Wednesday Links: Count down with me

10 Ways To Be Happier at Work by Psyblog

9 Reasons Why Church Leaders Should Read the Daily News by Thom Rainer

8 Things to Remember When Everything Goes Wrong by Marc and Angel

Six Unconventional, Scientific Ways to Be Happier by Lifehacker


5 Ways To Cope With Workplace Stress by Dumb Little Man

4 Ways Mindfulness Meditation Benefits So Many Conditions by Psyblog

3 Ways to Reduce Anxiety and Depression by 

Melissa Satti

(In) 2 minutes a day, reduce stress, everyday by Harvest Review Blog

One Thing You Can Start Doing Now to Instantly Improve Your Marriage…… by Rhett Smith

Wednesday Link List

Here are this weeks’ links:

1. 5 things you NEED to start leaving off of your resume by Career Builder

2. Rest time: the foundation of performance by Coaching Postitive Performance

3. Learning how to use Positive Self-Talk by Martina G. McGowan

4. Science Explains Why Slacking Online Really Makes You More Productive by LifeHacker

 

5. Stress is Often Misunderstood by Alex Dolin

Keep up with all things “Fully Alive Life Coaching,” with my daily paper that features over 200 contributors but most importantly my feeds on Twitter, Youtube and Facebook. Here is the link: http://paper.li/f-1381598529

solar system…

What is the point of the solar system if you are an evolutionist?

How did it get here and how does it fit into evolution of everything else?

The planets are so complex but are they “lower” life form? Yet, we do not understand them….

I am just curious…

Fathoming the universe, it seems that a Creator for all of this would be so much more likely!

Just me thinking

Macro-evolutionits will…

1. claim that there are millions of transitional forms

2. admit there are absolutely no transitional fossils available for proof

3. discover that evidence concurs, there really are not any transitional fossils

4. say that this “evolution” happens so slowly that we will never see it…(this makes some of them feel better)

5. others claim that billions of years have past

6. and yet still they cannot find the transitional fossils from say, the last million years…(realizing this they…)

a. some will say erosion…sure erosion is a decent excuse, but they also say evolution is always happening so eventually one should find a no-eroded fossil or perhaps a living creature whom is in the process of “evolution”

b. others dis-claim everything they have already claimed and place all their emphasis on punctuated evolution…but to do this one must discredit everything they just learned (with something else that has no evidence)….

I want to see the fossils…

I have a problem with the evolution’s theory and I think any logical thinking scientist or evolutionist should have a problem with it too… the lack of evidence in fossils of “slow” evolution?

Where are all these “transitional” fossils? Without them no one can see this “slow evolution.”

If this evolution was really happening even at a slow pace, the fossils would, in fact, back it up. But we do not have any fossil record to back up these small changes. The changes are imagined. Evolutionists keep telling themselves that the changes are occurring “at such a small pace that it is not noticeable,” this seems said only to make themselves feel better about themselves.
Because even if the changes occurred at such a small pace OVER Millions or Billions of years , there would, in fact, be some kind of fossil record. There should be MILLIONS of years worth of fossils….which is NOT the case!

I will admit that fossils by themselves cannot prove or deny evolution. But the evidence leans towards denying it. It is a matter of interpretation. My question is how do you interpret the evidence to seem like there is millions of years worth of fossils, when there is not? It is a simple question.

I will admit there have been some fossils that are good finds and might be “transitional fossils,” but the number of these great finds is not even in double digits…five fossils does not prove anything. In fact it makes the case for itself that these five fossils or so are more likely to be unique, seperate extinct species and not transitional fossils at all.

150 years of energetic and well funded world-wide searching for fossils to ‘prove’ evolution have failed to reveal more than a tiny handful of disputed possible intermediate forms. If Darwin was right about gradual changes happening over millions of years, millions and millions of ‘missing links’ would have come to light. The fact that each Archaeopteryx, Tiktalik, Flores man is triumphantly announced as ‘THE’ missing link only underlines the lack of the MILLIONS of intermediate missing links which Darwin’s hypothesis of gradual change over millions of years requires to sustain it. What about all the hominid, ape-man, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon man and other fossils? Where are they?

Second question:
If we found a fossil, dated at 37.5 million years ago, with features of both organisms A and B, and called it AB, the young earth creationist would then say “There are no transitional life forms between A and AB, or between AB and B.” So another simple question…where is the transitional fossils? They are non-existent.

Other interesting stuff:

What does not honest, good scientist do with this: unfossilized dinosaur bones with soft material found in the earth? From a non-Christian


Darwinists say, “We continually revise our theories and welcome critical examination and evaluation.” They may revise aspects of their theories, but because evolution is so incredibly malleable, no amount of contrary evidence will convince them otherwise. But how much contrary evidence must accumulate before a theory is discarded?

Today evolution survives, not so much as a theory of science, but as a philosophical necessity. Good science is always tentative and self-correcting, but this never really happens in the case of evolution.


The Miracle

Hume a philosopher has a simple syllogism agianst miracles:
(1) Laws of nature are exceptionally regular.
(2) A miracle is a violation of a law of nature.
(3) Miracles do not exist in nature.

This is a valid syllogism. But are the facts true?

Spinoza has a similar theory:

1. Miracles are violations of natural laws.
2. Natural laws are immutable.
3. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated.
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible.

Kant also had things to say about miracles:
Kant’s argument can be summarized as follows:
1. Everything in our experience (the world to us) is determined by practical reason.
2. Practical reason operates according to universal laws.
3. Miracles occur either (1) daily, (2) seldom, or (3) never.
4. But what occurs daily is not a miracle since it occurs regularly according to natural laws.
5.And what occurs seldom is not determined by any law.
6. But all scientific knowledge must be determined by practical reason which operates on universal laws.
7. Therefore, it is rationally necessary for us to conclude that miracles never occur.

Flew’s argument against miracles can be summarized this way:

1. Miracles are by nature particular and unrepeatable.
2. Natural events are by nature general and repeatable.
3. Now, in practice, the evidence for the general and repeatable is always greater than that for the particular and unrepeatable.
4. Therefore, in practice, the evidence will always be greater against miracles than for them.

Alastair McKinnon’s argument can be summarized as follows:

1. A scientific law is a generalization based on observation.
2. Any exception to a scientific law invalidates that law as such and calls for a revision of it.
3. A miracle is an exception to a scientific law.
4. Therefore, a “miracle” would call for a revision of a law and the recognition of a broader law (which thereby explains the “miracle” as a natural event)

COMMON THREAD
Even in this admittedly unsuccessful anti-supernatural argument is hidden the premise of an apparently successful one, namely the evidence for the regular and repeatable is always greater than that for the irregular and singular. Science is based on uniform experience, not anomalies. Regularity is the basis of a scientific understanding. Therefore, science as such can never accept the miraculous. Thus the principle of regularity seems to be the common thread of the anti- supernatural arguments.

A Christian response:

1. The only cause repeatedly observed to be adequate to produce information is intelligence.
2. Now the information in the first single cell which emerged on earth would fill a whole volume of an encyclopedia.
3. But observation of regularities are the scientific basis for understanding singularities.
4. Hence, there is a scientific basis (in repeated observation) for believing that first life was caused by some intelligence beyond the natural world.
5. But since this kind of singularity produced by a supernatural intelligent being would be a miracle by definition, then we have a firm scientific basis for believing in miracles.

In short, repetition in the present does give us a firm scientific basis for believing in an intelligent intervention into the natural world. To borrow Hume’s term, we have “uniform experience” on which to base our belief in the miraculous origin of life. For we never observe an encyclopedia resulting from an explosion in a printing shop. We never observe a fan blowing on alphabet cereal produce a scientific research paper. No one would conclude Mount Rushmore resulted from wind or rain erosion. Why? Our uniform experience teaches us that the kind of information conveyed on Mount Rushmore never results from natural laws but only from intelligent intervention.

Since the rise of modern science anti-supernatural arguments have stressed the principle of uniformity. They have argued that:

1. Scientific understanding is always based on constant repetition of events.
2. Miracles are not constantly repeated.
3. Therefore, there is no scientific way to understand miracles.

Two things should be noted about this argument. First, this form of the argument does not deny that unusual events like miracles may occur, any more than it denies a hole-in-one may occur. It simply says that scientific law is based on regularities. And until one can establish a constant conjunction between antecedent and consequent factors there is no scientific basis for assuming a causal connection between them.

Second, neither does this argument deny that there is any scientific way to analyze singularities, such as the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or receiving one message from outer space. It simply says that observed regularities must be the basis for analyzing singularities. For example, if we observe over and over again that a certain kind of effect regularly results from a certain kind of cause then when we discover even a singular case of this kind of effect (whether from the past or present), we have a scientific basis for assuming it had the same kind of cause too. This same assumption is behind the naturalists’ search for a chemical basis for the origins of life and an evolutionary basis for the origin of species. In both cases repeatable observations in the present are used as a basis for understanding the singularity of origin in the past. Without this principle of uniformity there would be no way of getting at singularities in either the past or the present.

Certainly we must grant that this is a legitimate procedure to base all scientific understanding in the principle of regularity. However, the question is this: Does such a procedure eliminate a scientific understanding of miracles? In order to better understand our answer to this question let us reformulate the naturalist argument in the light of the two qualifications noted above.

1) Scientific understanding is always based on constant repetition of events.

la) This repetition need not be a repetition of the event we are analyzing but only of other similar events.

2) Miracles are not constantly repeated events.

3b) Therefore, miracles need not be eliminated from the realm of scientific understanding.

Once the argument is put in this form we can see that all one needs to do to establish a basis for singularities such as miracles is to find some constantly repeated process as a basis for understanding them. This we believe can be done by adding these premises:

4) Constant repetition informs us that wherever complex information is conveyed there was an intelligent cause.

5) There are some scientific singularities (such as the origin of first life) where complex information is conveyed.

6) Therefore, there is a scientific basis for positing an intelligent non-natural cause for the origin of first life.

In short:
There is a way things typically go and we do not normally expect any different but
within that “typical” behavior there is room for exceptions. There is an intelligent being, God, in charge who is deciding when these exceptions occur. And these exception are miracles.

An example:
I am a dark coffee man. You can ask my friend Tom, every morning I get dark coffee and he gets a Latte. ask Tom, he says, “Alex ALWAYS gets a dark coffee.”
One day I say, “Tom call me crazy, but I want to try something new.” I intelligently choose to get a Latte. Tom thinks this is a miracle. He says “Alex, you surprised me, you ALWAYS get a dark coffee but today you chose to get a latte, this is a miracle.”

Where does reason come from?

Reason relies on faith. Reason requires faith. “Reason Alone!” A defense of reason by reason is circular argument and worthless.

When it comes down to it reason came from one of two places:

A. Preexisting intelligence by faith

B. mindless matter by faith

Why by faith?

Materialism as we have seen cannot contradicts all scientific observation. You cannot give what you haven’t got. Yet Darwinists believe that dead, unintelligent matter has produced intelligent life.

It makes much more sense to believe that human minds were created by The Great Mind- God. Materialism is not sufficient. Cannot explain reason. Materialism is not reasonable.

Darwinism on trial…origin of life

First off I want to make it clear that Darwin himself did not introduce the Big Bang theory or any origin of life theory. In fact to study Darwinism’s ideas about the beginnings of the universe we have to move beyond Darwin and beyond evolution.

This is an entirely different realm of study, the study of the origin of life.

Historical events cannot be repeated. We can’t repeat the origin of the universe. Science can help us determine what might have happened but it does not deal with history and cannot tell us how it happened.

Science has not been able to turn dead into living. we cannot create or recreate life.

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”

Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol 13. No.4, 1988, p.348

The cell is the most complex and most elegantly designed system man has ever witnessed since the advent of the electron microscope. Professor of Biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis explains this complexity with an example:

To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see is an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity… (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man…”

An alternative theory:
Panspermia – temporary fix. Sure it pushes off the question for a little while. But you still have to answer the question, where did the aliens come from?

Chandra Wickramasinghe:

‘The emergence of life from a primordial soup on the Earth is merely an article of faith that scientists are finding difficult to shed. There is no experimental evidence to support this at the present time.

‘Indeed all attempts to create life from non-life, starting from Pasteur, have been unsuccessful. Also recent geological evidence indicates that life was present on Earth over 3.6 billion years ago, at a time when the Earth was being pummeled by comet and meteorite impacts, and no primordial soup could have been expected to brew.

‘Not all microbes in interstellar space would survive of course, but the survival of even a minute fraction of microbes leaving one solar system and reaching the next site of planet formation would be enough for panspermia to be overwhelmingly more probable than starting life from scratch in a new location.

‘The odds against microbes surviving such a space journey pales into insignificance when compared with the insuperable odds against starting life anew in a warm little pond on the Earth.’7

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common
sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between
science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of
the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and
life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for
unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a
commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute,
for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

– Lewontin R.C., “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Review of “The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan,
New York Review, January 9, 1997

This is an amazing quote. Here is a solid admission that a lot of science is counter intuitive. And that Darwinits are assuming materialism a poi. Before even looking at the evidence.

Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis…there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with life and mankind as its purpose and goal.

(Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998, p 387, emp. in original)

The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Super-ficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelli-gent Designer.

(Richard Dawkins, “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, April 15,1982)

The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up!

(Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, New York, 1986, preface)

Poor Richard…if it looks like Design, then it probably is …Design!

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, 1978, p. 116)

I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama… Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.

(Paul Davies, The Mind of God, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992, p h3232)

The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero

There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:
1. All the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence.
2. All the amino acids in the chain are lef-handed.
3. All of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called Peptide Bond.

In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of the formation of a protien by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of these conditions.

For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids:

1. The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:

There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:
– The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types

= 1/20

– The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being chosen correctly

= 1/20500 = 1/10650 = 1 chance in 10650

2. The probability of the amino acids being lef-handed:

– The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed

= 1/2

– The probability of all those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time

= 1/2500 = 1/10150 = 1 chance in 10150

3. The probability of the amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”:

Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a “peptide bond”. It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:
– The probability of two amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”

= 1/2

– The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds

= 1/2499 = 1/10150 = 1 chance in 10150

Total Probability = 1/10650 X 1/10150 X 1/10150

= 1/10950
= 1 chance in 10950

So to summarise – The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is “1” over 10950.

The above is only a written probability. Practically, such a possibility has “0” chance at realisation. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1/1050 is statistically considered to have a “0” probability of realisation. A probability of “1/10950” is far beyond the limits of this definition.

7 – Britt, R., Panspermia Q and A: leading proponent Chandra Wickramasinghe, <http://www.space.com/searchforlife/chandra_sidebar_001027.html>, 27 October 2000. Return to text.

Darwinism on trial , the heart of the problem…

the worldview philosophy behind Darwinism is materialism or naturalism. Science is dominated by philosophy. For example think about the word, ‘chance.’ It is just a word. It is not a cause. It is actually nothing. It has no power in itself/ on its own. You see, science is a slave to philosophy.

Good science is based on good philosophy.
Science cannot be done without philosophy. There is no way around it. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes. They cannot prove the tools of science by running scientific tests. These assumptions are are not the results of the testing. They are already assumed to be true in order to run the tests in the first place!

These philosophical assumptions can drastically change the conclusions of experiments. This one is easy to understand. Every true scientists knows that when you come into an experiment assuming something/desiring to see something than you are biased. You are not open minded enough to even consider evidence that might not be what you are looking for and this is a bad thing. Assumptions can lead to bad science. Be open minded to both intelligent and natural causes and go to where the evidence leads.

Finally science does not speak. It does not say a word, but scientists do. When assumptions are in the way, scientist interpret the evidence in the way that they want to see it. In the way that their worldview and philosophy is leading them. Again, here be open minded and let the evidence lead you.

What is the worldview of a Darwinist (materialism and naturalism)?

Naturalism implies that “nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature.” (1)
The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. (2)

Where does Naturalism go wrong?

Think about these five things that cannot be proven by science alone and matter alone:
1. mathematics and logic
2. metaphysical truths
3. ethical judgments
4. ascetic judgments
5. science itself.

Where does Materialism go wrong?

1. specified complexity cannot be explained materially.

2. human thoughts and theories are more than just materials. Chemicals are involved in the human thought process, but they cannot explain all human thoughts.
The theory of materialism isn’t made of molecules.

3. If life were nothing more than materials, then we would be able to take all the materials of life and make a living being. We would have all the resources available to make life. Both a living body and a dead body are made up of the same chemicals, what is the difference? What accounts for consciousness?

4. If materialism was true, then everyone in all of human history who has ever had a a spiritual experience has been completely mistaken. Some of the world’s most rational, scientific, logical, and critical mind who have ever lived have been greatly mistaken or crazy. This seems highly unlikely. Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Kepler, Newton, Pascal, and Jesus Christ ( to name a few!)

5. If materialism is true then reason itself is impossible. For if mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. (Including the theory of materialism.) Chemicals cannot evaluate whether something is true or not. Chemicals do not reason, they react.

The irony is that even when Darwinists get something right, their worldview prevents us and them from believing themselves, because reason itself is impossible in a world ruled by chemicals.

When Darwinists assert that they rely on reason alone there is a problem already, because this statement cannot be justified by their own worldview.

Reason relies on faith. Reason requires faith. “Reason Alone!” A defense of reason by reason is circular argument and worthless.

When Naturalism/Materialism fail, so does Darwinism. More posts to come…

1. “Naturalism”, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan, 1996 Supplement, 372-373.
2. Wikipedia the term “Materialism”

Main reference: I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist by Norman Geisler

Reflections

I have been noticing that I get a lot of comments from many in opposition of the things I post about. I am okay with this.

I will say that I am not a real expert on most of the things I post about. I do not claim to be an expert. This blog is very informal and a fun way for me to express my opinions and learn more about topics. I do research and learning for this blog. I do not intend to contribute to science or anything like that.

I do intended to search for truth. And in my quest I post things that I am learning and thinking about along the way towards my quest for truth.

With that said, I know where Ultimate truth comes from, God and His Word – the Bible.
I am certain that science in nature, in biology, and in reality reflects God and his truth. I am not contributing to truth in this blog. I am expressing what I have found to be true.

When all is said and done, and my life is over, I know that some of the things I have posted about will be pointless. I know that I will not have gotten everything correct/right.
But I know that in the end, I will find truth. And others who have read my blog will have been exposed to truth. I will get a lot of things right.

I am not anti-evolution in general. And I have reasons for believing what I do believe. I think that a theistic form of evolution is feasible. Becuase of the Bible is not as clear as some would like it to be and therefore a theistic form of evolution is somewhat feasible.

But I do not think that a theistic form of evolution is totally correct nor do I believe that it is the most natural reading of the Bible.

I will continue posting on topics that I am not an expert on. I will continue to search for truth and I do not mind the opposition from others. I will be basing my findings on truth, the Bible and other resources. I am a simple blogger not trying to contribute to science, but merely expose truth, which already exists.

All I ask is that if you coming with opposition, I would like to see some evidence instead of a mere smear anti-God comment. Thank you.