He is an evolutionist, a believer in reincarnation, and does not believe in Jesus Christ as God. He wrote the textbooks for students of Quantum Mechanics. So, why am I writing about him? He is a scientist, a professor, that shows evidence for downward causation. That is why.
His name is Dr. Amit Goswami and recently I was drawn to his documentary, now on Netflix, called "The Quantum Activist" If you do not have Netflix, own it as a stream online for a mere $3.99.
I saw some video interviews on YouTube where he made some very good points also and I will post them at the end for those that wish to explore his research more. I was very excited, speaking of "Ah ha" moments, to hear him lay out the reason why the materialist fight and resist, tooth and nail, science that reveals the truth about downward causation that he even refuses to call God, but we know better. The paradoxes in science can be eliminated when this one point is realized. More on that later.
OK, let's make the case. Quantum physics states that objects are not determined things. Objects are actually quantum possibilities for consciousness to choose from. Be it material things, thinking, intuit, etc. Waves of possibilities into a conscious choice into an actual event of experience.
Many years ago, I posted about and discussed, the God particle. Well, maybe we get to revisit the subject this week.
5 sigma for the God particle? (5 means new discovery or highly confident) This is what they are calling the "holy grail of particle physics," over at CERN. They spent 10 billion to build it just to find the Higgs Boson, after all. Find out on the 4th
I have leapfrogged this article in its entirety, with a word correction, from Atheism Analyzedby Stan who highlighted it from the original post, the blog, Scientiam Dei:
Here is Francis J. Beckwith's pro-life syllogism:
The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.
It is prima facie morally wrong to [murder] any member of that community.
Every successful abortion [murders] an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.¹
¹ Found in: Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to
Engage the Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009) p. 29. Originally
from: Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case
Against Abortion Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Stan adds, "To deny that every human - every human - went through the prenatal
stages of human life including the division of cells and all embryo
stages can be seen as nothing short of dishonest. To claim the moral
authority to determine which stage of human life they think is
acceptable to [murder] is an onerous claim. The idea that Atheism is more
empathetic is absurd, unless the value of human life is discounted in
advance, and the Atheist is elevated beyond his actual position as just
another human, not a moral judge or determiner of life and death for
other innocent humans.
No excuse can defeat the fact that human life always starts with cell
division and that killing those cells kills a human life at that
particular stage. This is not defeated by any appeal to the condition
of the mother, the ability of the embryo to feel pain, or any other
rationalized permission to [murder] the human at that stage, and only in a
triage situation can such decisions be made which would kill the embryo
or mother with moral impunity.
The much vaunted Atheist "empathy" has not been extended to the more
than 50,000,000 humans [murdered] by abortion in the United States.
"
I am sure you will notice that I changed the 'kills' to "murder" as to be more accurate and truthful.
I found it completely telling that Stan was able to articulate the exact arguments I hear daily, on this blog or in my group, from the Atheists. How can a worldview, a position that
stands on an argument from incredulity, possibly be so sure?
This post was almost a Déjà vu as a few days ago I asked in the group: Are you absolutely certain that is NOT a person inside of the woman deserving rights and freedoms as any other person? If so, how are you absolutely certain?
UPDATE: this post is on the heals of a new video released just today revealing Planned Parenthood encouraging Sex-Selective Abortions like China, from Live Action.
Is there any wonder why I love Dr. William Lane Craig and many Atheists despise him? I can see why now y'all call him names and attempt to discount him. He is, quite literally, dangerous to your beliefs and religion. God has certainly blessed this man. Wow, that just had to hurt. His cuts run deep, although I doubt this will be acknowledged by any Atheists. These 5 points would be a good poster on my wall.
5 things that cannot be scientifically evidenced, but we're all rational to accept:
1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math.
2. Metaphysical truths. Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value
4. Aesthetic judgments. Beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven
5. Science ITSELF cannot be justified by the scientific method. Its also permeated with unprovable assumptions.
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30–A series of new undercover phone calls reveals that contrary to the claims of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and other supporters of the nation’s largest abortion chain, the organization does not provide mammograms for women.
"PP is not able to provide quality services on their own, so they are forced to lie to the public about services they don't provide--and mammograms are just one of those services."
Lets even say there were no videos exposing these things at all (which their are). To have a policy to help 13 year old's, or younger, get abortions without parental consent, or alerting the authorities, is aiding in rape. Statutory rape is still rape.
They NEVER ask, and don't care, for the father to be present to see for themselves, as an investigation tool if nothing else, to identify if a rape has indeed occurred or not. They DON'T CARE if it did happen. They just HIDE it. They are accomplices to rapists if by their POLICY ALONE. They do not aid the raped, they aid rapists!
Planned Parenting was caught covering up the statutory rape of underage girls and enabling sexual abusers. Well, now Planned Parenting wants to "help out" Pimps also.
Caught on Tape: Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp’s Underage Sex Ring
Contact: Colleen O'Boyle, media@liveaction.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , (323) 454-3304
NEW JERSEY – February 1, 2011– A Planned Parenthood manager in New Jersey coaches a man and a woman posing as sex traffickers how to secure secret abortions, STD testing, and contraception for their female underage sex slaves, and make their whole operation “look as legit as possible” in an undercover video released this morning.
I was wondering what it would be like if all of us all got together to eat some BBQ and enjoy some good conversation. Well, I got a glimpse of that today, join me. Also, if you ever wondered how a baby from Sye and Ray would turn out, I give you Chad!
Just sit back and enjoy. Mike also confirms this quote, "If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable." ~Plantinga
I also noticed that Yaeger's Law was confirmed, yet again.
I have been teaching my kids for a while now, their whole life even, and I cannot tell you how rewarding and fun it is to see the spark in my own children as they learn and explore about life.
I know deep down I am doing the right thing even though I hear all the naysayers, like many atheists here, speak of my inability to teach. Its just wrong and baseless. I believe they are trying to knock down some of the complete confidence I have in my decision to do so. I know with certainty that it is, and was, the right decision based on the fruit that I am witnessing. I am enjoying watching everyone collaborate on such an intimate level with various subjects and I can see how effective it is.
In continuation of the conversation of Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism we see how ineffective Evidentialism is to the atheist, explained by Dr. Bahnsen.
In a past lecture, Dr. Greg Bahnsen said: "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."
Who said Creationism is not science? If science is something that is testable, repeatable, and verifiable then Creationism is far more science then Evolution.
Based on the idea that both genes and non-gene DNA were produced by a Creator, rather than the laws of physics, creation scientist John Woodmorappe predicted in 2003 that pseudogenes would be discovered to play an important regulatory role in cells.
Science is now showing that to be accurate... (Read more at ICR)
Once again AIG has produced a very helpful list for people. All of the evolutionists might want to go and check the list out before discussing things here. It just makes thing easier for all of us and it will allow a better flow of the discussion.
Way to go, Answers in Genesis, you did well again. Brilliant work indeed. I suggest to everyone who hasn't, to get a subscription to their award winning magazine "Answers"
Science has yet to falsify its genuineness which is indeed falsifiable. They are baffled as to how the image got there, the negative image at that. Paint or ink has been ruled out.
So there you have it, empirical evidence that shows a supernatural event that baffles science. The Shroud of Turin.
If you haven't, watch it on the History Channel Sunday, Jul 18, 4/3c to see the science behind the shroud, especially the scanner part where to verify the image authenticity he takes a regular desktop scanner and scans the Bust to reproduce the exact image on the shroud thus testing, replicating, and verifying his findings.
Now before the claim of the shroud being "proven" fake:
Something was discovered, and the original scientists agree with, that the shroud was actually repaired and dyed at one point.
This has been confirmed by many people in the field including the original scientist that performed the experiment named John L. Brown who hurriedly spent his remaining days refuting the original, and flawed, findings.
Rogers discovered evidence of nearly invisible mending: dyestuff and spliced thread. Just to be sure, he sent samples to John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory. Working independently and using different methods, Brown agreed with Rogers. He wrote: This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.
The findings were verified and replicated that the original had been altered. The new finding are irrefutable but unfortunately they did not get the "press coverage" the original, though flawed, findings got.
The recanting of the claim the shroud was a fake is much like a retraction in a news paper that is buried deep in the unpopular section with a " we made a mistake" that gets lost and unread.
The Shroud of Turin is the real deal. Science has shows that evidence.
So, no more claim by Atheists that there is no evidence of supernatural events, please.
UPDATE: In reflection and after reading something written from AIG:
Like the Rich Man (Luke 16:31), we have God's Word. Anyone not prepared to believe God's Word won't be persuaded even if a dead person came to warn them.
Matthew 28 explains that the chief priests had money given to the soldiers so they would report the body of Jesus was stolen instead. Jesus had obviously risen from the dead, and they refused to believe!
Noah's Ark was a sign to the pre-flood world that God judges sin and that in His grace He provides a way to escape from judgment. All through scripture, God gave the Israelites sign after sign and they rejected His Word.
So no matter what evidence appears it will be rejected by the Atheists, just like the many people did throughout the Bible. God save them all.
I read a blog post that spelled it out pretty well, enough to re post it. Kevin Childs is a DJ at The Rock (Rockc3.com) and he did a post discussing how Atheists belong to a religion.
We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there. For Atheists to attempt to claim "neutrality", in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually. They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on what they believe is evidentiary to their presuppositions. Denying what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.
Childs makes the case:
Atheism is a religion.
Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.) A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:
They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
They have faith. That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? They just take such unexplained things by … faith.
There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubts about some specifics, but we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there, because God revealed Himself to all of us. Romans 1:18-23
And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.
Evolutionists say it is a fact that all of biology just happened to arise by accident, and they harshly criticize those who do not agree. But with amazing consistency their criticism is hypocritical—it applies to evolutionary thinking. Consider this recent paper about creationist movements:
In summary, while creationism has evolved diverse labels and strategies for legal and rhetorical purposes, its fundamental essence remains unchanged. That essence is advocacy of miraculous divine intervention, i.e., special creation, in the history of life, and the claim that science must acknowledge special creation or dire consequences for society will follow.
Dire consequences for society? This is precisely the sort of rhetoric used by evolutionists. Skepticism is routinely characterized as anti-science. Diseases will flourish and crops will fall prey to insects without evolution to guide our science. Indeed, the very premise of this paper is that evolution skepticism must be countered. It is a hazard which seeks to return the world to centuries past.
And the fundamental essence of evolution has remained unchanged for centuries. Passages from Lucretius read like modern evolutionary writings. And more recently, the urgings of Enlightenment thinkers laid the groundwork for Darwin and can be found throughout the post-Darwin literature. The essence is the rejection of miraculous divine intervention for a variety of religious and metaphysical reasons. They are repeated ad nauseam today as though they are scientific findings, but they are no different than the evolutionary genre from ... Read more
In keeping with our discussion of morality from the last post. I just found out that our friend Mariano over at "Atheism is Dead", that is now True Freethinker, debated with an Atheist named Michael Sizer. A smart discussion that may be interesting to you. Grab a cold lemon-aid, and also in my case a dictionary, and enjoy a good conversation.
I thought it was misleading to say that, because the anterior cingulate cortex shows activity, morality must comes from the brain. An indicator of brain activity is merely that. An indicator, not origins. One can make the case that we see, breath, and hear with our brain also, using that analogy. That to me, would be a lazy explanation. The real question is what is the origins of morality, Mariano does a fine job of addressing that question.
I especially 'loved' the, quite clinical Hamilton's rule reasoning, actually the subsequent explanation, as to self sacrifice. That is what is the problem here and, for me, is what centered the debate. Science, clinical and passionless, doesn't suffice. Well played Mariano.
Morality: Natural or Supernatural? I think the answer is clear.
If you are watching this in Youtube. Resist clicking on the little soccer ball in the bottom right corner when you hear something that you do not agree with. You might miss something important.
Apparently, The Institute for Creation Research, who funded the R.A.T.E project, received a punishing gut punch in the school yard that left everyone wincing.
The Institute for Creation Research's graduate school, which is based in California, has been offering master's degrees since 1981 accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.
Recently they packed up and moved away from Beverly, Hills that is, to Texas to sweat in upper 90% humidity daily. Unfortunately that decision backfired because they were denied to offer masters degrees.
The hurdle that ICR needed to get over is The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, unfortunately they received a pit bull equivalent of pressure from the yelping hyena atheists of the scientific world to not approve ICR's application to allow the Institute to offer master's degrees in science education in Texas. Apparently, this was the Atheists Alamo. Of course, like most educational institutes in the U.S., those S.A.C.S. of cowardice, caved in to the atheistic pressure and gave a denial to ICR.
It is completely understandable, since other universities all over the planet can certainly offer Master's degrees all day long as long as it is secular, science fiction, and not Creationism.
As an example, Cornell University, a highly accredited university in the atheist friendly state of New York has their Physics department loaded with science fiction teachings.
Wha, wha? Don't worry little birds, I'll feed you.
Cornell University's Physics department has 140 articles on Multiverses. That's right, the fictional postulation of multiple universes (oxymoron?) is being taught, and promoted, in our schools to "explain away" the precession of this finely tuned universe. Currently the most popular of the physics explanations called "string theory" predicts a large number of possible universes.
Multiverses is not science at all because no testable predictions can be made. Its not testable, repeatable, and verifiable. The real kick in the rear is that is what is claimed, by atheists, about Intelligent Design! Are you kidding me? Certainly not a Creator, no way!
Richard Dawkins even maintains that an alien designer or designers are more plausible than a supernatural designer because there is a known mechanism to produce them. He calls it the "crane of natural selection". Creator? Never!
So, I think we all understand why this happened. A Creator cannot, and will not, be entertained in any way, in a university setting as a hypothesis, or theory, or anything else academically because that would bring an entire accountability factor to the table.
Something that cannot be tolerated. Much like an Ostrage does when frightened, the atheists are scared of that privately funded outcome.
Please allow the showing of "Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record." We were going to take our children to see it. Why would you discriminate like this? We will be blogging about this and maybe take action since this is a clear violation of the freedom of speech and equal protection. I cannot believe you would allow a small group censor you like this. Is this still America?
Are you afraid of truth? Are you afraid of a perspective other then your own? Are your viewpoints that unstable that a little movie could derail your presuppositions or worldview? What are you afraid of?
Please reconsider, Dan
Today I found out that:
California Science Center to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Settle Open Records Lawsuit by Intelligent Design Group
The California Science Center (CSC) has agreed to settle a lawsuit with the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute and release records that it previously sought to conceal regarding its cancellation of the screening of a pro-intelligent design film last year.
"After months of stonewalling by the Science Center, this is a huge victory for the public’s right to know what their government is doing, especially when the government engages in illegal censorship and viewpoint discrimination," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
The Science Center continues to "deny any and all liability relating to the claims," according to the settlement agreement. However, it agreed to pay Discovery Institute’s legal fees and to surrender more than a thousand pages of documents it had been withholding since they were requested under the California Public Records Act last year.
In light of BP Oil being a complete failure with the top brass CEO, Tony Hayward, (future PR expert) cruising around on his Yacht on the oil free ocean, I suppose taking advantage of some much deserved down time this weekend, I wanted to point out the counter for the current evolutionary spin on oil.
What may be spewing into the Gulf currently is called Abiotic Oil
This information on the heals of finding out that BP is in bed with Russia, who is now the top oil producer.
Wasn't it a Russian Professor that wanted to split the US up anyway? I digress.
The claim that Oil is a 'fossil fuel' may not be the case at all. The postulation that oil is actually rotting dinosaurs (reason for lost transitional fossils? How convenient!) and plant matter, magically transforming over millions/billions of years into oil is erroneous.
In chemistry, organic means chemical compounds with carbon in them. In a more general sense, organic refers to living things. Just because a certain material is referred to as organic does not mean it is or ever was alive.
t.me/EARTH20GENESIS/4868
Maybe, presupposing evolution resulted in this "fossil" fuel mistake? Do you now see the dangers of placing evolution as the paradigm instead of letting the evidence speak for itself?
Supporting Evidence for Abiotic Oil, briefly, is that Oil being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet, where organic matter is no longer found. Wells pumped dry are later replenished. Gives a whole new meaning to "Gulf Oil" now. Plus, this research apparently shows that it does not take an excessively long time, millions of years, to produce oil. More evidence of a young earth? Also, the volume of oil pumped thus far not accountable from organic material alone according to present models.
"Scientists in the US have witnessed the production of methane under the conditions that exist in the Earth's upper mantle for the first time. The experiments demonstrate that hydrocarbons could be formed inside the Earth via simple inorganic reactions -- and not just from the decomposition of living organisms as conventionally assumed -- and might therefore be more plentiful than previously thought." (Physics World)
NASA is noticing this might be the case on Titus also. According to SpaceRef.com "The origin of methane in Titan's atmosphere is a mystery because it gets broken down by sunlight and particle radiation from space in the upper atmosphere. If surface lakes and pools were the only source, all of Titan's methane would be lost by this mechanism in less than a hundred million years, a short time for a moon that's been around since the formation of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago."
"Abiotic oil is created by intense pressures on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur. The sort of pressures required to create oil are natural as one gets down a certain depth under the heavy crust and in the upper layers of the mantle. In some ways oil is the natural lubrication system for the crust and the upper layers of the mantle as it shifts and orbits the planet's core." (SDAI-Tech1)
Now the myth of peak oil and energy crisis is upon us, I am sure there are those that believe it as the gospel truth, but like the evolution paradigm, I just don't buy it.
Well, we can thank BP for helping us get multicolored rain, you know, for the children.
Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. (Hedges)
If we reexamine this paradigm that everything must be a slow process, that takes millions/billions of years, maybe we would get more accurate results from the data. Oh secularists, when will you ever learn? Darwin is not god. God is.
UPDATE: Coincidence or Judgment? Spill is Obama's fault.
Update Deux:
Science
confirms what we said years ago. Fossil fuel does not come from fossils
after all. Silly evolutionary paradigm that muddies the water again.
"We observed the operation of a natural refinery of petroleum of gigantic size", said astronomer Jérôme Pety. ~Daily Galaxy
