Wednesday, February 6, 2019

The Lengths To Which Atheists Will Go To Try To Keep People From Believing In God Are Not Astronomical, They Are Of A Far Greater Magnitude

In that list of atheist ideologue generated "science" to get by problems that materialism encounters around questions of origin, of the universe and of life, I should have included the several odd flavors of "panspermia" which attempts to get by the insuperable problems of improbability of life arising spontaneously on Earth by random chance events, the creation and preservation of complex molecules, the random chance concentration of such molecules, their interaction, the even harder to explain matter of them happening to find themselves in a containing membrane, etc. by just saying well, all that happened somewhere else and the resultant organisms just happened to come here.  Apparently they give such powers of interstellar travel to organisms that their fellow atheists ridicule people for believing that ETs have and, since their motives are to preserve atheism, that makes it all OK.

After the discovery of the background radiation in the 1960s and their steady-state universe model was discredited, Hermann Bondi admitted that, though Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle held out for decades after that.

In the meantime both Gold and Hoyle joined in the panspermia fashion among such atheists as wanted to avoid the embarrassing problem of the incredible improbability life arising on Earth by random chance.  Hoyle, my notes say, estimated the chance of that happening by random events was in the order of  10 40,000  and the estimated number of atoms in the universe is believed to be 10 80 .  Obviously the chances of atoms on Earth, in such numbers required to construct even a very simple organism capable of sustaining its life and, without any precedent or knowable motivation, reproducing successfully, both or the resultant organisms surviving, is of an order so incredibly small that even Hoyle, a committed idological atheist came to the conclusion that intelligent design had to be involved.  He favored organisms on other planets - though the question of where and how they arose, so improbably on their home planet, didn't seem to trouble him.

Of course, the improbabilities expressed in Hoyle's terms would have been the same for life arising anywhere.  And those improbabilities involve it happening once, it is far less likely that it would have happened twice or a jillion times by spontaneous random chance events. The chances of those entirely different organisms being biologically interactive would seem to me to be dependent on even greater improbabilities, though that's unknowable since we've never found "other life".    And added to the problems of those improbabilities were the ones involved in interstellar travel, the lengths of time in harsh, radiation ridden space and the unknowable improbability of such organisms just happening to land on an unseemingly incongenial Early Earthy environment and flourishing doesn't seem to bother such atheist-scientists.  As I recall Gold's theory was that life on Earth is the result of ETs leaving their garbage here.  Which, by the way, is no more absurd than that other hero of 20th century atheist-scientism, Francis Crick who seems to have had his own panspermia scheme which, for the life of me, sounds like what I remember of how Superman was sent here by his parents as their planet couldn't sustain life.  And these are some of the most respected scientists of the 20th, not the 17th century

Hoyle mixed in some really loopy theories that such pandemics as the swine flu epidemic of 1918-1920 were due to his interstellar traveling viruses.  How such viruses would survive such travel is a problem that pales to the improbability of such viruses, arriving for the first time into the history of life on Earth, finding hospitable hosts that would allow them to do what they are supposed to do doesn't seem to figure into Hoyle's calculations of improbability, but, then, he was a cosmologist who was probably extremely naive about biological topics.  I would like to know what Francis Crick's reaction to that would have been but, as can be seen, he was pretty loopy on that and many other topics,* too.

And atheists do this, much of the time AS SCIENCE and are held to be taken seriously AS SCIENTISTS without any evidence or even very good arguments to support their speculations and it is acceptable BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING IT FOR ATHEISM.

I do have to say that my disillusion with much of science, especially those fields which have been wide open to atheist ideological manipulation has been bitter and harsh but those guys have been getting away with stuff that no one else would be allowed to.

I have come to something like Hoyle's position in considering the problem of the origin of life, I don't think it could have happened by random chance events, I don't believe it would have arisen by chance anywhere.  Since Hoyle admitted that it was more reasonable to believe that "intelligence" was involved in the origin of life on Earth (he avoided it being necessary for life, elsewhere) it is an inescapable conclusion that the idea that God created life is more probably true than the random chance event improbabilities that atheists insist on.   But none of that is a matter of science, I've exhaustively shown why that question can't be a scientific question BECAUSE SCIENTISTS CAN'T OBSERVE THE ORIGINAL ORGANISM(S) FROM WHICH ALL LIFE TODAY IS DESCENDED.  Without that actual object, which will certainly never be had to observe, there is no possibility of scientists to theorize one into existence.  We will never know.  What we can know is that atheists have been allowed to put the most absurd speculations into science, on a formal level and, probably even more dangerously, into the popular understanding of what science is.  That bull shit should stop, right now.  Tell the atheists to take it somewhere else just as religion was centuries ago.

This has been another response.

*  Typical of Darwinists, Crick was a firm believer in scientific racism and a proponent of eugenics.   I have come to believe that such beliefs are all but inevitable in most of those who believe in natural selection.


  1. According to Hoyle, it's turtles all the way down.

    1. It's especially astonishing in his case since he generated estimates of improbability of life arising here he didn't seem to realize that those same numbers would have to be confronted wherever life arose. And it's amazing to me that they don't understand that none of their schemes disproves the reality of God, they're just trying to convince themselves, as Kung noted.

      I'm looking forward to feeling well enough to go back to politics. I just don't feel up to it this week.