James E Mahler

"You do accept that matter can be converted into energy, don't you? After you discharge a battery, it weighs a tiny bit less. The same number of electrons flowed out of the cathode as flowed into the anode, but some of the battery's mass has been transformed into energy." Not if you do it in a controlled environment, sealed chambers etc. No matter what you bombard the mass, or try to spend the energy inside an object etc, the weight of the containment remains the same. Its the law of conservation. As for the big bang, it is an impossibility and I see immense scientific resources being thrown around all consequence of that idea. Which is idea that really originated from the evolution concept. The whole purpose is to create a model that can explain everything once for all, based on a linear progression. Its absurd and therefore new forms of matter, such as the so called dark matter, have to be invented in order to justify the explanations given of the event. The other problem that occurs also is the play of words that are so blatantly deceiving and no one even bothers to call out, i.e. according to Einstein's equation I can go the speed of light or even a little faster. Why? Well, because the equation refers to TWICE the speed of light. Two times, in order for matter to be transformed into energy. However, one must understand that this is all on paper. No one have tested, its all hear say since it was never explained how much the mass grows, and at what rate and so on.

I am a big follower of the Thunderbolts Project. It is a fantastic group of scientists. And I always had doubts about the current scientific model of the Sun but now I understand how it really works, as well as most of the cosmological phenomenons brought fourth by the Hubble projects as well as other endeavors.

The fact is no one knows exactly how the human brain works. Questions such how do humans really see? How much of the brain is used for storage/memory or is the memory stored inside the brain at all? Why is that anywhere from 70 to 80 percent of the brain mass is considered by scientists to be inert and not much of use? And perhaps two of the most important questions are, one, why does the brain knows, up to 6 seconds ahead of time, which choice you're going to make or answer your'going to give. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmT-aFvRHKY Two, why does the hart produces more magnetic energy than the brain does?The seeing mechanism is understood even by middle school children. Light is projected from the object, passes thru the eye, image gets inverted and sent to the brain thru the optical nerve. From that point on it is all pure speculation.Honestly I think scientists are looking thru the wrong keyhole.

Its the old scientific paradigm that hunts us all and prevents science from taking its proper course of discovery and enlightenment. Mr. Hawking finally admits he was wrong about some of his assumptions about black holes. I think he should also revise his assumptions about his big bang theory.According to him every thing we see around us was originated from a single point or particle that all of a sudden went "bammm" (thanks Emeril) and here we are. Of course, in view of such a tremendous revelation, graphic artist who delve in science, space and tech design run to their computers and start to make drawings that look like giant prophylactics with "milky" way and all.Let me elaborate on a couple of small points that go against this whole idea: 1 - Antoine Lavoisier was this French chemist in 1700s who came up with this neat little concept. It says, in essence, in the universe nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed. You know, the guys was right. You can't bring matter out of nothing. You can't make matter disappear either, no matter what you do to it. Moreover, the weight of the mass is also maintained the same regardless what the state of it is. Even after you have gone thru whatever method you choose to obliterate that mass into a nothing.The same is true for "creating" mass. You can't get mass out of nothing, zero, shun davar. 2 - The second point is even more interesting. As one of the ways Mr. Hawking likes to show that his theories are correct is to play the event backwards. After all Newtonian physics should allowed this fact to happen. Except that two bodies cannot occupy the same space etc etc and all that good stuff. However, Hawking wants me to believe that universe can be put back in a bottle. It requires the invention of new laws and process, the creation of invisible forms of new energy and matter and all this nonsense that in the end all it does is creates "scientists are baffled" headlines in cutsy science web sites accompanied by made up pictures such as the ones I mentioned above. And before anyone brings up the Sistine Chapel picture I must say I also have some serious doubts about the traditional creation bit. For Mr. Hawking ideas to become empirical facts dozens of physical laws need to be broken or violated. I think down deep inside he wants a miracle to happen. All I can say is "go get your own miracles, Hawking. This ones are already taken!"

Actually the scripture goes like this: Feeding the Five Thousand10 And the apostles, when they had returned, told Him all that they had done. Then He took them and went aside privately into a deserted place belonging to the city called Bethsaida. 11 But when the multitudes knewit, they followed Him; and He received them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who had need of healing. 12 When the day began to wear away, the twelve came and said to Him, “Send the multitude away, that they may go into the surrounding towns and country, and lodge and get provisions; for we are in a deserted place here.” 13 But He said to them, “You give them something to eat.” And they said, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless we go and buy food for all these people.” 14 For there were about five thousand men. Then He said to His disciples, “Make them sit down in groups of fifty.”15 And they did so, and made them all sit down. 16 Then He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the multitude. 17 So they all ate and were filled, and twelve baskets of the leftover fragments were taken up by them. And the feeding of the 5000 pretty much ends there. Who knows how it really happened or what is true or not. When a story is written by many and it is done thru several decades it is hard to get the truth. Some of the accounts become pretty much hear say.

cab, you always ask some very interesting questions and I like that. Not really wanting to disrupt the flow of this conversation too much. Also, I am not defending this or that philosophy, however think of some possibilities in this case, for example: what size are these fish Jesus talked about? they could have been sharks. A couple of large ones and that would do the trick, right? I would also include small size whales with a notation that perhaps they didn't know back than that whales are mammals. Who knows? As for the bread the Sabbath has a interesting ritual on Friday evenings called the Kiddush where small pieces pf bread are distributed at the dinner table during prayer and they are small pieces and the act mostly symbolic.

Hello again cab, forgive my absence and lack on continuity over the debate, however I was confronted with issues of the most importance and could not find appropriate time to sit down and write. It does not have anything to do with new years celebrations by the way. I see some of the links you found about EU seem to have caught your attention. Please let me know if you wish to continue this debate.

cab, take a look at this set of pictures here: This was taken by the Hubble. It's called star v383 monocerotis. You can see the dates there. I could not find snapshots from before May 20, 2002 but I remember the first time I had a chance to examine it around March 2002 it was much smaller, and just a dot like the others in January. This star was first spotted in 86 I think and all of a sudden became intensely bright and than dimmed down again. I'm not sure if there are photos of that. And than it picked up again and the result is that. That could never possibly happen if you use the current model of cosmology and astrophysics. Scientists were baffled of course and didn't' know how to explain this. And its because they base their science in gravity, nuclear fusion, matter condensing and exploding apart and all that crazy stuff when the whole thing is just so simple and beautiful. Just look at it. It never changed its size too much and yet it was able to disperse a tremendous amount of energy and radiation. There is no explosion here in the sense that scientists claim. Stars can take sometimes thousands of years to form and sometimes just a few years. Think of it as an onion with two layers, supercharged and super condensed energy created by the magnetic field around them. Basically the same explanation I gave about the Sun which is a much different type of star if you wanna call it at that. The charge gets so intense that it needs to be dispersed. And it bursts. Most of the time in a form of intense gamma ray flares but sometimes in almost pure radiation form such as the the one here with the red around it. It is a dispersion of electricity and not an explosion. As this happens pushes the magnetic field around it away from its core sending all kinds of charges particles in all directions forming the plume around it. Now the thing about faster the the speed of light I mentioned; how far do you thing it is from the center of the star to the outer edge of the plume of particles? Millions of light years? It traveled all that in only around 2 years and so? And there is no solid matter dispersion either as the current model says. Its not going go go form another planet somewhere. There is not enough matter for something even the size of the moon. The plume is immense of course but it is already dispersing in this instance, becoming invisible again and disappearing in all directions. If it happens around a highly magnetized area of the cosmos it can continue visible for millions of years even. A lot of times the outer layer of the star peels off just like the onion and the peel given enough electromagnetic force around, it shapes itself into another star next to it called twins or binaries. There is another dandy one here: This is SN1987A from the ESO telescopes, another one scientists had plenty of trouble explaining how an explosion of a "dying star" can produce such a fantastically symmetric shape in the heavens. Well, this one is so easy. Its an immense plasma discharge and if you notice the almost stick man shape that a plasma discharge on a lab can produce. It is not quiet at that shape yet: This is the so called stick man. A plasma discharge create in a laboratory. Its in profile view wheres the SN1987A was photographed from a different angle, almost 45 degrees from the top. But you can clearly see the bell shapes top and bottom and including the torus around the center. It also displays a fantastic amount of energy around the edges of the chalice and the torus. Also if you notice on the center where the star is the shape is oval. Its hard to tell from the picture but could very well be that we are seeing the birth of a twin, thus the plasma burst. Again, nothing blew up. Only an electric model of the universe can explain this phenomenons we see in the skies. By the way, Mars died because it was zapped by Venus, and not too long ago Cheers and I'll answer the rest tomorrow, please.

Geez, what happened to my post with my answer to Wuzzams? Did someone deleted? I didn't think there was anything inappropriate in it. Well, I guess I have to re write it.

I said it, James. Its on the paragraph above. Now I'll add more to it since I started this evolution argument inside cab's discussion after reading a paragraph from Wuzzums that I disagree with. Sorry cab. But here it goes:First of all a few things to say that would also answer cab's question about the quantum field. From the time the sciences of physics and astronomy began to become liberated from the grips of religion all the way to the present day a vast number of very important people from all different fields have always agreed in one thing; the universe could not possibly have being construct as it is without help from a higher entity. And it is not just the father of contemporary physics, Mr. Einstein who said so. Newton, Carl Jung, Pasteur, and too many names to mention but the list goes back to the beginning of recorded history, The interesting part about this is that one can break down the universe and specially our planetary system, but even more specially our Earth and that is all included, humans and all, into mathematical equations. and than there are things like constants in physics which are results from highly advanced equations that gives us precise numbers in relation to the behavior of mass, energy, light, gravity, all kinds of electromagnetic forces etc. The list is huge and new things are added to it and the help of powerful computers these days a lot of the already defined constants have dozens and even hundreds of digits behind the comma in a display of fantastic precision and complexity. We don't know them all yet but the more scientists discover these things the more they are convinced the universe is built in such a construct manner that if you move or replace one digit anywhere the whole thing will fall apart and you have nothing. It just won't work.The other thing that is very interesting about the universe is that it is nothing like they teach you in school and specially college. When the British Academy of Science forcefully pushed the Darwinian theory... well, let me just say, the whole thing was a dirty filthy business that involved coercion, blackmail and people getting fired and all sorts of things, this well after Darwin passed away. By the way, his cousin who financed him was a well known eugenicist. Read about it, I can't go in all details of these things. But the fact is that this mentality persisted till today and academia which gets its funds from the government and very powerful people with influence does not want any disruption in the flow of today's status quo. Many many scientists are either muzzled or sold their souls and beliefs and cannot speak the truth or bring any kind of religious tone as an alternative to the completely failed evolutionary idea or they will sack your ass. You may lose your job as many have, get disciplined and they also find ways to public discredit you. And anyone who tries to tell me this doesn't happen I'll take it as an insult. But there is more about the universe that they don't tell you in school and I think they should. Something interesting about the Sun for example. Its is not a nuclear furnace as you think, with a melted core in constant fusion. The thing is hollow and that's why you see black spots in it. Sometimes huge, sometimes small depending on the intensity of several factors including tremendous magnetic fields. The Sun is a receptor of heat, not a producer. The surface of it where you see the towering flare bursts is only around 5 to 7 thousand degrees but if you move away from it say 200K miles the temperature is thousands of times higher. If it was nuclear fusion the core would be hotter, not the outside. But there is more. The Sun sits exactly on the center of our planetary system inside an immense invisible bubble called the heliosphere which is a magnetic field that extends well beyond Pluto, and is sort of a barrier that prevents our solar system from drifting away as it would follow the path of or better yet accompany the motion of the galactic arm as the Milky Way corkscrews itself. By the way this hemisphere is not circular. It has an oval shape and it changes position almost like the trajectory of an invisible planet. Why is anybody's guess but my guess is to better accommodate the blowback force against its outside surroundings as the galactic arm drifts. The interesting thing about this is we stay put and don't move anywhere, our planetary system that is. There is also a column called z-pinch which runs vertically across the Sun. No one knows where it starts and where it ends and it is big around enough to fit inside the hemisphere of the heliosphere precisely and it is suggested that is made of a double layer of cosmic ray electrons. Also another magnetic field that runs horizontal to the Sun like an Saturn disk but this one extends well beyond our planetary system and its made our of the Sun's own charged particles. Now create a complete image in your head and you'll see that the Sun sits right smack in the center of and huge invisible gyroscope, But there is one thing that makes the Sun move and that is Mr. Jupiter. Wherever this guy goes the Sun gets pulled towards it about 4 degrees, following the big guy around in its orbit. The universe is electric and plasma and has all kinds of invisible forces including an immense number of magnetic forces. Gravity is minute compared with the energy the universe can produce. Stars are created in a instant and there are forces that travel thousands of times faster than the speed of light. I can show you examples up request. And it is absolutely no wonder to me when I see some of the pictures Hubble takes and I have no problem explaining it. What worries me is when I hear things such as "Experts are mesmerized" or "Scientists are baffled" or one of my favorite "Comets are dirty snowballs...lol. When they insist on gravity and implosions and explosions of mass etc its when I feel like pulling my children out of public school. I think I drifted off the main point quiet a bit so please forgive me but I just wanted to say these things as I feel they are important to the argument in question. I need some sleep right now, its 5am and I am a zombie. Later guys!

I just watched the video and there you have it. There is synthetic DNA and synthetic geno and she also and she calls a DNA strand "the code of life". I have only one thing to say: I'll give you evolutionists all the codes you need in all the DNA strands, plus chromosome strips with all its information, throw in the amino acids and give her the protein factory as a bonus and all the electricity and gases and chemicals she needs and mix them up whichever way she wants and and I'll bet the whole farm plus my wife and children this will be just like Miller-Urey 1953. And why is that? Because the information for the modus operandi isn't there. Where is it? In the same place the information that tells certain particles in the quantum field to behave if you're watching. It is in the same place that it tells you that your brain knows before you do, up to six seconds... Scientists call it "the field". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmT-aFvRHKY

Mr. Neon, first of all it is a pleasure to participate in this discussion. You write extremely well and propose very rational thoughts in your dissertation. I still insist however, that the word belief becomes too generalized when put in this contest. Perhaps only a matter of linguistics? We all have some kind of belief or another and most of them are not a sentiment associated with a higher entity or deity. I don't follow basketball but my son does. So I tell him I believe the Heat is going to win this championship again. And why would I say that? Fist of all I don't car who wins, its not my kind of sport. But in looking at the stats for the past 2 years and comparing to the stats of the opponents, I believe they are the ones who have a greater mathematical chance to take the cup. This is not religious faith, which I respectfully insist is the what your sense of belief is trying to convey.I absolutely agree with you that organized religious beliefs - as false as they are in its essence and purpose - when forcibly imposed into people as they are, forces them to create in themselves a false sense of hope and need for salvation or soul cleansing and all that garbage. SO what happened here? The emotional desperation created by these erroneous beliefs transforms the sentiments of the people into an emotional urge to participate in this set of believes forcefully imposed on them by evil manipulation by a higher entity - the ones in power - in a even greater and more dangerous new set of emotions which I call faith. As I see there is no faith without a set a beliefs behind it. Therefore it is my opinion that faith only comes from belief but belief can have other ramifications that are not as harmful as religious faith is.If you allow me to expand a little more on my first paragraph (my initial post) where I said: Humanity have not always suffered from belief" - There was a time in human history when gods rule the earth, the world, the universe. It was called the Golden Age. The incessant and compulsive observation by ancient astronomers of what was happening in the skies in those days cannot by any means be ignored. If you were to remove those gods from history you would have a immense historical vacuum where no other history could fulfill its place. And that is because the planets had a different arrangement in the skies otherwise idolizing a tiny little point of light in the heavens it just does not make any sense. When Jupiter gave birth to Venus they wrote on their tables that Zeus had a daughter. When Mars came close to the Earth and than was pulled back out again by the magnetic field of Saturn - the Great Sun, the Good Sun - it got too close to Venus. She begun experience immense magnetic discharge in form of plasma that could be seen all across the sky. The Good Mother, The Giver of Life became angry and it transformed itself in to a which with a thousand serpents crawling out of her head (Medusa) and so she zapped Mars, not once, not twice but several times over and "killed" him. This same history tells that the Gold Age of Helios/Cronos ( Saturn) came to an end as the Gods in heavens drifted away. It wasn't necessary back than for humans to contemplate beliefs as they could see with their own eyes what was happening. As humanity settled down on the idea of having to have a belief system instilled in them by kings and monarchs, a deity called religion began to take shape. The whole idea was to make them "believe" the way it was without having seen it for one self but not only that. At the same type those in power understood that from that belief they could create something called faith. And that faith became a weapon for the religious entities throughout the world. We all know what happen after that.So yes, Mr. Neon, I think there are difference between systems of belief.

Humanity have not always suffered from belief. At least in the manner your very well written and clever argument is presented. Perhaps FAITH is a more accurate way to refer to it. Which is just one of the emotional consequences of a religious belief.

Look up August Weismann, german biologist trying to disprove Jean-Batiste Lamark's theory - who was skeptical of Darwin's theory and himself theorized "the inheritance of acquired characteristics". Weismann, in trying to disprove Lamark came up with this brilliant idea of an experiment: cut off several generations of mice tails. Perhaps you can give me an example of evolution in domesticated animals.

If the basic premise of this conversation, which I am very much enjoying, and thank you for your patience, is about the evolution of life and how the process works regardless of their diversification, than in order to continue I have to be absolutely clear to the fact that nothing can happen until there is a reproductive cell into the picture - with all its little bits and pieces in functioning order so as to division and multiplication of that organism to occur. And there is where I am stuck. Its like the "who came first, the chicken or the egg" paradigm. I know that some cells do not contain DNA, that is high school stuff. I also understand that for cells divide themselves and multiply in order to form a particular organism it requires information and a whole lot of it. DNA doesn't have it, neither does the proteins or the chromosomes. America doesn't have enough hard drives necessary for all that data. No information means nothing happens period and the system dies out. So my question is, how did this cell become such a fantastic organism with even its own edit/correction system? Again, as I also mentioned before, the odds of something like this to happen, derived from chemical soup, even if completely amorphic in its first stages, are simply astronomical and well beyond the realm of real possibilities. Millions and millions of dollars have been spend in this one objective point and there is nothing to show for even when the magic of outside manipulation occurs. Nothing, nada, dead goo.

So you're saying evolution began and "DNA came into being" - to re quote your statement just to make sure I got it right. So basically you saying evolution can occur without the presence of the DNA structure - which in itself does not contain information but more like the parts department for the factory. So please explain to me exactly how this evolution works without the building blocs of life. Also, is just the DNA that appeared after evolution started or also the proteins and chromosomes etc etc. What came first and in which order? You see, I can create a model of a car factory. Design in one side and execution on the other side. The people who design the car are not the same people who built the car. The people who built the car can build a car without a pre designed model given the have all the parts necessary. But than when it comes to the engine a few basic and indispensable parts need to exist and not only simply exist but also be precise in its design and function, just like a living cell needs all those fantastic mechanisms to function at the same time.Unless you put all the necessary parts together at once, You will have something that looks like a car but it will not run. Therefore I strongly reject the idea that evolution was under way when DNA showed up. You cannot have a cell without it. With all due respect, my biologist friends will have a field day with this one. Your first picture is that of a seal. What does that mean? Is this a so called transition TO the water or FROM the water? You don't know, nobody knows. The platypus is a semi-aquatic creature and the only mammal who lays eggs. Bats are mammals who have wings and fly. Your last picture is about different types of dogs, and the differences you see are nothing but man made genetic manipulation, nothing else. Which is allow to an extend within different species. However you won't find Pomeranian running on the wild. You see their grand daddy thou, the wolf. Interesting how evolutionists put this premise up by saying "house dogs EVOLVED from the wolf, lol. No, they did not.

I know Gould thesis very well. Its based on the idea that evolution uses cladogenesis - interesting combination of words by the way. And the proof he presented was that most of the species found around the islands of Hawaii are found nowhere else in the globe. I can give a million examples of species that are ONLY found in certain parts of the globe and not in others so that doesn't prove anything.The problem with evolution is that is just an assumption just like the one from Gould where there is absolutely no empirical evidence that all living creatures derived from a single living organism. There is no physical proof, no fossils, no traces of either constant or large spurs of transformation in any species that could ever be observed. On the contrary, whales have always been whales, horses have always being horses. There is, yes, diversion between kinds within types, i.e. felines go from lion to tiger to house cat but they all belong to the same kind. And if one tries to inject DNA from another species in order to change fundamental characteristics, everyone knows what happens to the organism, right? The mathematical chance that something like an organic molecule which requires to have all three major components working in absolutely perfect synchronicity - DNA, chromosome and protein - all three symbiotic function to happen by chance, with all the millions of pieces of information that are required for this function to exist is 10 to 3997. Anyone cares to postulate the number of digits behind the coma and see if it is viable? Hello James, I wonder where that information comes from. From the environment where the organism lives, perhaps? You know scientists have done studies on this. Cutting the tails of mice was one of them. They went thru 40 generations of these lil creatures and they still grew tails. And this wasn't even a transformation of species, but rather a simple attempt of creating change thru adaptation. If cladogenesis were to work - having long terms of complete stability, dowsed with large spurs of sudden change, we would have seen water buffaloes or hypos with at least a hint of a flipper. The truth is, you go back on the historical and paleontology records and there are no such creatures. By the way, just so you folks know, I am not a Christian or even religious. I seek the truth where ever it may lead me.

I am new here but please allow me to jump in this conversation. Not to argue cab21 post but to correct some assumptions put on by Wuzzums. And yes, they are only assumptions, i.e.: "We carry a bunch of junk DNA courtesy of the inability of natural selection to cut out information" - How exactly that inability occur and why? Is it simply a matter of dice throw? and if there is such inability, that would mean that every living being carries ALL information of every other living being in their systems, meaning a swordfish has the same genetics as a cow and vice versus. However, that is not the case, is it? One of them is a mammal with fundamental differences from the other.