Posts Tagged ‘magnetism’


September 21, 2014

According to the television series “Cosmos”, life “evolved” from “random, unguided, blind, natural” processes. This grandiose superstition of spontaneously appearing life is just randomly pulled out of a black hole rabbit’s hat, without a single shred of supporting evidence provided.

Perhaps the reason no evidence is provided is because there is none. If we set aside how human science arbitrarily chooses to divide life up into various categories and instead, we view life as a larger part of the universal whole, a much different picture emerges.

Based on estimated “zillions” of exo-planets and, based on the fact necessary ingredients for life have been discovered far beyond earth, many scientists today believe life is abundant in the universe. More importantly, many believe life probably existed long prior to our sun and solar system.

It’s fair to assume what causes life came out of the big bang, is refined in stars and, is “seeded” abundantly throughout the greater Cosmos. Where eventually, life arises on untold zillions of worlds, most likely in many exotic forms unknown to us. The most likely conclusion is that life is embedded along with the rest of the universe, within a grand cosmic “mural” of ever-changing creation art, very far over the collective heads of humanity.

If one were to ask how far, consider that many scientists believe the universe has 10-11 or more dimensions, of which we can only detect three plus time. Consider we ourselves are a “bio-universe” to an estimated ten trillion microbes inhabiting our bodies. Suppose our planet shrank down to the size of a single atom but otherwise remained intact.

An atom is inconceivably smaller than a microbe, yet very large in comparison to various sub-atomic particles. Suppose our now inconceivably tiny planet was located within a much larger microbe “galaxy”, the microbe in turn inhabiting a very much larger human being “universe”.

Suppose astronomers on this infinitesimally tiny planet, using the latest technology to penetrate far beyond their atom-sized world, while attempting to grasp the true nature of the inconceivably larger human being “universe” the microbe is inhabiting, proposed a “multiverse” theory of innumerable other human-sized universes. Now we have just a tiny fraction sense of the difficulty of trying to understand, from our incomprehensibly limited earth-based view, when, where or how life initially arose.

Consider the arrogance of people on this atom-sized planet pretending to know that life within the scope of their detection, somehow magically “evolved”; that nobody created their atom-sized world, the microbe it inhabits, the larger human being or other “multiverse” human beings. And all the while, denying that the larger buildings we humans inhabit are designed and created.

Suppose we add to this unfathomably dark and complex puzzle, several dimensions these scientists cannot detect, dimensions which human-sized scientists on our actual-sized earth, likewise can’t detect. Is it possible for science to either know or have any way of knowing, that life evolved from “random, blind, unguided, natural” processes?

Is the television series “Cosmos” remotely honest? You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article


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