What Do You Think You Know?


Everyone seems to be so sure about what they think that they know.  Virtually, everyone; from the intellectuals to truck drivers to the so-called “man on the street”.  But what if everything you knew was wrong?

Let’s start with belief systems.  Belief systems can be developed from only one of two sources – experience, or by accepting someone else’s opinion.  That’s it.  Since most people have had limited experiences, they, by definition, owe almost all of their “knowledge” to other people and their opinions.  So it’s more accurate to say that we believe that other people are correct in their opinions than to say that we know for certain.  Then again, if everyone believes that something is true, then perhaps we would be even more comfortable in our certainty.  Of course if we had believed that the sun revolved around the earth, like everyone did once upon a time, then we would have all been wrong even if we had been originally certain of it.  What this demonstrates is that even with something like science there is no certainty, or as Ashley Montague, an anthropologist himself, said, “Science has proof without certainty.”

In the final analysis, you can only know something to the extent that you can understand reality, as without that framework there is no basis for knowing anything.  A lot of heavy hitters have weighed in on the nature of reality.  No less than Albert Einstein said that, “Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one.”  Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, expounded on Einstein’s illusion thusly, “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”  So according to Planck, underlying all reality is a field of consciousness from which matter (a form of energy) comes into existence as, essentially, a holographic projection. This holographic projection can be explained scientifically by the Holographic Principle which states that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure on the cosmological horizon.

Further, science says that an atom is 99.9% empty space, with the other .1% being “mass”.  This .1%, then, constitutes our reality.  Problem is – science doesn’t know exactly where “mass” comes from.  The deeper scientists probe into the quantum world the more they find organized information, in other words Intelligent Design.  In a biblical sense, reality comes from what I call the Unseen (see the Bible, Hebrews 11:3).  Neurophysiologist and physicist Karl Pribram stated that we exist in a virtual reality matrix where our brains construct reality by interpreting frequencies that are projections from the Unseen.  Our view of reality is therefore not real, at least not as we know it, but simply electrical signals interpreted by the brain.  We then overlay logic and biases to form our ideas of what we think is real and what is not.  At that point, what we have is nothing more than our “perception” of reality .

Inexplicably, the laws of quantum physics which govern the microscopic particles that atoms are made of are different than the classical laws of physics which apply to the physical world.  That’s because the fundamental reality of all life is actually the quantum world, rather than the physical world.  As for the physical world, it is merely a projection from the quantum world, complete with altogether different laws of physics.

It’s this quantum world that is unobservable (Unseen) to man.  There is no way, therefore, for deists to prove that the Bible is the Word of God nor any way for atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist.  What lies beyond space and time is not observable and, therefore, not provable.  Yet, as I said in the very beginning, everyone seems to have an opinion and they are absolutely certain that they are right. It is surprising how men think that they know so many things and yet understand so little. As Greek philosopher Democritus said, “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.”  Opinions, anyone?

 “The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.”

    – Albert Einstein


58 Responses to “What Do You Think You Know?”

  1. chialphagirl said

    Rebloging this. It was beautifully expressed.

  2. chialphagirl said

    Reblogged this on Fluid Theology and commented:
    I found this to be beautiful

  3. THANK YOU. You just saved me the effort of writing this, and you’ve summed it up perfectly! Well done!

  4. Reblogged this on The Interminable Pond and commented:
    A perfectly brilliant observation. We really don’t know enough of anything to think we know anything at all.

  5. tildeb said

    The problem in your post is equating certainty with knowledge, that because we can’t be certain of anything, we cannot know anything. This is fallacious.

    We operate on degrees of confidence in probabilities. You do. I do. Everyone does. And for very good reasons that cannot be swept away with a wave of the certainty wand. Not a single reader will suspect for even a moment that gravity will suddenly invert and that stepping out a window might result in floating away. Why is this? If what you say is true, that because we cannot be certain we cannot know, that everything, therefore, is equivalent opinion, why do we act as if we know?

    Well, the answer is rather obvious: because we do know.

    Knowledge is not about certainty (in spite of claims of the religious). It’s about placing our confidence in likelihood, and these likelihoods are well established over time by the reality we find ourselves in. We operate in this reality. One can argue philosophically or metaphysically or theologically that gravity is a human construct unrelated to the quantum fields in which it supposedly operates. Brilliant. Now go step out that window and tell me again that the opinion produced by likelihood versus the opinion produced by such musings are equivalent in knowledge value about reality. See what I mean? You’re not going to step out that window because you know you’ll fall. This is a clue….They’re not equivalent knowledge claims in reality, are they? And we know this or we would act differently.

    You then make the most astounding claim: “The deeper scientists probe into the quantum world the more they find organized information, in other words Intelligent Design.”

    This claim is utterly and absolutely unjustified and you know it. It relies completely on Discoveroid buzz words like creationist assertions of ‘organized information’ to be evidence in favour of an interventionist agency of Oogity Boogity operating by POOF!ism (although I’m sure you won’t like these descriptive words any better) as if this were a legitimate scientific claim surfacing from our inquiry into quantum fields. It’s not legitimate and you are doing physicists who actually do this kind of inquiry trying to understand how quantum fields work (like Sean Carroll) no favour by pretending it is. The only master you are serving here is not what’s knowable about reality; it’s serving those who PRESUME their god is real and active and creating and intervening who will warp and distort the square peg of reality and what we know about it to fit into their round hole of theology.

    • There is no intelligent creator. Of course there isn’t. That’s ridiculous. We came from a singularity, fluctuations in a space vacuum. Duh. Everyone knows that.

      • chicagoja said

        Right, we evolved instantaneously from a bunch of dead chemicals… in direct violation of the Law of Biogenesis. I wonder what Louis Pasteur would say about that?

      • Shhhhh…. Not so loud. We might upset the atheists….

      • chicagoja said

        That’s okay. They’re always upset with me. I can’t help it; the truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. Nice bunch of people though…and hopefully they’re learning something from my musings.

      • It’s all in good fun. For me anyway. I never take this stuff too seriously.

    • chicagoja said

      Thank you for your comments. Just to clarify, I don’t equate knowledge with certainty. The point of the article is that other people do. Your right; we work on probabilities of certainty, even if we are not aware of it. Problem is – a lot of people are not aware of how they come to their opinions, especially since most rationalization takes place in the subconscious mind. As for gravity, we see the effect but scratch our collective heads as to the cause. Not even Einstein could solve that riddle and science is still looking for its Theory of Everything. As for Intelligent Design, I was referring to Einstein, Planck and Bohm, among others. The latest is that science claims to have found Intelligent design inside DNA and also inside of their Multiverse formulae (e.g. Jim Gates). Sean Carroll is a brilliant guy but his ideology (atheism) somewhat colors his scientific work. As for his so-called “dark matter”, it doesn’t exist. By the way, I’m not religious and I don’t do POOFs in the night.

      • tildeb said

        And who are these other people? The religious, like those who use the methodology you do to promote Intelligent Design.

        Rationalization occurs in the subconscious mind, you declare. So too do any choice decisions. So do moral and ethical considerations many seconds prior to our awareness of conscious thought. So what?

        We haven’t enunciated the Theory of Everything yet. So what?

        As for scientific support for Intelligent Design, this is not what your quote mining finds but misrepresents. There is no scientific support for it. I wonder why you’re so comfortable with this misrepresentation?

        And no, ‘science’ has not found Intelligent Design.. in the DNA or anywhere else. You’re just making shit up and slapping the label of ‘science’ on it to make it more palatable. Again, what’s the motivation… because it has nothing to do with true.

        Atheism is as much an ideology as abstinence is a sexual position. You state it is, which shows great confusion in your understanding of even such simple term as ‘atheism’ so I sincerely doubt you’re able to grasp quantum field theory or offer legitimate scientific criticism of Carroll’s understanding of dark matter yet feel comfortable thinking you do. This is a clue…

      • chicagoja said

        Sorry for the disagreement. You obviously feel very strongly about your position. However, the “shit that I made up” is in the public domain, shit from reputable scientific people. I’ve even given you some of my sources in the process of exchanging comments. All I’ve got from you is diatribe. Have a nice day.

      • Open your mind and it will flow. Open your heart and it will glow. This is how we grow.

      • chicagoja said

        Your a man of many talents. Your a poet, but you don’t know it.

      • Merely functioning as per my programming. :/

      • tildeb said


        I wrote And no, ‘science’ has not found Intelligent Design.. in the DNA or anywhere else. You’re just making shit up and slapping the label of ‘science’ on it to make it more palatable.

        Claiming that ‘science’ has stated any such thing is a gross misrepresentation of the quotes you have mined to pretend to support it. It is you who assign the meaning ‘evidence for Intelligent Design’ to be the same as ‘genetic information’ here and this method of presenting ‘science’ with this convenient switch of presumable synonyms is a dishonest tactic that comes straight from the discredited Discovery Institute, whose stated goal is to replace good science in the science classroom with creationist belief. That – and not my opinion – is why you are (whether you recognize it or not) making shit up and claiming it is ‘science’ saying what you want it to say.

        Biology as a science does NOT attribute genetic information to be synonymous with evidence for Intelligent Design. Period. End of Statement. There may be a few biologists who – like you – wish to promote IDiocy and misrepresent what the scientific consensus that it is religious creationism really is, but the purpose of presenting these discrepancies to be synonyms is not intellectual integrity in action, intellectual honesty at work; it is a clear and concise representation of what is true in reality (ID is creationism repackaged) to support a religious agenda.

        That’s not a diatribe but a legitimate criticism of your post.

        See, chicagoja, there is NO scientific basis for Intelligent Design. There is only religious motivation to promote creationism. That’s what ID is: creationism, no different in methodology that any other faith-based claim. But you know this already searching as you do for quotable bits you want to select that only seems to support your intention. You know you have to ignore much of what Einstein says, for example, to suggest he was a supporter of Intelligent Design when he attributes order found in the universe to a grandeur he calls ‘god’. This is a rhetorical device. That’s why he goes to some length telling us in many books and many letters that he is not a believer in any kind of literal god… a little fact you have simply ignored. And ignoring contrary data is why you know you are misrepresenting big brained people like Einstein to support your little lie, that these folk actually do support your borrowed version of Intelligent Design.

        In addition, you know very well that every court case that has examined the inclusion of IDiocy into the science curriculum has made clear and unequivocal judgement against it. Every time. But then, you choose to simply ignore the inconvenience of this fact and, instead, use whatever you want to assemble an idea you then try to pretend was manufactured by those who stand opposed to your little lie. This is intellectual dishonesty at work, and the master you serve is dishonesty. I’ve relabeled this in a kinder, more forgiving way by accusing you of simply ‘making shit up’. The harsher and more accurate accusation is that you are intentionally lying, intentionally being disingenuous, in order to promote creationism.

        That’s not a diatribe, either; that a legitimate and justified conclusion that is true in reality based on evidence you have provided adduced from it. I seem to be of only two in this comment stream who seems capable of recognizing why this should matter.

      • chicagoja said

        I’ll let others chime in if they want to, but for me that was, and is, definitely a diatribe. Unfortunately, Einstein and Planck didn’t do you any favors. For example, Einstein said that, “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts” and Planck said that, “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” I could give you lots more quotes like that but it’s really a waste of my time since there is no open thought process going on on your side. I can only presume that you’re trying to convince yourself on this question.

  6. Arkenaten said

    There is no way, therefore, for deists to prove that the Bible is the Word of God nor any way for atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist.

    I think we may have touched on this before but it is worth reminding you….
    Atheists know we cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of god..any god.
    (While it most certainly can be demonstrated that the bible is hogwash and not the Word of God.)
    Thus we do not assert any such thing.
    It is the theists who assert that god exists, and many claim the evidence is overwhelming. Much worse, the Christians consider this god, this Creator, is Yeshua- disguised to look like Robert Powell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Powell
    and speaking impeccable English, as well.
    This is utter bullshit, and what pisses me off somewhat is that Christians like the ones here, will so eloquently compliment you on the post (and it is a pretty good one) yet they are so damned two-faced I almost gag at the hypocrisy.
    Because we all know they believe that if you don’t follow Jesus you are going to Hell, brother, and make no mistake…

    • chicagoja said

      Thanks for the comment. You always have good ones. I appreciate where you’re coming from but why should you care about what Christians think. You don’t agree with them and they’ll never agree with you. What else is new? By the way, intelligent people like yourself know that you can’t prove a negative but unfortunately it doesn’t stop a lot of less intelligent people from trying anyway.

      • Arkenaten said

        I only care because religion is insidious and gives birth to garbage such as Creationism, Accelerated Christian Education (ACE)
        Muslim Extremism and countries such as Saudi ec etc…
        If these nitwits kept it to themselves I would be fine. And a fact that our dearly beloved Christian brethren are wont to forget all too often is they have this religious freedom largely because of secularism.

        God(sic) forbid we find ourselves as Westerners under a theocracy – and the god isn’t Christian. ooops….
        Then the Midden will hit the Windmill and make no mistake.

      • chicagoja said

        Thanks for your comment, but I don’t do theses articles to let people vent against others, whether it be warranted or not. I welcome your comments but there’s no place in my world for that level of open hatred.

      • Arkenaten said

        I hate absolutely nothing.Hate is a wasted emotion for fools.
        However, I do care a great deal that children are being subjected to this level of psychological abuse from adults.
        Adults who are placed in positions of trust and who not only teach this crap as fact but also rail against the scientific evidence that clearly disproves what they preach.
        If normal people have to defend against those that would teach that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, that the earth is only 6000 years old, that the Old Testament is a factual collection of documents, and there really are Chariot wheels on the bottom of the Red Sea, then such people should be removed from such positions and prosecuted.

      • chicagoja said

        Of course, what constitutes scientific evidence can be a dicey proposition. As Robert Lanza said, “We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.” So what you consider evidence, others might consider propaganda, and vice versa. For example, my thoughts on evolution may be considerably different than yours. I respect your right to your own opinion even if i disagree with you. I can be friends with someone without always agreeing with what they believe in. So while you consider yourself one of the normal people, so do I and yet we may disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

      • Arkenaten said

        While science is usually willing to correct itself – and usually does – nonsense such as Creationism steadfastly refuse to.
        Those that believe in this are not normal

        If an adult wishes to believe dinosaurs roamed the earth less than 6000 years ago, were relatively tame and all vegetarian until the fall ( barf) then so be it.
        Most experts would consider this a form of psychosis.
        May I ask if you believe this?

        I could give a damn what such people wish to entertain.
        That they teach it as fact (to children) should be cause for concern and legislated aganst.

        Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Not their own facts.

      • chicagoja said

        The problem is, though, that there then has to be an arbiter over what is fact and what isn’t. Apparently you feel that you should be the arbiter and therefore others are not entitled to their “facts”, as you put it. Aside: Nice line by the way; I use it myself occasionally. With respect to evolution, while not a strict Creationist I believe that the universe had a beginning as opposed to evolutionists who claim that the first cell arose spontaneously from a bunch of dead chemicals. That, of course, is in direct violation of the Law of Biogenesis and Louis Pasteur, the father of microbiology. Nobel laureate, Harvard professor George Wald acknowledged the utter absurdity of this when he wrote, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” Then there’s Tom Kemp of Oxford University who states in his book “A Fresh Look At the Fossil Record”, “As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record” which, of course, creates a hugh problem for evolutionists. For further reading, I have provided the links to a couple of interesting articles on this subject, as follows:



        There’s much more from other distinguished scientists but why bother since I’m not entitled to my facts.

      • Arkenaten said

        Okay, let’s lay our cards on the table so we are perfectly clear where we stand.
        Anyone who is religious in as much as they consider a deity responsible for creation or more importantly consider Jesus is that deity has no moral right based on available evidence to preach what they believe is truth.
        For there is no evidence to back a faith based point of view. None. And while science is by no means complete to leap in and shout “God did it” ( for any given value of your interpretation of god) is blatantly dishonest and i would vehemently protest against anyone who espoused such polemic.

        Thus your first link I immediately noticed this:

        a defense of the faith once delivered to the saints

        Anyone who espouses such has to demonstrate the veracity of this statement before they are afforded any respect. Period.
        Your second link is a creationist based site and thus can be dismissed with ne’er a glance and you have immediately lost all credibility by even suggesting a Creationist site, illustrating that you are merely being disingenuous as the commenter, Tildeb suggested.
        Not a single reputable scientist in the world considers Creationism ‘science’
        And I reiterate, Creationism is NOT science and you are not entitled to your own facts.

        But at least you have now showed your hand..

        Critical thought does not mean ‘God did it….” and
        trying to bluff with a metaphorical pair of twos just makes you look a tad silly, especially as you should be intelligent enough to realise that eventually you are going to be called out.

      • chicagoja said

        People don’t need your respect to be heard. If you don’t want to listen to them, then by all means don’t. They may even be wrong about religion, but that doesn’t make their opinions irrelevant by any means. They be wrong about one thing but right about other things. You may even be surprised to find out one day that they were more right than you about certain things. You may have an opinion about evolution vs. creationism but you have arrived at that opinion based upon what other people have said. People that you do have respect for. That’s how belief systems are formed. You may believe that Creationism is not science, and you may be right or wrong in that regard. In any event, that doesn’t make Evolution science either. Even a leading evolutionist like Stephen Gould admitted that,”The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” Gould therefore moved away from strict evolutionary theory because of the weaknesses in that theory. So it’s no bluff, neither is it even my opinion. Simply relaying what the bigs have said. That’s quite a bit more than what you’ve offered to date. As Shakespeare said, “I think you doth protest too much.”

      • Arkenaten said

        You are completely missing the point of this exercise and carefully sidestepping the central issue.
        I have already stated that I do not believe that science has all the answers and also that scientists – or at least the ones with integrity – acknowledge this.

        What you, like so many other religious folk are doing is seeing the gap and immediately yelling. “:God did it”, or as I already stated, what ever given value you have for ‘god’.

        Furthermore, many Creationists are Christian, thus their god is Jesus, the biblical character who is clearly a narrative construct.
        So, the impasse remains.
        While I at least have the self-respect to acknowledge we don’t have all the answers, that there are indeed many holes and gaps in our database, not for one second do I have the utter gall and outright flagrant ignorance to drop a god into the gap.
        And this is why I maintain that unless or if you prefer, until you can show unequivocally that your deity theory has any merit based on fact, then, quite frankly your are perpetrating fraud by stating (and in the case of Creationists, teaching) it is truth and merely pissing in the wind.

        Are we clear?

      • chicagoja said

        The only thing that I am clear about is your condescending attitude. You have consistently said that you had all the answers, but now faced with the facts of eminent scientists that don’t support your position you seem to be backing off. It’s not even important to me what the truth of the scientific matter is, only that people are entitled to their opinion, whether they be right or wrong. Since you don’t seem to respect others opinions and hold yourself and your kind to be smarter than everyone else, I suggest you take your act elsewhere. Are we clear?

  7. Ha! Go to my blog and read “Lucifer and Creation”… I think we’re listening to the same voices… I started out my blog writing about this stuff and then got sidetracked with flash fiction. I guess it’s just as well because you’ve kind of nailed it!

  8. Ah, those jabs became a fist of cuffs. It seems that all was well when your ideas were reflective of criticizing the bible/bible god, but then you mentioned the possibility of Intelligent Design and folks lost their composure. But then again for those who worship their own intelligence and extraordinary verbiage, a post asking, “what do you think you know”, was bound to solicit a raging response.

    The God in the Gaps argument defends a theory where the “gap” exists with an odd of chance numbered with fifteen zeroes. That is a fairly big gap with room enough for a god theory or any other future scientific theory to find space for exploration. It seems that extremists publically piss at the parade, no matter which philosophy they subscribe to.

    • chicagoja said

      Unfortunately, logic is of little use in dealing with someone who is brainwashed. They actually think that only people who are religious believe in Creationism. Stephen Gould who was a famous Evolutionist, now deceased, actually admitted that Evolution was no longer a workable theory because of the “gaps”. So he proposed what I will call Evolution Lite. It really infuriated the evolutionist world.

      • Science does not stand still. Already Evo-Dev theory is modifying traditional Darwinian evolution. Future discoveries may likely dismiss much of what is believed now. Sooner or later, staunch supporters of evolution in its current model will have to challenge themselves to exit the cave as well.

        I find it small thinking to always attempt to hitch any discussion of origins to the wagon of Christian creationism, and weary that their commentary redirects the topic to the same parroted arguments. Its a regurgitation of bitter ills with little hope for new and original thought.
        But there are those who enjoy dialogue, and those that prefer to argue.

      • chicagoja said

        Once upon a time, people said that the sun revolved around the earth. They were adamant about it and they vilified, or burnt at the stake, people who said otherwise. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then. The emphasis on Christian creationism is just so much misdirection. They always ignore the fact that I’m not even religious. I’m more of a Plato, Rousseau, Voltaire guy, but they wouldn’t give them any respect either. It’s interesting how they can totally ignore the opinions of Planck, Einstein, Bohm and Pasteur, just to name a few, and even the comments of evolutionists like Stephen Gould, Tom Kemp, David Raup, George Wald, Jim Gates and to some extent even Darwin himself. Who needs a beginning to the universe. We’ll just have it instantaneously pop up out of thin air in violation of the Law of Biogenesis. Who needs transitional species. Just forget about the fossil record and pretend that horses can turn into giraffes or monkeys into humans. Never mind entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We’ll just explain it away somehow. Even Richard Dawkins is moving on from strict evolutionary theory to something called Punctuated Equilibrium because, as he has admitted, it was biologically impossible for macro-level evolution to take place in accordance with evolutionary theory. One commentator summed it all up thusly, “And despite the fact we supposedly live in a culture of tolerance, it’s apparent the secular community has little tolerance for any science which contradicts it’s commitment to an atheistic, naturalistic view of origins.” So, yes, science does not stand still. That’s almost the very definition of science (a work in progress). However, when ideology comes into the discussion what you get is the censure of scientific thinking.

      • [Chicagoja you might want to edit this for profanity, etc. I’d understand]

        These are the people who can tell me with a straight face I’m an idiot for believing in an invisible living entity that powered the universe into being out of nothing, and then proceed to explain to me that the universe arose due to a fluctuation in a space vacuum which destabilized a “singularity” in which existed a state of infinite mass which simultaneously existed but had no true tangibility, that it existed but wasn’t there, all-powerful and all-creating but invisible and undetectable. (Which is the same thing we say we believe in, except we call it “God”.) Stupid arrogant fxxxxxs. Sorry, but it’s annoying. I guess we’ll just have to learn how to speak “stupid” so they can get past their own self-righteous condescending dickless ideology.

        I’m sorry mister intolerant “I know everything” atheistic “man of science and reason.” I won’t use the word “god” or “creator” anymore when talking to you, since you obviously can’t figure out what that is; since you are too stuck on stupid to realize that your own gods of science such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan et al have all reached the same understanding, at the quantum level, that the universe is “alive” and “organic” and operates as a “living organism” — words Morgan Freeman just used on “Through the Wormhole” as I type this. You cannot get away from the implications, no matter how much you try to play with semantics and add a few syllables here and there to make a word “scientifically acceptable”.

        So how’s this: an organic universe, which functions as a living organism, with consciousness and elements of “bio-feedback” — that is what we know about it. What YOUR science-gods are saying. What exactly do you think “god” is??? A cosmic space-bubble santa??? Because that is what he is not. He is a sentient, living, organic being, who occupies and maintains the cosmos through invisible quantized manipulation. So shut the hell up already and get over it, go back to your little box, and leave the discussing of higher things to the big boys. ‘Kay??? Thanks.

      • chicagoja said

        Thanks for your rant…er comment. As Harvard U. Professor Andrew Strominger admitted, “A singularity is when we don’t know what to do. What’s so embarrassing about singularities is that we can’t predict what’s going to come out of it.” So much for The Big Bang theory.

  9. john zande said

    Out of interest, though: What, specifically, in the quantum world indicates the Middle Eastern Christian god of the bible?

  10. john zande said

    @ chicagoja

    I can’t believe you raised Pastor as some admonishment of evolution. It is a childish misunderstanding of Louis Pasteur’s work on spontaneous generation. This distortion of his work is found only in creationist literature. Pasteur demonstrated that sealing food from airborne contamination would end the supposed “spontaneous generation” of mold and such. This has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution or with the ultimate origin of living things. Some fool or freak or fraud posted a crazed misinterpretation of Pasteur’s work at a creationist website and it’s been endlessly repeated ever since.

    • chicagoja said

      Regardless of what you think about Pasteur’s work, it doesn’t answer the question of how do you get life from non-life. That’s one of the reasons why Crick endorsed Directed Panspermia. Interestingly enough, Professor Milton Wainwright of the University of Sheffield very recently has claimed to have found the first evidence of life arriving to Earth from space. He said: “If life does continue to arrive from space then we have to completely change our view of biology and evolution.”

      • john zande said

        I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Regurgitating outrageously erroneous claims made at creationist websites is proof of that. To clarify: it’s not what “I think of Pasteur’s work.” It’s what Pasteur’s work was. Period.

        Now, in 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey set out to test Alexander Oparin’s and J. B. S. Haldane’s hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favoured “chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors,” and through their experiments successfully cooked up the first manmade Amino Acids in the lab. Since then NASA’s Stardust probe triumphantly returned to earth in 2006 with Amino Acids it’d captured after intercepting the comet 81P/Wild (Wild-2) around Jupiter, proving that these fundamental building blocks of life occur naturally on earth and are found equally naturally in space.

        The process of how life emerged on earth follows then that the first membranes inside which Amino Acids could join to build strands of proteins formed from Fatty Acids fashioned naturally and regularly inside thermal vents; geothermal pools on land and not as common perception would have it in the oceans. These protein strands became very primitive forms of RNA: the first organic encoding device which over time and through natural mutation became more complex and eventually gave rise to DNA, or cellular life.

        And for your information: in 2009, Dr. Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and his graduate student, Tracey Lincoln, pretty much nailed primitive ‘life’ – a progenitor of life if you like – when they developed a molecule composed of nothing but RNA enzymes in a test tube that replicated and evolved, swapping genes for just as long as the conditions were right to do so. Doing what molecules do it Xeroxed itself by using its own basic structure as a scaffolding from which to build new copies from pairs of smaller molecules. Incredibly, when incorrect copies were made mutations arose and the molecule quite happily passed on those changes to the proceeding generation, and so it slowly evolved. Although not technically speaking ‘life’ Joyce and Lincoln’s work was an astonishing in-road into a beautiful albeit strikingly simple process first teased-free by Darwin five generations ago.

        Also in 2009 John Sutherland of the University of Manchester went even further when he successfully cooked up two of the four ribonucleotides found in both RNA and DNA molecules and by doing so created the first stirrings of life on earth. Unlike other researchers before him, Sutherland and his team did not jump right into sugars and nucleobases rather they started first with a host of simpler molecules most likely around in earth’s primordial goo. They diluted the molecules in water, heated the solution, and then allowed it to evaporate so as to replicate sequential changes in conditions which was then irradiated with ultraviolet light; a process which left behind hybrid half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, irradiated it, and repeated the process over and over. Remarkably, with each passing phase the molecules became more and more complex and when phosphates were added in the very last stage Sutherland found himself staring at two ribonucleotides; half a naturally built RNA molecule.
        “My ultimate goal,” said Sutherland, “is to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first.”

        Even more recently and perhaps even more remarkably researchers led by Phil Holliger at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge announced in early months of 2012 they’d successfully made the first synthetic RNA and DNA molecules which they called, XNA: xeno-nucleic acids. They achieved this mind-jarringly colossal leap in constructing artificial life by building synthetic versions of RNA and DNA’s nucleobase ladder rungs. By synthesizing enzymes (what they’ve called, polymerases) they could then bind the XNA molecules to DNA or reverse the process back to a single RNA strand; passing genetic information between the natural and synthetic molecules at will, leading MRC scientist, Victor Pinheiro, to observe “Thus heredity and evolution, two hallmarks of life, are not limited to DNA and RNA.”

        Now, you haven’t answered my question above. I’m genuinely interested to learn What, specifically, in the quantum world indicates the Middle Eastern Christian god of the bible to you?

      • chicagoja said

        There’s nothing in the quantum world that indicates the Christian god. Then again, I don’t believe in the Christian god so the point is probably moot. Based on what scientists have told me, RNA/DNA appears to be another unanswerable for evolutionists because you can’t have super sophisticated genetic coding without a genetic programmer. This is related to Einstein’s belief in “a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe”. In other words, the universe has Natural Laws and therefore there has to be a lawgiver. I’d love to chat with you more but I find that conversations with people whose belief systems are based on ideology (of any ilk) never get anywhere. Besides, I’m not here to convince anyone of anything. I actually prefer that readers don’t agree with me. However, it’s up to them to find their own “truth.”

  11. EmileLilly said

    Once again, you’ve made another interesting and thought provoking post. Some people are so full of themselves that they let their ideologies cloud their judgements; when the truth smacks them in the face, they refuse to accept the errors of their philosophies.

    • chicagoja said

      That’s because, for some, ideology is more important than the pursuit of the truth. For example, the belief that one understands God (through religious dogma)or “knows” that God doesn’t exist is usually an indication that they have stopped looking for the truth.

  12. Lizabeth said

    Is that really all there is to it because that\’d be flbbgergastina.

    • chicagoja said

      Well, I think that it’s more than enough to try and wrap one’s mind around it. It’s an incredibly simple explanation of something that is beyond man’s ability to comprehend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: