All About Buddhism

21 thoughts on “All About Buddhism”

1. smartxl maybe you forgot or thought it irrelevant, the fact that as far as i know budha ordered us mortals who love our relatives, to not care about them if they die and then you will not suffer.
   tell this to a mom whose child died. tell her that this is only her desire and that she should simply stop desiring and then she will suffer no more.
   but this ideot, misspelt by intention, budha forgot that maternal love that he calls desire made all the species possible because mothers DESIRE their children to live but not die, and that is how he himself the idiot budha survived his infancy because his mother cared about him and did not let him die. so, i suggest that budha invents time machine and goes back to the past when his mother gave birth to him and then make her stop her desire to keep him alive, which will cause his death as infant. no more budha and no problem for us listening and reading this ridiculous bs of a man who had no idea that humanity and all species are alive today because of the DESIRE of which the result is suffering when the desire does not get what it wants. the baby of a mother to remain alive

   1. Good point Niki. Not all desire is selfish; the desire for others to be happy and healthy (and of course alive) can be thought of as selfless, and the doctrine wants us to shed even this.

2. Actually the “big bang” theory does not satisfy all the laws of Physics. “It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can’t create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn’t address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there’s no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.
   Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.
   Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.
   The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn’t apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.
   There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory:”
   It is funny how those who refuse to accept a theory with more validity for the answer of where we came from, find it so easy to dismiss the laws of physics to try and make what they want to believe seem more believable.

3. Gerald writes: [Actually the “big bang” theory does not satisfy all the laws of Physics. “It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can’t create or destroy matter or energy.]

   Please stop posting pseudo-science nonsense at this website. Just last week I explained to you, yet again, that the Big Bang did not create anything. All the matter and energy in the universe was already present at the start of the Big Bang, remember? I also asked you to see a neurologist because it was becoming apparent that you are having memory and comprehension issues. I see my concern for you was indeed warranted, given this latest repeated error concerning the Big Bang…

   Also, the writing style of your post is not your typical rambling style. So I decided to copy a couple of sentences and google it. Sure enough, you’ve plagiarized yet again, word for word, from someone else’s work without giving them credit (putting quoets around it is not proper referencing). Your entire post can be found at this site: http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

   Incredibly dishonest of you. The best part? The stuff you posted also contained answers to those criticisms. You didn’t even read it, you just copy and pasted it in, and had no idea it doesn’t support your dimwitted religious take on science. Bravo preacher Gerald! This supports what I’ve been saying about you for quite a while now – you have no interest in learning anything or having an actual exchange of information with people, your only goal is propping up your god creature with disinformation and dishonesty.

   Quite the job this morning, Preacher. You’ve managed to showcase your failing mental state, your plagiarizing skills, and your dishonest approach to debate with people…all in one post! You must be exhausted…

4. It was from “http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm
   “Please stop posting pseudo-science nonsense at this website. Just last week I explained to you, yet again, that the Big Bang did not create anything. All the matter and energy in the universe was already present at the start of the Big Bang, remember?” I have a question, do you have any proof that what I have said is pseudo science? Another question. Do you have any proof that the “big bang” did not create anything? You are saying that all the matter in the universe was already present at the start of the “big bang”. Where is your proof for this statement. Did you have a front row seat when this spectacular event took place? I know that the answer to all of these questions are “No”. You do not have any proof. You are doing what all Atheists do when confronted with truth, and they don’t have answers to contest it. They make claims and hem and haw, and ignore the questions or get angry and say Creationists are unable to understand Evolution. (which I’m afraid is what many Evolutionists are saying about their own theory). But I digress. You don’t have any proof to support the claims just now. Especially the first one where you said I’m using “pseudo- science”. Well may not be especially, but just as much as all the other questions. And all that I posted had a reference site from where it came from. And no the only thing that is contested is the false hope that the atheists have in the false scientific theory called evolution. Whoops. I’m sorry I did fail to post my reference site. Sorry I will rectify that in a minute. There I put it at the front of this post. The criticisms that came with it were what others said the reasons why they would be accepted. And what the site was giving was why they should not be accepted as factual.
   Also, while you are at it, read these sites about the impossibility of evolution being anything more than pure speculation, without physical proof.
   http://www.icr.org/article/higgs-boson-big-bang/
   http://www.icr.org/article/universe-from-nothing/
   And here’s one last one.
   “God & Natural Law
   by Dr. Jason Lisle on August 28, 2006
   Share:
   The universe obeys certain rules—laws to which all things must adhere. These laws are precise, and many of them are mathematical in nature.
   Elephants
   Photo courtesy http://www.photos.com
   The law of biogenesis states that life always comes from life. Both observational science and Genesis 1 tell us that organisms reproduce after their own kind. This and other natural laws exist because the universe has a Creator who is logical and has imposed order on His universe.
   Natural laws are hierarchical in nature; secondary laws of nature are based on primary laws of nature, which have to be just right in order for our universe to be possible. But, where did these laws come from, and why do they exist? If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a big bang, then why should it obey orderly principles—or any principles at all for that matter? Such laws are consistent with biblical creation. Natural laws exist because the universe has a Creator God who is logical and has imposed order on His universe (Genesis 1:1).
   The Word of God
   Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey. The Bible tells us that there are laws of nature—“ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.
   God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. It obeys laws of chemistry that are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws.
   The Law of Life (Biogenesis)
   There is one well-known law of life: the law of biogenesis. This law states simply that life always comes from life. This is what observational science tells us: organisms reproduce other organisms after their own kind. Historically, Louis Pasteur disproved one alleged case of spontaneous generation; he showed that life comes from previous life. Since then, we have seen that this law is universal—with no known exceptions. This is, of course, exactly what we would expect from the Bible. According to Genesis 1, God supernaturally created the first diverse kinds of life on earth and made them to reproduce after their kind. Notice that molecules-to-man evolution violates the law of biogenesis. Evolutionists believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals. But this is inconsistent with the law of biogenesis. Real science confirms the Bible.
   EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE, EVERY PLANT AND ANIMAL, EVERY ROCK, EVERY PARTICLE OF MATTER OR LIGHT WAVE, IS BOUND BY LAWS WHICH IT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO OBEY.
   The Laws of Chemistry
   Life requires a specific chemistry. Our bodies are powered by chemical reactions and depend on the laws of chemistry operating in a uniform fashion. Even the information that makes up any living being is stored on a long molecule called DNA. Life as we know it would not be possible if the laws of chemistry were different. God created the laws of chemistry in just the right way so that life would be possible.
   The laws of chemistry give different properties to the various elements (each made of one type of atom) and compounds (made up of two or more types of atoms that are bonded together) in the universe. For example, when given sufficient activation energy, the lightest element (hydrogen) will react with oxygen to form water. Water itself has some interesting properties, such as the ability to hold an unusually large amount of heat energy. When frozen, water forms crystals with six-sided symmetry (which is why snowflakes are generally six-sided). Contrast this with salt (sodium chloride) crystals, which tend to form cubes. It is the six-fold symmetry of water ice that causes “holes” in its crystal, making it less dense than its own liquid. That’s why ice floats in water (whereas essentially all other frozen compounds sink in their own liquid).
   The properties of elements and compounds are not arbitrary. In fact, the elements can be logically organized into a periodic table based on their physical properties. Substances in the same column on the table tend to have similar properties. This follows because elements in a vertical column have the same outer electron structures. These outermost electrons determine the physical characteristics of the atom. The periodic table did not happen by chance. Atoms and molecules have their various properties because their electrons are bound by the laws of quantum physics. In other words, chemistry is based on physics. If the laws of quantum physics were just a bit different, atoms might not even be possible. God designed the laws of physics just right so that the laws of chemistry would come out the way He wanted them to.
   The Laws of Planetary Motion
   The creation scientist Johannes Kepler discovered that the planets in our solar system obey three laws of nature. He found that planets orbit in ellipses (not perfect circles as had been previously thought) with the sun at one focus of the ellipse; thus a given planet is sometimes closer to the sun than at other times. Kepler also found that planets sweep out equal areas in equal times—in other words, planets speed up as they get closer to the sun within their orbit. And third, Kepler found the exact mathematical relationship between a planet’s distance from the sun (a) and its orbital period (p); planets that are farther from the sun take much longer to orbit than planets that are closer (expressed as p2=a3). Kepler’s laws also apply to the orbits of moons around a given planet.1
   As with the laws of chemistry, these laws of planetary motion are not fundamental. Rather, they are the logical derivation of other laws of nature. In fact, it was another creation scientist (Sir Isaac Newton) who discovered that Kepler’s laws could be derived mathematically from certain laws of physics—specifically, the laws of gravity and motion (which Newton himself formulated).
   Abeka Book Master Books Medi-Share
   The Laws of Physics
   The field of physics describes the behavior of the universe at its most fundamental level. There are many different laws of physics. They describe the way the universe operates today. Some laws of physics describe how light propagates, how energy is transported, how gravity operates, how mass moves through space, and many other phenomena. The laws of physics are usually mathematical in nature; some laws of physics can be described with a concise formula, such as E=mc2. The simple formula F=ma shows how an object with mass (m) will accelerate (a) when a net force (F) is applied to it. It is amazing that every object in the universe consistently obeys these rules.
   There is a hierarchy in physics: some laws of physics can be derived from other laws of physics. For example, Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 can be derived from the principles and equations of special relativity. Conversely, there are many laws of physics that cannot be derived from other laws of physics; many of these are suspected to be derivative principles, but scientists have not yet deduced their derivation.
   And some laws of physics may be truly fundamental (not based on other laws); they exist only because God wills them to. In fact, this must be the case for at least one law of physics (and perhaps several)—the most fundamental. (Logically, this is because if the most fundamental law were based on some other law, it would not be the most fundamental law.)
   The laws of physics (along with their associated constants) are fine-tuned in just the right way so that life, particularly human life, is possible. This fact is called the “anthropic principle.”1
   1Anthropic comes from the Greek word for man, anthropos.
   The Laws of Mathematics
   Notice that the laws of physics are highly mathematical in nature. They would not work if there were not also laws of mathematics. Mathematical laws and principles include the rules of addition, the transitive property, the commutative properties of addition and multiplication, the binomial theorem, and many others. Like the laws of physics, some laws and properties of mathematics can be derived from other mathematical principles. But unlike the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics are abstract; they are not “attached” to any specific part of the universe. It is possible to imagine a universe where the laws of physics are different, but it is difficult to imagine a (consistent) universe where the laws of mathematics are different.2
   The laws of mathematics are an example of a “transcendent truth.” They must be true regardless of what kind of universe God created. This may be because God’s nature is logical and mathematical; thus, any universe He chose to create would necessarily be mathematical in nature. The secular naturalist cannot account for the laws of mathematics. Certainly he would believe in mathematics and would use mathematics, but he is unable to account for the existence of mathematics within a naturalistic framework since mathematics is not a part of the physical universe. However, the Christian understands that there is a God beyond the universe and that mathematics reflects the thoughts of the Lord. Understanding math is, in a sense, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”3 (though in a limited, finite way, of course).
   Some have supposed that mathematics is a human invention. It is said that if human history had been different, an entirely different form of math would have been constructed—one with alternate laws, theorems, axioms, etc. But such thinking is not consistent. Are we to believe that the universe did not obey mathematical laws before people discovered them? Did the planets orbit differently before Kepler discovered that p2=a3? Clearly, mathematical laws are something that human beings have discovered, not invented. The only thing that might have been different (had human history taken a different course) is the notation—the way in which we choose to express mathematical truths through symbols. But these truths exist regardless of how they are expressed. Mathematics could rightly be called the “language of creation.”
   The Laws of Logic
   All the laws of nature, from physics and chemistry to the law of biogenesis, depend on the laws of logic. Like mathematics, the laws of logic are transcendent truths. We cannot imagine that the laws of logic could be anything different from what they are. Take the law of noncontradiction for example. This law states that you cannot have both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same relationship. Without the laws of logic, reasoning would be impossible. But where do the laws of logic come from?
   The atheist cannot account for the laws of logic, even though he or she must accept that they exist in order to do any rational thinking. But according to the Bible, God is logical. Indeed, the law of noncontradiction reflects God’s nature; God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19) or be tempted with evil (James 1:13) since these things contradict His perfect nature. Since we have been made in God’s image, we instinctively know the laws of logic. We are able to reason logically (though because of finite minds and sin we don’t always think entirely logically).
   The Uniformity of Nature
   The laws of nature are uniform. They do not (arbitrarily) change, and they apply throughout the whole cosmos. The laws of nature apply in the future just as they have applied in the past; this is one of the most basic assumptions in all of science. Without this assumption, science would be impossible. If the laws of nature suddenly and arbitrarily changed tomorrow, then past experimental results would tell us nothing about the future. Why is it that we can depend on the laws of nature to apply consistently throughout time? The secular scientists cannot justify this important assumption. But the Christian can because the Bible gives us the answer. God is Lord over all creation and sustains the universe in a consistent and logical way. God does not change, and so He upholds the universe in a consistent, uniform way throughout time (Jeremiah 33:25).
   https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/god-natural-law/

   1. Thanks for posting even more work from other people, instead of writing your own thoughts.

      Gerald preaches: [I have a question, do you have any proof that what I have said is pseudo science?]

      Yes, and I’ve posted it a thousands times now. I have a question – Do you even bother to read anything, or attempt to understand anything, that is written by others in response to your pseudo science? Or is it just easier to keep making the same falsified claims over and over so that you don’t have to ever learn about the utter nonsense of the Bible god creature?

      Gerald preaches: [Another question. Do you have any proof that the “big bang” did not create anything?]

      Yes, it’s called the conservation laws. We’ve covered this before Gerald, multiple times. Did you go see that neurologist about your memory issues yet?

      [You are saying that all the matter in the universe was already present at the start of the “big bang”. Where is your proof for this statement. Did you have a front row seat when this spectacular event took place? I know that the answer to all of these questions are “No”. You do not have any proof.]

      C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-O-N L-A-W-S. I thought it might help if I spelled it this time. There are other lines of evidence, like gravity waves, cosmic background radiation, and the expansion of the universe that also support the Big Bang. So once again your lying claim of “no proof” is exposed as fraudulent.

      Gerald preaches: [You are doing what all Atheists do when confronted with truth, and they don’t have answers to contest it. They make claims and hem and haw, and ignore the questions or get angry]

      Right. So you say there is no proof (even though there is) and then say that since I wasn’t there I can’t claim anything, so therefore god. But where you there Gerald? Did you have a front row seat when this spectacular event took place? So how do you know it didn’t happen that way (especially since the evidence supports the Big Bang theory)? Turn your myopic glass around on yourself and you can see why your objections are so feeble and unimaginative…

      Gerald preaches: [And all that I posted had a reference site from where it came from.]

      Yes, after you were called out for plagiarizing….again…

      [And no the only thing that is contested is the false hope that the atheists have in the false scientific theory called evolution.]

      Here Gerald goes again, jumping from the Big Bang to evolution, as if those two things are related. They aren’t related Gerald. How many times does it take for you to stop mixing two separate scientific theories together?

      [Also, while you are at it, read these sites about the impossibility of evolution being anything more than pure speculation, without physical proof.]

      We’ve covered this ICR garbage in precious posts Gerald. Please go see that neurologist and get a check up. I sincerely hope that everything is fine, but you are exhibiting some worrisome patterns of behavior which suggest medical attention is required…

5. I was enamored with Buddhism for a while … it is generally broader than most religions.
   A lot of Buddhist ideas are fuzzy though. And some are outright fictions like all other religions.

   Buddhism starts with trying to answer a problem – the problem of dissatisfaction/ suffering (which I guess we all experience either intermittently or continuously). And then the 8 fold path is described to rise above that suffering.
   The path (if one reads about it a bit) seems to be a path of moderation basically and also one of trying to get control over one’s unconscious brain chatter, sort of.

   I think the biological insight that Buddhism misses in trying to “end suffering” is that there’s an evolutionary advantage to be had from a brain that has a degree of in-built anxiety and a predilection for the negative. I am not saying our background brain chatter is a good or bad thing – and I personally abhor the often useless background anxiety of our brains (ok, of most human brains) … but its just something useful, something that has propelled life onward. Whether its still required is debatable.

   Maybe if the eight-fold path was more (much more) about allowing the controlled, conscious, decision making part of our brains to become stronger while keeping the unconscious emotional and fuzzy part at bay (not chained, just at bay … that part is what makes us human to a large extent) then I would have liked it much more and given it a big thumbs up. It is a lot about control, but not fully.
   My suspicion is that if the Buddha was born in modern times, he would have revised the noble truths and eight-fold path to reflect on & manipulate/ maneuver around human psyche better. He would have had the benefit of path-breaking neuroscience research on how our brains work, to boot. The outcome of his modern day meditation under the Bodhi tree would have been interesting.

   I do like the emphasis on meditation practices in that religion though – its a way to gain control over the internal background chatter of our own minds and I guess that’s a good thing.

   1. Well said Rohit, and very interesting.

6. Tim you hit the nail on the head, in this statement of yours. “I think the biological insight that Buddhism misses in trying to “end suffering” is that there’s an evolutionary advantage to be had from a brain that has a degree of in-built anxiety and a predilection for the negative. What we have, was built in by God and not evolved into. Every so adaptation, called “evolution” by new evolutionists, is only a built in ability given to each organism by God to adjust to different circumstances. And tells that God planned for every contingency, that could pop up.

   “The word “science” is used in many ways. Many secular humanists try to redefine science as “naturalism”—the belief that nature is “all there is.” In other words, by attempting to equate “science” (knowledge) with “naturalism” (a secular belief) they exclude the possibility of miracles before they even examine the evidence. But normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past. Since the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time and time again, we have knowledge from history that miracles have indeed occurred.”

   “Naturalism is not science; rather, naturalism is a fallacious philosophical bias. In fact, naturalism is actually incompatible with science as will be shown below. However, the miracles in Scripture are fully compatible with true science.”
   https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/biblical-faith-is-not-blind-its-supported-by-good-science/

   1. Gerald writes: [What we have, was built in by God and not evolved into. Every so adaptation, called “evolution” by new evolutionists, is only a built in ability given to each organism by God to adjust to different circumstances. And tells that God planned for every contingency, that could pop up.]

      I obviously do not agree that anything was built by any god creature.

      [“The word “science” is used in many ways. Many secular humanists try to redefine science as “naturalism”—the belief that nature is “all there is.” In other words, by attempting to equate “science” (knowledge) with “naturalism” (a secular belief) they exclude the possibility of miracles before they even examine the evidence.]

      What evidence? Have you or any other cultist ever presented any empirical evidence for any miracle? Ever? Claiming that some people exclude miracles before examining the evidence when no evidence is ever presented is a dishonest charge, Gerald. Pony up the proof, and then people will have something to consider…

      [But normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.]

      There is no such demarcation in science. Claiming there is historical verses operational science is creating a false dilemma that does not actually exist. I must once again point out, by the way, that this has already been covered with you in the past.

      [Since the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time and time again, we have knowledge from history that miracles have indeed occurred.]

      Another oft-debunked statement located in many topics at this website. The Bible’s accuracy is unreliable, especially as it relates to claims of miracles, prophecy, and the natural world.

      [Naturalism is not science; rather, naturalism is a fallacious philosophical bias. In fact, naturalism is actually incompatible with science as will be shown below. However, the miracles in Scripture are fully compatible with true science.]

      First off, thank you for listing your source. I appreciate that you did that.

      Naturalism is an axiom. It is a self evident truth. It is used as a starting point time and again when trying to answer questions about things, and time and again it holds true. CLAIMS of miracles in the Bible are unproven, unrealistic, third party hearsay that conflict with all known scientific discovery at this point in time.

      1. http://www.mrsoshouse.com/pbl/observe/nest.htm
         And from another site, “Observation is essential in science. Scientists use observation to collect and record data, which enables them to construct and then test hypotheses and theories.” From
         (https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/8-the-role-of-observation-in-science)

         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

         [But normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.]

         “There is no such demarcation in science. Claiming there is historical verses operational science is creating a false dilemma that does not actually exist. I must once again point out, by the way, that this has already been covered with you in the past.”
         So please inform me and us how what you claim is actually true. This should be easy for you.
         Tell us how what we observe should be discounted and a theory that lacks any evidence at all should instead be accepted instead. Once again, and I know you hold disdain for me repeating these, but Life has only observed to come from life. The scientists pushing evolution, wish to ignore this fact that has led to other scientists in years past to determine that life coming from non life or from nothing (spontaneous generation), to be virtually impossible. Or hypothetically improbable. But what are the scientists of evolution trying to do, they are reviving this theory of spontaneous generation and repackaging this already tossed out theory, and saying that it is not possible. But there are too many things that show that life from non life is impossible. Because the coming life or a new cell must have what it needs to do pre programmed when that cell is just arriving. That means that DNA must be present in that new cell. Which means that any new cell that spontaneously arrives from nothing or from non life, such as chemicals, would need to have the DNA already formed to receive any and all programming for that cell to function and perform any and all necessary tasks. And with out that DNA, that cell could not even know how to survive. It wouldn’t know how to absorb nutrients. Let alone go on to transform to become other organisms.
         Which brings me to another point. With all the tinkering that has been performed on the cells of organisms, pulling this out of the cell and adding whatever they would, and inspite of all this incessant manipulation, they have never produced no semblance of a different organism. It is as though what has been written for that cell to become, is all that the cell is able to become. Sure there are colors a plenty, that can come from them. They can come big or small, but they are only what they have been told to be. You need to realize that you are wrong with your loyalties. You hold an unreasonable and illogical belief in evolution. I have produced plenty of reason to at least cause you to question your decision. Especially with the individuals who used to be evolutionists and who have come out and stated that Evolution is bunk. It has no evidence to back the theory up. So for you to continue in your train of thought and belief, shows that you hold at arms length, belief in God, is the way you are holding onto your belief and faith in evolution.

7. “Right. So you say there is no proof (even though there is) and then say that since I wasn’t there I can’t claim anything, so therefore god. But where you there Gerald”
   And this is precisely the point that I am trying to make. And that is why one must yield to the scientific method to accept an hypothesis as the measurement to support that hypothesis. Evolution’s hypothesis are being supported as truth, even though they have not been ratified through the scientific method. Your amount of proof seems to be as little as that of the Christians to accept the fact that God did it all. I say seems to be. That is really not the case. All Christians do is find how the evidence can have a different interpretation to explain what is apparent around us. Evolution has gone out of its way to invent and fabricate evidence to support evolution. Evolution has members of its ranks that go out of their way to state that there is no reason to believe in evolution. Some of them even allude that the evidence that has been uncovered actually supports the Biblical narration of how this universe began. And evolution’s hypothesis, argue against what has been observed and should be taken into account when measured with the scientific method. That is that it has and is only been observed that life comes from life. We have never seen life pop up from nothing or from chemicals that are live less or inorganic. Every organism that has ever shown up on the face of this planet, appears to have done so through the means of a life that came before it. Yet evolution ignores this pattern of life and instead tries to convince the populace that what we observe is not what has happened. And fail to explain or demonstrate how this reasoning is logical. The Intelligent design theory on the other hand, fits the mold of the scientific method, because it flows along with the observations that have been made. So since the Intelligent Design theory is supported by the scientific model then it is a more logical hypothesis.
   Evolution also ignores the fact that the cells of each organism had to have DNA and programming on that DNA to direct each organism to perform their specialized tasks. When those who manipulate the cell, remove all or part of the DNA of the cell, the cell does not do anything but disintegrate. It doesn’t even have the mechanism to sustain itself. That cell isn’t able to spontaneously generated DNA and programming. Therefore the programming must come from a parent cell. So what do the evolutionists do, they ignore this fact, and create a hypothesis that goes against the facts that is supported by the scientific model. They want the populace to accept on their word that what really happened long ago, life popped from nowhere, and DNA and programming were spontaneously installed into that cell and the cell formed an organism, which in turn was transformed into every other living organism. And they wish us to believe on their word alone that processes of uniquely manufactured mechanisms functioning alone by chemical that are specifically produced to turn on and off those processes could have been designed and manufactured under exacting demands, and were able to do what all of life needed for them to do, to survive. No. No. A thousand times no. It is not, was not possible without some form of assistance of an intelligent being. Just like is takes the geneticist’s know how and capabilities to remanufacture that cell, so too it took One to design and create it.
   And I’ll just allow the readers to judge for themselves whether abiogenesis and evolution are related or not. Because I trust that I have got a better handle on both these subject than you do for now.

8. Tim why bring doubt upon you and your cause by saying what has to be the biggest lie yet. “What evidence? Have you or any other cultist ever presented any empirical evidence for any miracle”.
   The Bible is full of miracles that have happened from the time that God created the universe. And the Bible has been accepted by individuals from all types of life and from every science that has been around. This is evidence. You may or may not be willing to accept it but it evidence. It may or may not be the first kind of evidence that you would accept, but it is evidence. Now go to the millions of individuals who have live and who live today. They gave testimony that the Bible was more to them than any other book. Not only that, but many of them have had their personal testimonies of miracles in their lives. Miracles of healing. Miracles of restored relationships. Miracles of lives saved. Why every time we see the birth of another baby, that is itself a miracle. So just because you refuse to accept these miracles, doesn’t make them miracles.

9. [Since the Bible has demonstrated itself to be accurate time and time again, we have knowledge from history that miracles have indeed occurred.]

   “Another oft-debunked statement located in many topics at this website. The Bible’s accuracy is unreliable, especially as it relates to claims of miracles, prophecy, and the natural world.”
   Ok Tim, how have these miracle been debunked? Where is the proof that you can right now produce that shows that the miracles of the Bible have been debunked? You know that you can not produce anything. Just like you and all the other would be scientific evolutionists can’t produce any valid, physical evidence that shows that the theory of evolution is hypothetically sound. Time and time again I have asked for you to show how the holes in your theories could be filled, holes that stops evolution in its tracks, because what is being claimed by the evolutionists is shown to be impossible by what has been observed to be possible only by intelligent design.

10. “CLAIMS of miracles in the Bible are unproven, unrealistic, third party hearsay that conflict with all known scientific discovery at this point in time.” We have more reason to believe in miracles then you have to believe in evolution. At least we have individual testimonies, albeit, third hand, about something that happened in the past. The evolutionist only have supposition from someone who was never in the past. We have a historical record of recorded instances, from a historical source that has never ever been found untrustworthy. Not only that we have individuals presently, who are ready and willing to testify that they have had a miracle happened to them or that they have seen first hand, miracles that happened to some that they know. All the evolutionists are the suppositions of individuals who didn’t live during the time in question about a subject that is questionable. And we have the fact that many used to be evolutionists and practicing one even who commented that the universe and life itself does appear to have been designed. What do you have, nothing, from which many used to be evolutionists are running away.

11. You completed a few nice points there. I did a search on the theme and found nearly all persons will consent with your blog.

    1. It would be nice to know who you were talking to. There are several posts in here and you couldn’t place your comment under any of them….

12. “I turned vegan in June and it’s very challenging, so I know how hard it is. Especially when you’re cooking meat for the family.
    My favourite thing to eat is a wrap filled with pepper, cucumber, celery, whatever you like and dollops of houmous, guacamole or salsa. “

13. I for all time emailed this website post page to all my contacts, as if
    like to read it afterward my contacts will too.

14. The greatest deer velvet extract has been sourced by your research and
    imported it.

15. Thanks Moses. Very enlightening….

Comments are closed.