stood up in a roomful of his peers, claimed the earth goes around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any supporting evidence.

This is exactly the position many modern atheists take, a clear violation of the rules of science and evidence and established history of science. Another well-known Richard Dawkins position is that the universe “represents nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”, exactly as one would expect if there is no God.

This statement openly contradicts the known evidence of Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Tubman, Keller, Parks, King, Chavez and literally billions of people who demonstrate the opposite of “blind, pitiless, indifference”. Obviously if people, who are part of the universe, have concepts of both good and evil, the universe clearly does not represent nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

What is called “science” rarely represents 100% proven fact. Rather, science when applied accurately, is the best conclusion based on the known evidence. And, science requires evidence to overturn previously held scientific positions.

Is Richard Dawkins really a scientist? Would the Greeks allow someone making such claims into the Academy or ban him for life? You Decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

CAN CHARLES DARWIN BE TRUSTED?

April 3, 2014

Historical people, like the rest of us, sometimes contradict themselves and often change their minds over time.  It is generally fair to conclude what scientists say in their older age represents their true lifetime professional opinion, rather than what they might have said when they were younger.

Human language definition often changes over historical time and words sometimes develop multiple meanings.  To be fair and accurate, one must consider how words were defined when they were spoken, rather than how those same words might be defined today.  Careful historians apply a discipline called “philology” to help understand human language in historical context.

For example, broad-brushing the American founders as “deists”, a consistent bad habit of modern educators, is a historical lie.  The majority ascribed to some form of Christianity and, the very few who claimed to be deists apparently believed God hears prayers and interacts with human affairs.  There is no evidence any American founder was a deist as the term is normally defined today.

Charles Darwin, in the opening sentences of his final revision of “On The Origin of Species”, is humble enough to credit our Creator for being behind whatever universal processes and reality there may be. This edition was published about five years prior to Darwin’s death and thus, it represents a lifetime conclusion.

Some ‘scholars’ today, pretending they can somehow know Darwin’s intentions, claim that he only mentioned God to make his wife and family happy and to otherwise appease the religious leaders of his day.  Because Darwin throughout his lifetime consistently openly debated with religious leaders and others concerning his ideas, such a claim has no historical merit.  One might fairly ask, if we can’t trust Darwin regarding this most fundamental of human beliefs, how can we trust anything else he said?

Perhaps Darwin made no mention of our Creator in his first edition because the overwhelming evidence for creation was agreed to by the vast majority of scholars of his time.  Maybe only after the publishing of his theories had caused considerable controversy, did Darwin then find it necessary to place our Creator where he, like Einstein and Jefferson apparently believed God belongs, far above all human science, reason and understanding.

In a letter published two years before his death, Darwin strongly denies being an atheist, saying his mind was “mainly agnostic but not entirely”.  Because agnostic at that time sometimes referred to distrust in religion and human claims about God, rather than questioning God’s existence, Darwin could attest to our Creator and still remain agnostic but not entirely without contradiction.

Is it fair to pretend one of human history’s greatest scientists can’t be trusted to be honest regarding what he fundamentally believed?  Is it fair to just arbitrarily ignore various words ascribed to Jefferson, Einstein and Darwin because modern liars don’t like what they actually said? Is it fair to speak for historical people, rather than allowing their own words to speak for them?

Can Charles Darwin be trusted?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Video for this article