Stephen Hawking says intelligent design of the universe is highly probable? Updated, yes a hoax

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 12, 2015

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[Someone kindly tweeted: WDNR is satirical entertainment website & not a source of news –worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/ Back to work.]

And it isn’t even April 1? Ran March 8 at World News Daily:

The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe.

Presenting himself before students at the University of Cambridge, the world-famous scientist declared that his years of research on the creation of the cosmos have led him to isolate a strange scientific factor which he says is in many ways contrary to the universal laws of physics.

Personal reasons seem to play a role.

Can’t find evidence it’s a hoax as yet. Watching. Breaking.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Funny DNA_Jock, Parnia, who is among the most skeptical of NDE researchers, personally testifies of a patient who brought back information to him that he could not possibly have known. Parnia also personally describes his testimony as 'very credible' and yet you do not accept that testimony as good enough. Color me unimpressed with your skepticism! On the one hand you unskeptically accept that unguided material processes can create, without any guidance whatsoever, the unfathomable complexity of our brain, (more complex than the entire internet combined), even though you cannot produce evidence for a single molecular machine arising by unguided material processes, yet on the other hand you dismiss any and all claims for a reality beyond the material realm even though the testimonies from many credible NDEs stand up to scrutiny. Along the line of compelling evidence for NDEs: Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).) http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Ring/Ring-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1997-16-101-147-1.pdf Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) - Pim von Lommel - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE Coast to Coast - Vicki's Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y Quote from preceding video: 'I was in a body and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head. It had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And 'it' was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.' - Vicky Noratukbornagain77_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Folks, I would think the crucial case is the one with after death experiences with altogether over 500 witnesses. KFkairosfocus_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

It should be noted: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability'). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's: Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Near Death Experience Thailand Asia - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8M5J3zWG5g A Comparative view of Tibetan and Western Near-Death Experiences by Lawrence Epstein University of Washington: Excerpt: Episode 5: The OBE systematically stresses the 'das-log's discomfiture, pain, disappointment, anger and disillusionment with others and with the moral worth of the world at large. The acquisition of a yid-lus and the ability to travel instantaneously are also found here. Episode 6: The 'das-log, usually accompanied by a supernatural guide, tours bar-do, where he witnesses painful scenes and meets others known to him. They give him messages to take back. Episode 7: The 'das-log witnesses trials in and tours hell. The crimes and punishments of others are explained to him. Tortured souls also ask him to take back messages to the living. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/neardeath.html?nw_view=1281960224&amp India Cross-cultural study by Dr. Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia Medical School and Dr. Satwant Pasricha of the Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences in Bangalore, India Excerpt: "Suddenly I saw two big pots of boiling water, although there was no fire, no firewood, and no fireplace. Then, the man pushed me with his hand and said, "You'd better hurry up and go back." When he touched me, I suddenly became aware of how hot his hand was. Then I realised why the pots were boiling. The heat was coming from his hands! When I regained consciousness, I had a severe burning sensation in my left arm." Mangal still had a mark on his left arm that he claims was a result of the burning. About a quarter of Dr Pasricha's interviewees reported such marks. http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/apr/06pas.htm Near-Death Experiences of Hindus Pasricha and Stevenson's research Except: "Two persons caught me and took me with them. I felt tired after walking some distance; they started to drag me. My feet became useless. There was a man sitting up. He looked dreadful and was all black. He was not wearing any clothes. He said in a rage [to the attendants who had brought Vasudev] "I had asked you to bring Vasudev the gardener.,,, In reply to questions about details, Vasudev said that the "black man" had a club and used foul language. Vasudev identified him as Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. http://www.near-death.com/hindu.html Near-Death Experiences Among Survivors of the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake (Chinese) Excerpt: Our subjects reported NDE phemenological items not mentioned, or rarely mentioned in NDE's reported from other countries: sensations of the world being exterminated or ceasing to exist, a sense of weightlessness, a feeling of being pulled or squeezed, ambivalence about death, a feeling of being a different person, or a different kind of person and unusual scents. The predominant phemenological features in our series were feeling estranged from the body as if it belonged to someone else, unusually vivid thoughts, loss of emotions, unusual bodily sensations, life seeming like a dream, a feeling of dying,,, These are not the same phemenological features most commonly found by researchers in other countries. Greyson (1983) reported the most common phemenological feature of American NDE's to be a feeling of peace, joy, time stopping, experiencing an unearthly realm of existence, a feeling of cosmic unity, and a out of body experience. http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Zhi-ying/Zhi-ying-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1992-11-39-48.pdf The Japanese find death a depressing experience - From an item by Peter Hadfield in the New Scientist (Nov. 30th 1991) Excerpt: A study in Japan shows that even in death the Japanese have an original way of looking at things. Instead of seeing 'tunnels of light' or having 'out of body' experiences, near-dead patients in Japanese hospitals tend to see rather less romantic images, according to researchers at Kyorin University. According to a report in the Mainichi newspaper, a group of doctors from Kyorin has spent the past year documenting the near-death experiences of 17 patients. They had all been resuscitated from comas caused by heart attacks, strokes, asthma or drug poisoning. All had shown minimal signs of life during the coma. Yoshia Hata, who led the team, said that eight of the 17 recalled 'dreams', many featuring rivers or ponds. Five of those patients had dreams which involved fear, pain and suffering. One 50-year-old asthmatic man said he had seen himself wade into a reservoir and do a handstand in the shallows. 'Then I walked out of the water and took some deep breaths. In the dream, I was repeating this over and over.' Another patient, a 73-year-old woman with cardiac arrest, saw a cloud filled with dead people. 'It was a dark, gloomy day. I was chanting sutras. I believed they could be saved if they chanted sutras, so that is what I was telling them to do.' Most of the group said they had never heard of Near-Death Experiences before. http://www.pureinsight.org/node/4 It should also be noted that there are hellish NDE's reported within Judeo-Christian cultures: Mesiah from I Survived Beyond and Back part 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FehcSO5YNUI video - Howard Storm continues to share his gripping story of his own near death experience. Today, he picks up just as Jesus was rescuing him from the horrors of Hell and carrying him into the glories of Heaven. http://www.daystar.com/ondemand/joni-heaven-howard-storm-j924/#.UKvFrYYsE31 "I knew for certain there was no such thing as life after death. Only simple minded people believed in that sort of thing. I didn't believe in God, Heaven, or Hell, or any other fairy tales. I drifted into darkness. Drifting asleep into anihilation.,,(Chapter 2 - The Descent),, I was standing up. I opened my eyes to see why I was standing up. I was between two hospital beds in the hospital room.,,, Everything that was me, my consciousness and my physical being, was standing next to the bed. No, it wasn't me lying in the bed. It was just a thing that didn't have any importance to me. It might as well have been a slab of meat in the supermarket",,, Howard Storm - former hard-core atheist - Excerpt from his book, 'My Descent Into Death' (Page 12-14)bornagain77_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Interesting stuff, but the actual recollections were:
Category 5 recollections Recollection # 1 (Before the cardiac arrest) “I was answering (the nurse), but I could also feel a real hard pressure on my groin. I could feel the pressure, couldn’t feel the pain or anything like that, just real hard pressure, like someone was really pushing down on me. And I was still talking to (the nurse) and then all of a sudden, I wasn’t. I must have (blanked out). . ..but then I can remember vividly an automated voice saying, “shock the patient, shock the patient,” and with that, up in (the) corner of the room there was a (woman) beckoning me. . .I can remember thinking to myself, “I can’t get up there”. . .she beckoned me. . . I felt that she knew me, I felt that I could trust her, and I felt she was there for a reason and I didn’t know what that was. . .and the next second, I was up there, looking down at me, the nurse, and another man who had a bald head. . .I couldn’t see his face but I could see the back of his body. He was quite a chunky fella. . . He had blue scrubs on, and he had a blue hat, but I could tell he didn’t have any hair, because of where the hat was. The next thing I remember is waking up on (the) bed. And (the nurse) said to me: “Oh you nodded off. . .you are back with us now.” Whether she said those words, whether that automated voice really happened, I don’t know. . .. I can remember feeling quite euphoric. . . I know who (the man with the blue had was). . .I (didn’t) know his full name, but. . .he was the man that. . .(I saw) the next day. . .I saw this man [come to visit me] and I knew who I had seen the day before.” Post-script – Medical record review confirmed the use of the AED, the medical team present during the cardiac arrest and the role the identified “man” played in responding to the cardiac arrest. Recollection # 2 “At the beginning, I think, I heard the nurse say ‘dial 444 cardiac arrest’. I felt scared. I was on the ceiling looking down. I saw a nurse that I did not know beforehand who I saw after the event. I could see my body and saw everything at once. I saw my blood pressure being taken whilst the doctor was putting something down my throat. I saw a nurse pumping on my chest. . .I saw blood gases and blood sugar levels being taken.”
I have watched two women put on "X-ray vision glasses" that allowed them to see the naked bodies of clothed people. Or so they believed at the time. It was absolutely hilarious as they pointed and laughed, but also thought-provoking. How did their minds synthesize images that they found credible? Unless of course you think that the glasses worked as advertised... Color me underwhelmed by these generic descriptions of resuscitation, as seen on TV. As I wrote earlier, until someone comes back with information that they could not possibly have arrived at through other means [e.g. the image on the shelf], there isn`t any evidence for a ‘spiritual’ explanation of NDEs, much as we all might wish it otherwise.DNA_Jock_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter - Consider the following: A Christian who believes that NDEs are 'spiritual' would predict that both Christians and Hindus would have 'Christian' NDEs. A Hindu who believes that NDEs are 'spiritual' would predict that both Christians and Hindus would have 'Hindu' NDEs. Anyone who believes the NDEs have a physiological explanation, whether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or atheist, would predict that Christians would have 'Christian' NDEs, and Hindus would have 'Hindu' NDEs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3950600 Ho hum.DNA_Jock_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

as to: "The point remains: until someone comes back with information that they could not possibly have arrived at through other means, there isn`t any evidence for a ‘spiritual’ explanation of NDEs, much as we all might wish it otherwise." Parnia, who originally set a 'number test' up in a operating room to prove remote viewing, now concedes the evidence for remote viewing of the hospital room is 'very credible'? Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real - October 7, 2014 Excerpt: Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton who led the research, said that he previously (held) that patients who described near-death experiences were only relating hallucinatory events. One man, however, gave a “very credible” account of what was going on while doctors and nurses tried to bring him back to life – and says that he felt he was observing his resuscitation from the corner of the room. Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, Dr Parnia said: “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating. “But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes. “The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for. “He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largestever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-neardeath-experiences-may-actually-be-real-9780195.html The extremely ‘monitored’ NDE of Pam Reynolds – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k "I think death is an illusion. I think death is a really nasty, bad lie. I don’t see any truth in the word death at all" – Pam Reynolds Lowery (1956 – May 22, 2010) The following is on par with Pam Reynolds Near Death Experience. In the following video, Dr. Lloyd Rudy, a pioneer of cardiac surgery, tells stories of two patients who came back to life after being declared dead, and what they told him about what they saw when they were supposedly 'dead'. Famous Cardiac Surgeon’s Stories of Near Death Experiences in Surgery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08 Michaela's Amazing NEAR death experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTcHWz6UMZ8 "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.bornagain77_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

as to: Ba77, if you actually read my post, you would know that I don’t think that a Spiegelman monster, or any other example of a complicated machine arising without guidance, would refute ID because (as I wrote) ID has no entailments. and in that you would be wrong: to repeat: your claim that ID has no ‘entailments’ is an interesting claim for a Darwinist to make since ID is much more easily falsifiable than neo-Darwinism is: “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518 It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.” If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_bornagain77_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Wallstreeter43, Like News, I wouldn’t expect someone to come back from an NDE with next week`s lotto numbers, but I agree with CHartsil that it would be rather good evidence in their favor. There’s no inconsistency there. Your condescension is as misplaced as it is impressive. Personally, I would settle for an accurate description of the placard on the shelf. Unfortunately, out of the 330 cardiac arrest patients in AWARE who survived their hospital stay, only two had category 5 (auditory/visual awareness) memories and neither of these was in a room with placards. The point remains: until someone comes back with information that they could not possibly have arrived at through other means, there isn`t any evidence for a ‘spiritual’ explanation of NDEs, much as we all might wish it otherwise. Ba77, if you actually read my post, you would know that I don’t think that a Spiegelman monster, or any other example of a complicated machine arising without guidance, would refute ID because (as I wrote) ID has no entailments.DNA_Jock_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Plus news whether Nde's being caused by the brain or not isn't dependent on a psychic event such as telling the future or past. Chartsil didn't know about the aware study and instead of admitting to it he tried to cover his tracks by making this ridiculous argument . This fact right here shows that he has a religious commitment to his atheism/materialism worldview and really isn't interested in the scientific evidence. Unless it favors his cult like blind faith in his atheism . And this isn't limited to scientists like Chartsil who is way out of his element . As you can see in the links I provide below alex tsakiris of skeptiko completely destroyed professor patricia churchland who is a professor of philosophy of neuroscience at ucsd . He got her so flustered on the evidence for Nde's that she basically hanged up on him and pretended that it was a problem with her audio. Then alex called her up twice and each time the audio was working but when alex caught her lying in her book when she claimed in her book that doctor Lommel believed that Nde's were. A used by the brain and alex told her that in fact doctor Lommel believed the opposite that again her audio stopped working twice when she was supposed to answer. When he sent her an email there was no response anymore . This is a professor that teaches at a presigious university and she is either ignirant or willingly ignored the evidence against the brain being the cause of Nde's Watch the audio interview , it's totally hillarious and she's even. Orr ognorant about Nde's then Chartsil is lol. And alex isn't even a Christian http://youtu.be/7a6ZaivvCnE http://www.skeptiko.com/237-patricia-churchland-sandbagged-by-near-death-experience/ Oh and I almost forgot , professor churchland is oxford educated . Wow an oxford edi actiin in her area of expertise must not require much rigor lolwallstreeter43_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

This thread has been interesting and instructive. It started with me crowdsourcing a rumour I doubted, and got good results (in terms of articulable reasons for doubt). There'll be a lot more of this on the Internet, so we may as well get used to it. One couldn't discount the possibility because, in the last years of his life, Antony Flew, longtime reputable atheist, converted to deism. Many showmen suddenly face the reality others have always lived in. Note: Reading post just above, if someone claimed an NDE brought him info re winning Lotto picks, we must know that it is false. A person in that position would not care about winning Lotto picks. No one would care about such matters in the midst of a heart attack. Most likely, the guy making the claim knows someone who scams lotteries, which can happen more often than many people admit , especially if they believe that life if just a giant lottery:
One guy we covered in February was honest: Statistician Mohan Srivastava of Toronto, Canada, picked winning Ontario Lottery scratch cards by assuming that they were assigned by a software tool called a pseudo-random number generator. Instead of ripping off, he picked 19 of 20 proposed winners correctly and took the unscratched cards to the lottery commission. Which pretty much ended that game. And we’ve all heard about the Texas “lucky star” lotto queen too.
Jabr reports that Srivastava told Ontario lotto that some techniques do produce truly random sequences – techniques using thermal noise, for example.
News_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

Maybe DNA jock also believes that Nde's are caused by the brain . Somehow I don't think he will make the same ignorant error that chartsil made who tried to dig himself out of his deep hole by claiming that if the guy brought back information of next weeks winning lotto picks then his nde would be believable . Few people are really that ignorant right folks ;)wallstreeter43_{March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

What an entertaining train wreck this thread has been.keith s_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock is this the supposed falsification of Behe you were talking about?
Spiegelman Monster is the name given to an RNA chain of only 218 nucleotides that is able to be reproduced by an RNA replication enzyme. It is named after its creator, Sol Spiegelman, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Spiegelman introduced RNA from a simple bacteriophage Q? (Q?) into a solution which contained Q?'s RNA replication enzyme, some free nucleotides, and some salts. In this environment, the RNA started to replicate. After a while, Spiegelman took some RNA and moved it to another tube with fresh solution. This process was repeated. Shorter RNA chains were able to replicate faster, so the RNA became shorter and shorter as selection favored speed. After 74 generations, the original strand with 4,500 nucleotide bases ended up as a dwarf genome with only 218 bases. Such a short RNA had been able to replicate very quickly in these unnatural circumstances. In 1997, Eigen and Oehlenschlager showed that the Spiegelman monster eventually becomes even shorter, containing only 48 or 54 nucleotides, which are simply the binding sites for the reproducing enzyme RNA replicase. M. Sumper and R. Luce of Eigen's laboratory demonstrated that a mixture containing no RNA at all but only RNA bases and Q? replicase can, under the right conditions, spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA which evolves into a form similar to Spiegelman's Monster. http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Spiegelman%20Monster
So this is your big falsification of ID by unguided material processes? And you think this falsifies Behe (and Meyer) how exactly? a few related notes that the unbiased reader may be interested in:
Nick Lane Takes on the Origin of Life and DNA - Jonathan McLatchie - July 2010 Excerpt: As Stephen Meyer has comprehensively documented in his book, Signature in the Cell, the RNA-world hypothesis is fraught with problems, quite apart from those pertaining to the origin of information. For example, the formation of the first RNA molecule would have required the prior emergence of smaller constituent molecules, including ribose sugar, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases. However, it turns out that both synthesizing and maintaining these essential RNA building blocks -- especially ribose -- and the nucleotide bases is a very difficult task under origin-of-life conditions. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/nick_lane_and_the_ten_great_in036101.html An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just-So Story (And Then Made Up Another to Replace it) - March 2012 Excerpt: "I'm convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct," Caetano-Anollés said. "That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.",, The ribosome is a "ribonucleoprotein machine," a complex that can have as many as 80 proteins interacting with multiple RNA molecules,,,, Furthermore, "you can't get RNA to perform the molecular function of protein synthesis that is necessary for the cell by itself."… It appears the basic building blocks of the machinery of the cell have always been the same from the beginning of life to the present: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/evolutionist-just-gave-up-on.html The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory for the early evolution of life (except for all the others) - July 2012 Excerpt: "The RNA World scenario is bad as a scientific hypothesis" - Eugene Koonin “The RNA world hypothesis has been reduced by ritual abuse to something like a creationist mantra” - Charles Kurland "I view it as little more than a popular fantasy." - Charles Carter http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-7-23.pdf New findings challenge assumptions about origins of life - September 13, 2013 Excerpt: But for the hypothesis to be correct, ancient RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes. That's a hard sell; scientists calculate that it would take much longer than the age of the universe for randomly generated RNA molecules to evolve sufficiently to achieve the modern level of sophistication. Given Earth's age of 4.5 billion years, living systems run entirely by RNA could not have reproduced and evolved either fast or accurately enough to give rise to the vast biological complexity on Earth today. "The RNA world hypothesis is extremely unlikely," said Carter. "It would take forever." Moreover, there's no proof that such ribozymes even existed billions of years ago. To buttress the RNA World hypothesis, scientists use 21st century technology to create ribozymes that serve as catalysts. "But most of those synthetic ribozymes," Carter said, "bear little resemblance to anything anyone has ever isolated from a living system.",,, The (current) study leaves open the question of exactly how those primitive systems managed to replicate themselves—something neither the RNA World hypothesis nor the Peptide-RNA World theory can yet explain. http://phys.org/news/2013-09-assumptions-life.html Origin of life researchers say they are one step closer to RNA world - January 17, 2014 Excerpt: "Holliger lab,, made an RNA molecule that is able to accurately copy RNA sequences that are longer than itself – more than 200 building blocks long" Informed sources note that the molecule can replicate other template RNAs if it is given activated nucleotides, the right buffer, and other advantages. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/origin-of-life-researchers-say-they-are-one-step-closer-to-rna-world/ Biological Information: The Puzzle of Life that Darwinism Hasn’t Solved - Stephen C. Meyer Thus, as my book Signature in the Cell shows, Joyce’s experiments not only demonstrate that self-replication itself depends upon information-rich molecules, but they also confirm that intelligent design is the only known means by which information arises. http://www.evolutionnews.org//2009/06/biological_information_the_puz.html Stephen Meyer Responds to Fletcher in Times Literary Supplement - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: everything we know about RNA catalysts, including those with partial self-copying capacity, shows that the function of these molecules depends upon the precise arrangement of their information-carrying constituents (i.e., their nucleotide bases). Functional RNA catalysts arise only once RNA bases are specifically-arranged into information-rich sequences—that is, function arises after, not before, the information problem has been solved. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/stephen_meyer_responds_to_flet.html
bornagain77_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Stilling digging, I see.DNA_Jock_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

In fact, not only does Evolution not have any universal law to appeal to, Entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts Darwinian claims that increases in functional complexity can be easily had:
Entropy Contradicts Darwinism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1No_jMMDJDaMsNHdn8CrQnKRgiFDf8CXcqZGn3lSYIZc/edit Biological Information – Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems 11-22-2014 by Paul Giem (A. McIntosh) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR_r6mFdwQM
One of the primary reasons why a rigid mathematical basis for Darwinism will never be formulated is because of the insistence by atheistic Darwinists for the ‘randomness postulate’ at the base of Darwin’s theory:
Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science - Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/paulijcs8.pdf “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011 Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness
Moreover, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian claims, math consistently shows us that Darwinism is astronomically unlikely:
HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that,, E. coli contain(s) over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFY7oKc34qs&list=SPHDSWJBW3DNUaMy2xdaup5ROw3u0_mK8t&index=7 Biological Information - Overlapping Codes 10-25-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OytcYD5791k&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ See also Mendel's Accountant and Haldane's Ratchet: John Sanford Walter ReMine
bornagain77_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock, I googled your “Sumer and Luce’s monsters” cite and the only link it kicked back with those words in it was your post. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=ssl#q=molecular+machine+Sumer+and+Luce%E2%80%99s+monsters Which is interesting since Behe's appeal for falsification certainly was not done in a dark corner somewhere but was done out in the open. You would think that the falsification of Behe's claim would generate more than your one remark. Indeed I would expect the falsification to generate at least a few pages from google! Perhaps you can be a little more specific as when, where and exactly Behe was falsified? Moreover, your claim that ID has no 'entailments' is an interesting claim for a Darwinists to make since ID is much more easily falsifiable than neo-Darwinism is:
"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." Karl Popper - The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge http://izquotes.com/quote/147518 It’s (Much) Easier to Falsify Intelligent Design than Darwinian Evolution – Michael Behe, PhD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1v_VLueGk The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel Excerpt: "If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise." If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: "No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone." https://www.academia.edu/9957206/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness_Scirus_Topic_Page_
In fact DNA_Jock, I don't even consider Darwinism to be a proper science in the first place, but consider neo-Darwinism to be a pseudo-science along the lines of tea leaf reading. Perhaps you disagree?!? If so, then please provide the rigid falsification criteria against which we can test it against to potentially falsify neo-Darwinism:
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 Darwinians Try to Usurp Biomimetics Popularity - October 9, 2014 Excerpt: "it is remarkable, therefore, that formal mathematical, rather than verbal, proof of the fact that natural selection has an optimizing tendency was still lacking after a century and a half later.",,, More importantly, its proponents are still struggling, a century and a half after Darwin, to provide evidence and the mathematical formalism to demonstrate that random natural processes have the creative power that Darwin, Dawkins, and others claim it has. Everyone already knows that intelligent causes have such creative power. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/darwinians_try090231.html Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.,, Consistent with the laws of conservation of information, natural selection can only work using the guidance of active information, which can be provided only by a designer. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4
Chaitin is quoted at 10:00 minute mark of following video in regards to Darwinism lack of a mathematical proof - Dr. Marks also comments on the honesty of Chaitin in personally admitting that his long sought after mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution failed to deliver the goods.
On Algorithmic Specified Complexity by Robert J. Marks II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No3LZmPcwyg&feature=player_detailpage#t=600 WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt:,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
bornagain77_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock as to: “You appear to have no clue whatsoever about what constitutes ‘evidence’.” well by golly DNA_Jock, you are just the man I want to talk to! I am more than open to evidence! Why don’t you go ahead and list all the molecular machines that have been produced in the lab by unguided material processes??? Just one such example would falsify ID!
Well by golly bornagain, I'm tempted to respond "Sumer and Luce's monsters", but we both know they don't falsify ID because ID has no entailments. Blog posts from Luskin, Behe and Nelson? And a quote from Tour? You are making my point for me. Really, try to stop digging.DNA_Jock_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock as to: "You appear to have no clue whatsoever about what constitutes ‘evidence’." well by golly DNA_Jock, you are just the man I want to talk to! I am more than open to evidence! Why don't you go ahead and list all the molecular machines that have been produced in the lab by unguided material processes??? Just one such example would falsify ID!
PNAS Paper Admits Understanding the Origin of Cellular Features Is a "Glaring Gap" in Evolutionary Biology - Casey Luskin - December 10, 2014 Excerpt: In 2001, biochemist Franklin Harold wrote in an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Last month, a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Evolutionary cell biology: Two origins, one objective," admitted much the same thing.,,, ,,,"a full mechanistic understanding of evolutionary processes will never be achieved without an elucidation of how cellular features become established and modified." Though they don't put it quite as bluntly as Franklin Harold, this paper's message is no less potent: modern evolutionary biology lacks explanations for the origin of molecular machines. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/pnas_paper_admi091901.html Michael Behe - No Scientific Literature For Evolution of Any Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5302950/ Talking Back to Goliath: Some Advice for Students in the Evolutionary Biology Classroom - Paul Nelson - September 30, 2014 Excerpt: (if neo-Darwinism) is true, we should be able to find in the scientific literature the detailed explanations for the origin of complex structures and behaviors, rendered strictly in terms of random variation plus natural selection. Guess what? Those explanations aren't there; they don't exist. If anyone doubts this, he should try looking for himself. Choose any complex structure or behavior, and look in the biological literature for the step-by-step causal account where the origin of that structure (that is, its coming-to-be where it did not exist before) is explained via random variation and natural selection. You'll be looking a long time. The explanations just aren't there, and this fact is well known to evolutionary biologists who have become disenchanted with received neo-Darwinian theory. When proponents of the received theory, such as Richard Dawkins, face the task of making random variation and natural selection work, they resort to fictional entities like Dawkins's "biomorphs" -- see Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker (1986) -- or flawed analogies such as the "methinks it is like a weasel" search algorithm scenario. No one would have to employ these toy stories, of course, if evidence were available showing the efficacy of random variation and selection to construct novel complexity. "Research on selection and adaptation," notes Mary Jane West-Eberhard, a disenchanted evolutionary theorist, "may tell us why a trait persisted and spread, but it will not tell us where a trait came from....This transformational aspect of evolutionary change has been oddly neglected in modern evolutionary biology" (2003, p. 197). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/talking_back_to_1090141.html
Dr. James Tour, who, in my honest opinion, currently builds the most sophisticated man-made molecular machines in the world, will buy lunch for anyone who can explain to him exactly how Darwinian evolution works:
Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows Darwinian Evolution Does Not Work - James Tour, Phd. - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y5-VNg-S0s “I build molecules for a living, I can’t begin to tell you how difficult that job is. I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." James Tour – one of the leading nano-tech engineers in the world - Strobel, Lee (2000), The Case For Faith, p. 111 Science & Faith — Dr. James Tour – video (At the two minute mark of the following video, you can see a nano-car that was built by Dr. James Tour’s team) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR4QhNFTtyw
bornagain77_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 writes:
DNA_Jock, and why do you not apply the same level of criticism to Darwinian ‘just so stories’? For instance, you are told that your brain, which is far more complex than the entire internet combined, evolved by unguided material processes. But unguided material processes have yet to produce a single molecular machine! Thus, why do you not demand the same level of integrity for these fantastic Darwinian ‘just so stories’ that saturate our mainstream headlines that you do of News’s reporting? It is a hypocritical double standard that you keep when you are so harsh on News mistakes and so blind to the much worse mistakes of Darwinism!
I don’t expect you to believe me*, but I do apply the same level of criticism to biology research. I am highly critical of guys like, say, Spector, and anyone who publishes shoddy work. As a mere graduate student, I got stuck reviewing a paper by a well-regarded researcher, Lacroute. I thought the work was rather shoddy, and told the journal editors why. It had to be substantially re-written and toned down before it could be published. The point being: scientists are highly critical of each others’ work – it is part of the process. But the criticism is based on facts and logic, not personal incredulity. Decades later, critically reviewing research is still part on my job -- I have merely moved from molecular biology to medical research. That you cite a popular book by Behe, verses from the bible, a facebook post by Randall Niles (!!) and youtube bleeding videos (wtf?) as ‘evidence’ to support your position is quite ‘telling’, as kf would say. You appear to have no clue whatsoever about what constitutes ‘evidence’. *It’s a further demonstration of the confirmation bias that is rampant here at UD. It’s an issue that I have raised with various posters here, including Dionisio, gpuccio, and Silver Asiatic. It’s the reason I enjoy this site so. Do you disagree with my statement that it was obvious that worldnewsdailyreport.com is a satirical website? Do you disagree with me that News’ comment “Maybe Hawking will put out a correction if he did not in fact say it.” implies that whether he said it or not is an open question, and that there is ZERO evidence to suggest that he did? You are making my point for me. Hence Piotr’s comment “Stop digging” P.S. News @17, I am not an American, so Hillary is not going to be my “next Prez”. LOLDNA_Jock_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

It IS true that Intelligent Design of the Universe is highly probable, so at least the fake article has truth embedded into it. The article is "trending", so at least some will be exposed to some truth. Silver lining:) http://fake.trendolizer.com/2015/03/stephen-hawking-admits-intelligent-design-is-highly-probable.htmlppolish_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Piotr 'start digging',,, for the truth Matthew 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.bornagain77_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

#23 BA77, Stop digging.Piotr_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

DNA_Jock, and why do you not apply the same level of criticism to Darwinian 'just so stories'? For instance, you are told that your brain, which is far more complex than the entire internet combined, evolved by unguided material processes. But unguided material processes have yet to produce a single molecular machine! Thus, why do you not demand the same level of integrity for these fantastic Darwinian 'just so stories' that saturate our mainstream headlines that you do of News's reporting? It is a hypocritical double standard that you keep when you are so harsh on News mistakes and so blind to the much worse mistakes of Darwinism!
EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html "Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s Finally, a Detailed, Stepwise Proposal for a Major Evolutionary Change? - Michael Behe - March 10, 2015 Excerpt: I would say its (Nick Matzke's 2004 proposal for the evolution of the flagellum) chief problem is that it's terminally fuzzy, bases most of its speculation on sequence comparisons, and glides over difficulties that would have to be dealt with in nature.,,, That's one reason I wrote The Edge of Evolution -- to say that we no longer have to rely on our imaginations, that we have good evidence to show what Darwinian processes are capable of doing. When we look to see what they do when we are watching, we never see the sorts of progressive building of coherent systems that Darwinists imagine. Rather, we see tinkering around the edges with preexisting systems or degradation of complex systems to gain short-term advantage. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/finally_a_detai094271.html
bornagain77_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

ba77 @19 and Rob @21 I criticized comments of News's that she made after she was informed of, and partially recognized, her mistake. It was her two-pronged defense of her error : (1) it was not obvious (!) that the site was satirical and (2) maybe it is still true (as in "Maybe Hawking will put out a correction if he did not in fact say it.") that I found unfortunate. A simple "Ooops, I was had! My bad" without getting all defensive would suffice. I did also offer a more general criticism of UD: News was joined by the first three posters, Silver Asiatic, kairosfocus, and JoeG - all favorites of mine - in buying the story hook, line, and sinker. Thank heavens for the reality-based posters such as REC, heh? As I said : a truly wonderful showpiece of confirmation bias. I love it.DNA_Jock_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 19: I thought the same thing, as I'm sure many of us did, since it's easy to recognize the childishness of attacking a person even after they've admitted/retracted a previous error. Everyone is an expert when they disagree with something. It's astonishing to see so many attacks against the authors on this site about bias and integrity when there are so few sites like this where we can get points of view on a worldview that isn't brainwashed into us by the main media. A materialistic point of view (e.g. evolution, multiverse, etc.) is all we get from the main media and people who offer alternative points of view are attacked relentlessly.Rob_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

Somewhere in the Multiverse Stephen DID say that. In a Many World, Sir Stephen is a raging Theist like Sir Issac was in this world. That Stephen is a much more brilliant Scientist than our Stephen. Too bad we're stuck with dull Stephen sigh.ppolish_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

It is strange that Darwinists on this thread are so keen on belittling News for her supposed lack of journalistic integrity, even though she promptly admitted her mistake, and corrected the headline, as soon as she became aware of it. If Darwinists were truly concerned with integrity, instead of just scoring cheap rhetorical points, should they not at least try to make some effort to apply the same measure of demanding integrity to their very own outrageous 'just so' stories of evolution that they continually try to tell others?
Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! - Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin 'Just told I was ignorant and illogical (and something worse) for believing in a Creator God... So, help me with this logic, Mr. Smarty-Pants: Something from nothing; Life from non-life; Order from disorder; Rationality from randomness; Consciousness from chaos; Design from destruction; Information without intelligence... This is the enlightened "logic" on which you base your life. Rock On!' Randall Niles - in response to a PhD 'Smarty Pants' who was sending him nasty e-mails Anti-Science Irony (Who is really anti-science?) - October 2011 Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/10/anti-science-irony/ A DEFENSE OF THE (Divine) REVELATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF FREETHINKERS, BY MR. EULER Excerpt: "The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible." http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/docs/translations/E092trans.pdf
bornagain77_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

Wouldn't it just be smart to delete this thread altogether?bFast_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

DNA-Jock at 15: If you had to sit through a Hill Clinton presser about e-mail accounts, anything is now credible. And she'll be your next Prez, right? Thanks for helping with crowdsourcing if you did. Thanks for upticking our site anyway.News_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

“Former Beatle Ringo Starr Claims the “Real” Paul McCartney Died in 1966 and Was Replaced by Look-Alike” what? that is not true? http://www.beatlesbible.com/features/paul-is-dead/: The Beatles - I Am The Walrus (HQ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU4uaKgCQ9A The Beatles - Revolution (1968) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR9JMwzxybEbornagain77_{March 12, 2015
March
03
Mar
12
12
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply