|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||||||
All Scientist are super-natural...
in at least a few parts of their worldview
Science: the collected and tested observations of humanity... a simplified definition. Science is the body of knowledge and discipline of discovery and imagination which seeks to understand our world via observation, testing, hypothesis, theory and laws. Scientific laws are observations to which we have found no exceptions, and that hold true in circumstances that we can verify. Scientific method: One way of knowing reality , but only works within the parameters of naturalistic occurrences.
Science / humanity can not observe all of reality. History shows us that science is a handicapped observation system. For example scientists of 200+ years ago could not observe microscopic worlds , deep space, uv-light, inferred light, radio waves and many more physical phenomenon. Science if limited to the philosophy of naturalism / materialism becomes a science stopper; following the axiom, Only what one can observed and tested by science is real and useful. Were microscopic worlds , deep space, uv-light, inferred light, radio waves etc. not "real" just because we could not observe them? This is the flaw of Materialistic Naturalism when applied to science.
Super-natural: A process or event that has no direct observable, testable repeatable evidence or controls. Does not conform to the scientific method of observation. Events or observations not controllable by humans, and supersedes naturalistic processes. Supernatural occurrences can defy or conform to naturals laws.
Below are a list of Super-natural occurrences or elements in naturalistic science.
Science / humanity can not observe all of reality. History shows us that science is a handicapped observation system. For example scientists of 200+ years ago could not observe microscopic worlds , deep space, uv-light, inferred light, radio waves and many more physical phenomenon. Science if limited to the philosophy of naturalism / materialism becomes a science stopper; following the axiom, Only what one can observed and tested by science is real and useful. Were microscopic worlds , deep space, uv-light, inferred light, radio waves etc. not "real" just because we could not observe them? This is the flaw of Materialistic Naturalism when applied to science.
Super-natural: A process or event that has no direct observable, testable repeatable evidence or controls. Does not conform to the scientific method of observation. Events or observations not controllable by humans, and supersedes naturalistic processes. Supernatural occurrences can defy or conform to naturals laws.
Below are a list of Super-natural occurrences or elements in naturalistic science.
|
Origin of the Universe
There are no known natural or scientific laws or means by which the universe came about, self creation. In fact current theories defy the laws of thermodynamics, gravity..., and can not explain existence from nothing. Even a quantum field must have an origin. Multiverses do not solve this either, as they do not address the origin issue. Origin of Stars Star formation has never been observed, what is seen are stars in dust or plasma clouds, but an actual gravitational coalescence has never been observed and defies many physical properties and principles, as dust material gathers it heats up and blows out again. Only small debre groupings could gather via gravitational attraction. A super-nova shock wave is theorized to create enough compression to for the firs stars, but a supernova is an explodes star, what produced its origin? Dark Matter & Dark Energy in the Big Bang cosmological model. Neither of these have ever been observed, or tested. They are only theorized to exist to make parts of the BB Theory plausible. Origin of life A naturalistic origin of life says that life must have arisen from non-life. This defies the laws of bio-genesis. The environment for life to arise naturalisticly is problematic. With out oxygen in the atmosphere there is no ozone layer, thus any simple life would be e-radiated by its nearby star/sun. With oxygen the molecules are pulled apart in oxidation, in water you also have hydrolysis and the same oxygen issues. What sustains life in the environment is highly toxic to the formation of life outside of an already working biologic system with membranes and cellular system for capture and use of energy etc. Many atheistic evolutionists are proposing "alien" panspermia, which just doges the origin question and move it to another neighborhood. Origin of information For information to self organize and procreate for example in DNA by un-caused random natural processes is statistically impossible and defies the observations of information theory. Information is immaterial expressed in/on/through the material. Example: On a printed page the information is not the paper or ink, it supersedes the material upon which is used to convey its program/ message. Information is only recognizable by intelligent agents/beings, and no known example has been observed where information has been produced apart from intelligence. We find information systems like DNA, but formulating its naturalistic origin apart form intelligence that supersede that DNA surpasses the ability of naturalistic science as yet. |
The above are believed, not from scientific evidence, but based on faith. They are believed not from what we don't know about the world, but in contradiction to all we know, some defying known laws of nature.
Many Naturalistic evolutionists are proposing - panspermia, that life came from Aliens (single cell to super-intelligent beings, is this scientific?
Is it just moving origins of life issues to another planet, or hoping in science fiction?. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life
Why Naturalism - Materialism fails in science... http://www.originsunited.com/blog/science-the-handicapped-observational-system
Is it just moving origins of life issues to another planet, or hoping in science fiction?. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life
Why Naturalism - Materialism fails in science... http://www.originsunited.com/blog/science-the-handicapped-observational-system
|
Does DNA actually point the way to a supernatural outier-dimentional being. A being who is a non-biological entity?
The ultimate Alien source of life and DNA? From the book Degeneration by Peter M. Scheele, pg 117 available at www.OriginsUnited.com/books A creator? (Being) Regarding that alien, there are a couple of things we can derive from ‘his’ creation: In the first place, it is intelligent, or it could never have put the intelligence, the information and the structure into the DNA that is now present. The extent of that intelligence is exponential to ours. It has to know everything about atoms, molecules, chemistry, and so on, and master them all completely. Let us say, just to keep it simple, that his intelligence is 20300 times the sum of all the intelligences of all the biochemists that ever lived. We cracked and hacked the code, but he (or she or it?) designed it. And then in order to do this, he (or or she or it) had to be in complete command of the matter. |
|
This alien is not-organic! Because it has designed or programmed organic life itself, it cannot be organic. In the same way, the programmer of the program code (zeros and ones) is not a program of zeros and ones himself. The programmer could have used another program, but he cannot be made of zeros and
ones himself. Therefore, organic life simply cannot be designed by another organic life form.
In the same way we can state that the programmer of life is itself not subject to what we call ‘death’, since ‘death’ is a typical property of organical life. We could go one like this for a while…
It is non-sexual. Sexuality is a characteristic of some organic life. Bacteria are neither male nor female. Sex is a feature that is entwined in our lives. The programmer of the DNA is responsible for programming sex(uality). It will no more be sexual than it will be organic.
It is at least personal, or has a personality. The maker of something is always more than its creation; it is never less or it could not have created it. People are intelligent and have a personality. The programmer of life is also at least ‘some kind of’ ‘personal’ it can never be just an intelligent force. This immediately causes a problem since ‘it’ is non-sexual and ‘he’ is at the same time personal. So, do we use ‘it’, ‘him’, or ‘her’ to refer to him (?)? Not using a word that already entails a lot of meaning, prejudice, and/or association like God, alien, etc., I will call this ‘entity’ the Creator. Should I write that with a lowercase or a capital C? Allow me to use a capital. The Creator made us. We can show at least a bit of respect. Also, I have to make a choice about which pronoun I will use to indicate him. Forgive me for the shortcomings of our language, but I am choosing for the third person masculine (probably because I am male myself,
and maybe because we are used to doing it that way.)
There we are with this intelligent, non-organic, non-sexual, not mortal, but personal Creator®.
ones himself. Therefore, organic life simply cannot be designed by another organic life form.
In the same way we can state that the programmer of life is itself not subject to what we call ‘death’, since ‘death’ is a typical property of organical life. We could go one like this for a while…
It is non-sexual. Sexuality is a characteristic of some organic life. Bacteria are neither male nor female. Sex is a feature that is entwined in our lives. The programmer of the DNA is responsible for programming sex(uality). It will no more be sexual than it will be organic.
It is at least personal, or has a personality. The maker of something is always more than its creation; it is never less or it could not have created it. People are intelligent and have a personality. The programmer of life is also at least ‘some kind of’ ‘personal’ it can never be just an intelligent force. This immediately causes a problem since ‘it’ is non-sexual and ‘he’ is at the same time personal. So, do we use ‘it’, ‘him’, or ‘her’ to refer to him (?)? Not using a word that already entails a lot of meaning, prejudice, and/or association like God, alien, etc., I will call this ‘entity’ the Creator. Should I write that with a lowercase or a capital C? Allow me to use a capital. The Creator made us. We can show at least a bit of respect. Also, I have to make a choice about which pronoun I will use to indicate him. Forgive me for the shortcomings of our language, but I am choosing for the third person masculine (probably because I am male myself,
and maybe because we are used to doing it that way.)
There we are with this intelligent, non-organic, non-sexual, not mortal, but personal Creator®.
|
Why are we here?
The latest science says we shouldn't be. It says that the chance Earth life exists at all is less than zero. So, is science the greatest threat to the idea of (Super-natural Origins) biological life from non-biological Life or is science its greatest advocate? Best-selling author and lecturer, Eric Metaxas, poses this intriguing question. more... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3jvfvho3CE |
|
|
|
Supernatural scientists with a supernatural worldview Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Tesla, Edison, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Pascal, Bacon, Marconi, Darwin, Maria Mitchell, Marie Curie, Francis Collins not an exhaustive list https://www.famousscientists.org/25-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/ https://dissentfromdarwin.org/ http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/how-scientists-can-believe-in-god http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5 |