Since researching and writing "Spiritual Science" I have come to fully know, appreciate and understand the truth of God and Creation, and the lie of Atheism and Evolution. For my upcoming book, soon to be released, I dug even deeper into Darwinism / Evolution and found many fascinating and disturbing frauds and hoaxes passing under the guise of "science," such as the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Peking Man, Orce Man and other supposed "ape-men evolutionary transitional forms" along with so-called "Dinosaurs" which have proven to be bogus or outright forgeries. The truth is that intelligence, life, consciousness, the intricate detail and complexity of nature is not and cannot be the result of blind chance evolution. We are clearly living in an intelligently designed universe, purposefully created by a purposeful creator, not accidentally "evolved" from some random cosmic explosion. The truth is that even if scientists placed all the chemical substances necessary for life in a tank, applied to them any processes of their choice, and waited for billions of years, not a single living cell could or would ever form.
“The
likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to
a number with 40,000 zeros after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the
whole theory of evolution. The beginnings
of life were not random; they must have been the product of purposeful
intelligence. From my
earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe
that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully
shed. At the moment, I can’t find any rational
argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize
that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random
shuffling.” -Astrobiologist Chandra
Wickramasinghe
Consciousness,
life, the beautiful diversity, complexity and interconnectedness of nature and
the universe simply could not be the result of some random coincidental
physical phenomenon. If the
likelihood of life forming from inanimate matter is 1 x 1040,000
power, then those are precisely the magnificent odds against which the universe
could be unintelligently designed! Even
the simple formation of DNA and RNA molecules are similarly beyond the reach of
chance to come together, equivalent to 1 x 10600 power, or 10 with
600 zeros afterwards! Such a
mathematical improbability actually so closely borders the impossible that the
word “improbable” becomes misleading.
Mathematicians who regularly work with these infinitesimally small
numbers say anything beyond 1 x 1050 powers should be considered,
for all intents and purposes, impossible.
Posts
36 comments:
Hi Eric, there's another good reason why 'random' doesn't work: It's anti-science.
- Random means not following any law - it's a causeless cause - it's a 'god'!
- 'random' and 'supernatural' are basically synonyms.
- Random has never been proven to exist.
- Science is the study of cause and effect. Randomness is causeless. Therefore it's anti-science.
Soz to self-promote, but I just posted on the subject... :)
http://veritopian.blogspot.com/2014/10/randomness-is-anti-science.html
I'm really interested in what you've said, especially about the 'Piltdown Man' et al. All the supposed links in the evolutionary chain appear to have a LOT of kinks in them! They won't stop calling it a 'theory' because they can't prove it.
I can't remember who said it, or where I read it, but ..."If man descended from the Ape, why are there still Apes?"
;-)
Marie
Great point Veritopian, evolution is, was, and always has been a foregone conclusion by people looking for any answer other than God. When you metaphysically exclude the existence of an intelligent creative consciousness behind the creation of the material world, the only answer left is random happenstance. Everything must be the result of coincidence, chance and circumstance once you have excluded the possibility of an intelligent creator. And good question Said, why are there still apes? Where are these millions of transitional forms Darwin "hoped would be discovered in the future?"
The thing is; by saying 'chance', science is actually invoking the supernatural. Chance is a totally unscientific concept. It's magical, things happen without a cause.
'Chance' has the same characteristics as a god. - it creates things from nothing, but it's not intelligent.
They're basically saying that creation is supernatural, but completely stupid, and they call it's God 'Random chance'. Richard Dawkins 'Blind Watchmaker'...
Absolutely, you nailed it: "Chance is a totally unscientific concept. It's magical, things happen without a cause. 'Chance' has the same characteristics as a god. - it creates things from nothing, but it's not intelligent. They're basically saying that creation is supernatural, but completely stupid"
In Western culture, so influenced by the Abrahamic faiths, the idea of an intelligent creator conjures up the image of an omnipotent God with a human like personality. A God with a moral sense who can be pleased or angered. A God who also should have some sense of moral responsibility and obligation towards the creatures He creates. But our world is so dark, our societies dominated by extremely evil people who manipulate morality, lie about everything and wage war on their own populations relentlessly, through propaganda, medicine, food, water, economics and other forms of oppression.
I think that the problem with the idea that there is an intelligent omnipotent God, is that God appears to be inactive. An as individuals we seem to have little chance of enjoying a life free of fear, born as we are into a corrupt dangerous world. When we need help God does not come to our rescue. God will not even protect you from a mosquito.
I accept that there must be an intelligent God but struggle with understanding what kind of God this God is. Look at most young children. They are kind, free of racism, sharing, protective of each other, but by the time they are young adults many are violent, willing to fight wars, selfish and self-obssessed. Life is painful, meaningless, full of fear and generation upon generation have suffered with few able to reach anywhere near their potential because of social conditions. What do you thing about this? What good is an intelligent God that allows such suffering. Why doesn't God let all the psychopaths die in their sleep and free the world?
Maybe because if He did, the world would be empty...
Anonymous has expressed my concerns to a tee. The age old question " Why does God allow such suffering in the world " is usually answered that we're being "tested".
And why just the two options? Creationism versus Evolution? How about something totally different?
What other option do you propose besides intelligent design (God) and unintelligent design (Evolution)? It seems to me God created Earth as a paradise but also allowed humans the freedom, the free will to be as good or as evil, to be as faithful or as blasphemous as they wished. In other words, humans are usually to blame for human suffering, not God. Human-on-human suffering is the real problem, suffering caused by "acts of God" (i.e. earthquakes, hurricanes and other weather phenomena) are negligible in comparison. Even things like the plague, cancer, AIDS and Ebola are completely, or in large part, the result of human creation and irresponsibility. Evil/Satan exists as the Yang to God's Yin, the necessary dialectic for free will to exist at all. Without evil, there can be no good, without suffering, there can be no pleasure. Like a good parent, God gives his children the freedom to be whoever they wish to be, as good, evil or mediocre as that may be. This question came up in my Lightwaves Radio interview as well:
God, Consciousness, Intelligent Design, Duality, Satan and the Ego
Can I ask you something Eric when people think of God or intelligent design its the God of heaven there thinking about right? what makes you so sure "GOD" isnt an alien race that created us I hope that isnt true i hope your right
God is defined as the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, objective, infinite intelligent consciousness that existed before and beyond time, space and matter. If aliens existed, they would have been created by God as well :)
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning ELOHIM created Yin and Yang.
The 7 Elohim are themselves made from Yin & Yang.
Which would suggest that this is a second-generation reality (or third, etc) which was made within another reality.
Eric, evolution is not considered seperate from creation in my mind, although I believe that humans and some other animals did not "naturally" evolve. This is the big birthing wheel of our cosmos, we are animals, but GMOs. Evolution does make sense even if it doesn't apply to our species. I think evolution is very creative and goes hand in hand with 'creationism'. Quit separating the two. Much love and respect,
Phora
Evolution and creationsim are not opposites, eric. Please quit entertaining the idiots!
I proposed another Option to Creationism versus Evolution. I have absolutely no idea what that would be. It seems we can only choose from opposites... I just wonder if the answer is beyond either. What is blasphemous? What is evil? I see evil as anything that does not support life. I ask these questions because I don't know. Perhaps the Truth remains eternally Unknowable?
How are intelligent design (creationism) and unintelligent design (evolution) not opposites? They are the only two options possible, and the latter option is as ridiculous as a monkey reading music and singing opera. There was obviously an intelligent master-plan at work in creation, not random haphazard blind chance. What do people suggest as a third option? I see none. And for the people saying "evolution IS God's design," then it's a misnomer to call it evolution. Evolution was an atheist invention to attempt to explain everything's existence without a creator. If there's a creator, then it's creationism. If there's no creator, it's evolution. People are so wishy-washy and unsure; they don't want to step on anyone's toes so they try to make everyone happy by saying things like "I think evolution IS God's design." It's like saying, "I think black IS white." No, it's clearly not, but since you don't want to stand up for one and be ostracized by believers of the other, you'd rather find some equanimous position, no matter how self-contradictory and hypocritical, so you can comfortably stand on the non-existent middle-ground.
As an alternative to either fixed design, or blind evolution, how about a "principle of discovery" instead...
In this concept, the direction is defined by God, but the destination remains to be discovered.
Just as we explore & discover ourselves through living, so God too is exploring & discovering what it is to be God... And perhaps hitting a few snags along the way.
The perfect God of religion presents a logical problem - i.e. where did evil come from? If we apply hermetic correspondence, then God has to be like us, at least in some ways...
Exploration and discovery is the fundamental principle of the universe. Not a fixed design, or random events, but learning / growing up. An unfolding into greater complexity (more Yin), but with greater clarity (more Yang). More of everything...
Does that make sense?
Yup, makes sense, but it's just another expression of creationism/God, still intelligent design, and not a third option.
Hi Eric, If you look at it like this, it's three options:
1) Stupid God / No God.
Evolution / Unintelligent design / Blind watchmaker.
The standard 'scientific' view: Random chance.
(Not really a scientific theory at all as chance is anti-science...)
2) Perfect God.
Intelligent Design / Divine Plan / Pre-destiny.
The standard 'religious' view: Everything laid down at the beginning. Prophesy, the '144,000' etc...
3) Imperfect God.
Intelligent Self-Exploration & Discovery / Learning.
A constant guided unfolding into greater being.
In this 3rd option, we have a very anthropomorphic God who is mighty, yet immature, and like all *creatures* has to learn how to be a good entity by experience.
So obviously this God (the creator of this reality) is not the true Creator, but is a creation themselves. It could be Lucifer / Satan therefore.
If we look at the animal kingdom & our own animal instincts - we find they are directly opposed to spiritual principles. Competition predominates, and it is conflict. So 'Nature' is evil. So logically, the god of nature must be the god of conflict - i.e. the spirit of evil.
And this explains why evil is allowed to exist - because the spirit of nature is still an immature, selfish, childish spirit, who still needs to grow up. It's a child of the true Creator, with free will to be a douchebag, just like we are.
In a way options 2 & 3 are the same - there is ultimately a perfect Creator directing things, but in terms of this particular universe, it's a profound difference.
What do you reckon? ;)
Yes, I like the distinction you made, but also would agree that it's more like 1, 2a and 2b, not really a third option, but an addendum/caveat to the second. In fact, 2b makes more sense to me than 2a, considering creation's dualistic nature. Thanks. Peace!
Hi Eric. I stumbled across a video that you may find very informative regarding the 'trinity' in Christianity and how it's false. Whether or not you're a Christian, it could prove useful to know this if you don't already. My apologies for not posting this under an article that is more relevant to this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aNwTXx24e8&index=174&list=UUzGLYkM3mX-Q-fx-MzuThww
No. Evolution and creationism are not opposites. You sound like an atheist. I don't understand why people think that. It makes no sense. This is the definition of 'evolution'. "1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form". Many people (myself included) believe in spiritual evolution as well as physical evolution. Even in the bible, the order in which god created each species, (water creatures birds land creatures humans etc) is similar to the order in which species have evolved. I don't understand how you could not believe in evolution. The evidence is there. I highly doubt that god just created us all magically the way we are now. You may say that makes me an atheists but no, I'm not. There's a huge diffence here. Atheist/scientific matieralist types see evolution as something that's totally random like you said. Meaningless. Purposeless. I think evolution is a purposeful thing. I'm not trying to seek a false middle ground. This is literally the only tho g that makes any sense to me. Black and white thinking is extremely idiotic in my opinion. You lose yourself in blind zealotry, and overlook what the other side has to offer, forgetting that it's not that much different from your own. There are many different shades of grey and not only that but there's pink and blue and green and red and yellow and purple and orange! All sorts of colors. There are more than just 2 sides.
You can list as many colors as you want, there still exists only the two options of purposeful intelligent design, or random haphazard non-design.
I highly doubt that god just created us all magically the way we are now. Atheist/scientific matieralist types see evolution as something that's totally random like you said. Meaningless. Purposeless. I think evolution is a purposeful thing.
You highly doubt that God created us magically the way we are now, but you're fine with a God that magically evolves us into the way we are now? And you think "evolution is a purposeful thing," but you won't just come out and say we were purposefully and intelligently designed. You've categorically stated that you disagree with the atheist, purposeless position, but you don't want to accept the theist, purposeful position, why? Is that your son wearing a shirt with nothing but a huge red 666 in your profile pic as well?
Some things are very black and white Kaitlyn, regardless of how many grays and colors you try to render, they're just varying degrees of incorrectness.
You're not making any sense. I never said thatwe weren't purposefully designed, but I said that evolution was true too. No it's really not black and white. You're dividing things for no reason. Christianity (or whatever it is you're preaching) and atheism are NOT the only existing worldviews. I told you: I believe that we are evolving for a purpose. How difficult is that for you to comprehend? It's really not a hard concept to grasp
I'm not making any sense? You just avoided all my questions. If you agree we were purposefully, intelligently created, and we are "evolving for a purpose," as you said, then that is intelligent, purposeful design. Whether we're "evolving" physically, spiritually or in whatever way is irrelevant to the question of intelligent design vs. unintelligent non-design. I'm not Christian or Atheist, it seems you're the black/white thinker, trying hard to pigeon-hole me, and not leaving any room for a-religious theism.
Kaitlyn said...
Christianity (or whatever it is you're preaching) and atheism are NOT the only existing worldviews.
We are not discussing how many different world views there are - there are many more (most absurd, like yours), but what's the point of mentioning them when they don't even make any sense.
Also you are highlighting that people evolve (spiritually) as they grow up. But I'd say most people actually go backward spiritually. Most of us do a lot of things we would would have never done when we were young (e.g. being corrupted, sometimes even kill or do jobs which leads to killing of others for money).
Also apart from military etc, there are many instances of normal people willfully joining the forces of darkness, e.g. satanism, etc, where they actually kill others in cult ceremonies. You can't call them being evolved spiritually, can you?
I wouldn't say humanity has evolved since the beginning (big bang, then monkey OR intelligent creation, depending on where you stand). We have actually gone backwards. No matter it was monkeys or Adam and Eve, they would give their own life to defend their companions.
Not any more, as you can imagine. There are many wars going on in the world at this moment in time resulting to the death of both adults and children. But we are all consumed with our little lives and the petty things like electronics etc, rather than at least demonstrating to stop them.
If you really can not change your world view, you should then use the term Human Regression rather than Evolution.
Please let us know what you think.
Great points Anonymous, humans were certainly more spiritually evolved many millennia ago. As our materialistic technological development has increased and taken precedence, our spiritual / mental / emotional development has regressed and devolved.
I do leave room for theism but there are many types of theism that do not deny the existence of evolution. Evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity is the only religion I know that does that. As for your question, it makes no sense because I never said that intelligent design wasn't a thing. But evolution is a thing too.
"Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."-all things which seemingly oppose are in reality two sides of the same coin and are mutually coexistent, therefore this is what it means by "all paradoxes may be reconciled."
Either way, aren't we left with THE fundamental unanswerable philosphical question? What was before the big bang? Or, what was before god? What created the big bang? What created god? And if one were to say, "the universe and god always has been and always will be for infinity," well, how? How can that be? On the side of evolution, it cannot be denied natural and artificial selection exists. Is not changing a plant from a grass to corn evolution? Or are we to argue that the current state of corn has always been? Well, what of the moths of industrial england? The white-barked trees outside London provided safety for a white moth. Yet when coal pollution turned the bark of those trees black, predators easily saw the white moths and ate them. A small percentage of the same species of moth were black however and their population exploded as they were then hidden from predators. That is evolution at work. The gene on the allele that produced the white color was selected against. And so a change was made and this illustration shows how through time, the environment selects for those changes. All I'm saying here is the basic tennant of evolution--selection--is indeed based on science. It's observable and testable.
Yes, natural selection, or "micro-evolution" is constantly happening and scientifically verifiable. What is not happening, and has never been verified even once (though Darwin said we should find millions of examples) is "macro-evolution," the supposed transition from one species into a completely different species. This does not happen. Though Mason evolutionists for the past 150 years have been concocting fossil frauds to try and convince the gullible public! Research Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga, Orce Man and some of the other ridiculous intentional ape-man frauds! Dawson put an orangutan jaw with a human skull and called it the missing link in evolution! Nebraska Man was reconstructed from one tooth which turned out to be from a Presthenops pig! Orce Man turned out to be a 4 month old donkey skull! The Godless evolution taught in schools and promoted by today's pseudo-science is clearly bullshit. And your chicken or egg problem is not unanswerable. Creation requires a creator, a creator does not require a creator. Sit in meditation for a while and you'll discover that consciousness is a priori and infinite, it exists beyond all space, time and matter. It doesn't not need to be created because there is nothing to it... it is simply awareness with nothing to be aware of until something is created.
Yes, I am aware about such frauds as piltdown man et al. That is old news. This was defrauded almost 100 years ago and in no way are any of these frauds currently used in the debate about evolution. These are cases of individuals trying to get recognized to further their OWN ends, not, as you imply, an intentional "cover-up" across the entire field. Or, they were simply mistakes--long since admitted. To use these as examples of field-wide "trickery" is preposterous.
But, we agree in "micro-evolution" because it is undeniable and can be seen before our eyes. That's how evolution works! What do you think happens to a species over a million years of small changes? Nothing fundamental? What would satisfy as a transitional fossil? Do we demand one fossil per year for a million years to show the slow changes?
You mention a creator creates but does not need a creator itself. Yes, this makes sense because otherwise it's never-ending. You mention consciousness simply is and exists beyond all space and time and matter. I can't disagree with that and find it interesting. But how? What is consciousness? Energy? So there is, was, and always has been energy? And out of the energy the creator formed matter? Why? what for? And even so, where did the energy come from in the first place? How did it get "there?"
Hey Aron, Piltdown Man was paraded around museums the world over for 41 years, over 500 doctoral thesis' were written about it, and finally only in 1953 was it uncovered as a fraud. But there have been plenty more since! Lucy in 1974 was another bogus find still being promoted as authentic by the Masons in Hollywood with their Scarlett Johannson movie. The Orce Man donkey skull fake was exposed in 1984. The latest one, Turkana Boy is another BS find.. they are all either apes or men, or something totally different, they have still uncovered 0 authentic transitional forms. It is not "preposterous" that the Masons have propagated this deception (and many others).
Freemasonic records state that Charles Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin was a philosopher, scientist and physician who advanced ideas on evolution back in the 18th century. Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning No. 2 of Scotland. He also maintained close connections to the Jacobin Masons in France and Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati. Sir Francis Darwin and Reginald Darwin, two of his sons, were also made Masons in Tyrian Lodge No. 253 at Derby. Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is most likely that he, like his Grandfather, his Sons and his “Bulldog” T.H.Huxley, was a Mason. Charles wrote that he used to listen to his grandfather’s ideas of evolution and was greatly influenced by them. Erasmus was the first man to put forward the notion of evolution in England. He was known as a “respected” person, but he had a very dark private life and at least two illegitimate children. Charles himself would go on to marry his first cousin and have three children die due to complications from inbreeding.
“Masons, thinking that Darwinism could serve their goals, played a great role in its dissemination among the masses. As soon as Darwin’s theory was published, a group of volunteer propagandists formed around it, the most famous of whom was Thomas Huxley who was called Darwin’s ‘bulldog.’ Huxley ‘whose ardent advocacy of Darwinism was the single factor most responsible for its rapid acceptance’ brought the world’s attention to the theory of evolution in the Debate at the Oxford University Museum in which he entered into on June 30th, 1860 with the bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce. Huxley’s great dedication to spreading the idea of evolution, together with his establishment connections, is brought into further light according to the following fact: Huxley was a member of the Royal Society, one of England’s most prestigious scientific institutions and, like nearly all the other members of this institution, was a senior Mason. Other members of the Royal Society lent Darwin significant support … In short, Darwin wasn’t acting alone; from the moment his theory was proposed, he received the support that came from the social classes and groups whose nucleus was made up of Masons.” -Harun Yahya, “The Theory of Evolution Revisited”
“An important example which proves the fact that Darwinism is one of the biggest deceptions of atheistic freemasonry is a resolution carried in a mason meeting. The 33rd degree Supreme Council of Mizraim Freemasonry at Paris, reveals in its minutes its promotion of evolution as science, while they themselves scoffed at the theory. The minutes read as follows: ‘It is with this object in view [the scientific theory of evolution] that we are constantly by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism.’ Atheistic freemasonry in the United States has picked up the resolution of Mizraim before long. New Age magazine in its March 1922 issue stated that the kingdom of atheistic freemasonry will be established by evolution and the development of man himself. As seen above, the false scientific image of evolution is a deception set in the 33rd degree atheist Masonic lodges. Atheist masons openly admit that they will use the scientists and media which are under their control to present this deception as scientific, which even they find funny.” -Harun Yahya, “The Fundamental Philosophy of Atheistic Freemasonry”
The Mimar Sinan journal published by the Turkish Great Freemasonry Lodge has openly discussed their mission to use Darwinism to overthrow religion and belief in God. One article mentioned, Today the only valid scientific theory accepted both by most civilized countries and underdeveloped ones remains to be Darwinism. However, neither the church nor other religions have collapsed yet. The legend of Adam and Eve is still being taught as religious teachings in holy books.”
As for consciousness, it is not "energy," it is "awareness," or "the capacity for experience." All space, time, matter and energy take place within consciousness, like a dream. In your dreams there are various people, environments, situations taking place, but in reality, they don't exist, the only real thing in existence is you, the dreamer.
Hi Eric,
I agree with your comment: "As for consciousness, it is not "energy," it is "awareness" But I will like to know: What do you think generates the space, time, matter and energy that takes place within people's consciousness. What force is responsible for generating the situations that we experience in our 'dream state' and why did it program us to believe that the situations images etc that we encounter are real?
The work of Michael Cremo would surely interest you.
Michael Cremo's books are very interesting.
Eric,
I have evidence and can prove that your creator god is non-existent.
The Christians claim, as per Genesis, that their god created
everything out of nothing. They cemented that and call it the Doctrine of CEN (creation ex nihilo).
Christians also claim that their god can me supernatural and / or natural (Jesus). I do not know what god is, but Christians claim that their god is something.
Based on that:
How can something (a creator god or whatever) exist inside or outside nothing before it created everything out of nothing some x years ago?
An honest theist would admit:
It's illogical to hold a belief that something (a creator god or whatever) can exist inside or outside nothing before it created everything out of nothing some x years ago. Something can't exist inside/outside nothing.
Therefore, you need to reject logic to hold onto that agley belief that out of nothing something comes.
Therefore, the falsifiable evidence is: Logic (3 rules of thought).
The prove is: Something can't exist inside or outside nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
QED - the Christian god is illogical, proven to not exist.
What now Eric?
Post a Comment