The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[NoGodaloud ?]

Quote mining is dishonest because you are taking what people have said out of the context in which they said it. Like the Darwin quote about the eye, where he says he cannot see any way for it to have evolved. Creationists point to this to make the point that even Darwin doubted his belief in evolution. The problem is, the quote is only partial, and if you place it back into its original context, you can see that Darwin was talking about possible objections to his theory, and he goes on to say that he doesn't think it is a valid one.

then he should show, that my quote was cited out of context.

[LastPoet]

Sure my friend, here is one, as a token of my appreciation. You wrote:

Stephen Hawking, the Einstein of our time, agrees: "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" (John Boslough, Stephen Hawking's Universe, p. 121).

And the book says:

"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous." he told me. "I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origin of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."

quod erat demonstrandum

PS. Even if this quote meant what you wanted it to mean, this is a blatant Appeal to Authority. I wonder why is that when I google your quote I get a ton of creationist websites...

[NoGodaloud ?]

Sure my friend, here is one, as a token of my appreciation. You wrote:

Stephen Hawking, the Einstein of our time, agrees: "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" (John Boslough, Stephen Hawking's Universe, p. 121).

And the book says:

"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous." he told me. "I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origin of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."

quod erat demonstrandum

PS. Even if this quote meant what you wanted it to mean, this is a blatant Appeal to Authority. I wonder why is that when I google your quote I get a ton of creationist websites...

could you enumerate, what exactly you understand differently about Hawkings understanding and position, quoting the full text ?

And secondly, its not wrong to cite authorities, when they are specialists in their fiels. What Hawking undoubtly is.

[The Omnissiunt One]

And secondly, its not wrong to cite authorities, when they are specialists in their fiels. What Hawking undoubtly is.

It wouldn't be wrong if he were talking about physics. His views on God, however, are irrelevant, for two people can have the same scientific facts and come to a different conclusion. God's existence still requires philosophical demonstration based on the scientific facts.

[Tiberius]

And secondly, its not wrong to cite authorities, when they are specialists in their fiels. What Hawking undoubtly is.

It is when you use that authority to somehow make a statement of truth on something. It doesn't matter if the authority is a specialist in the field they are talking about; it is a fallacy to say "because X says Y, and X is an authority on Y, Y is true".

It might be more likely to be true, but you cannot use it in an absolute sense.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

It must be noted the distinction between normal (operational) science, and origins or historical science. 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.

Yeah about this 'historical science' thing... no. If it is what you say it is, then it can never be rightfully be called sciecne because 'educated guesses' cannot make testable predictions unless it's also based on something substantive.

We are talking about evolution, a theory that tries to tell us what happened in an unseen, unobservable, unrepeatable past. The fact that someone invents a natural "explanation" for something that is unseen, unobserved — and hence unscientific — does not mean that that explanation has any basis in reality. Without supporting evidence, it is a mere suggestion, a speculation. The fact that someone can devise a natural explanation in the context of this "theory", which makes unscientific claims about a hidden past, says nothing about the truth.

Actually, it's readily apparent in the past because of everything we've dug up from the ground, revelations in genetics, observations both in laboratory conditions, observations 'on the field' in nature, and nature has readily preserved fossils and a genetic code markers that date all the way back to the beginning of life on this planet billions of years ago.
Below is a link of observed evolution, a few of which actually resulted in species that were no longer compatible with its parent species.
Observed speciation (evolution) of a multiple species
The amount of evidence is favor of the sort of evolution that scientists speak of is utterly undeniable.

Fine. Lets cite some literate scientists then.

A fat lot of good that your link provided. All of them are out of context and the first one from Stephen Hawking already allowed me to point out that he doesn't seriously believe that the Universe was created at the big bang. All of them are clearly only saying the same thing with only slight variations of the same theme - "the universe began" ... "the universe began" ... "the universe began". As you note, I didn't argue with this summation because none of them say anything about the universe having been created at the moment of the big bang. Our universe certainly began at the big bang, as I've been saying, but only because everyone you've quoted understands that our ability to garner information about the universe can only go back to the big bang and not prior, so Hawking mentioned, the universe essentially began at the big bang.
None of those quotes has anything about the 4 x 10^69 joules of energy of everything that currently exists in the universe with energy was created at the same time the big bang happened. It's entirely an acknowledgement of our inability to obseve events prior to the big bang.

For example you cannot PROVE gravity will always be consistent at all times. You can only observe that it’s consistently true every time. Nearly all scientific laws are based on inductive reasoning. All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws.You cannot PROVE this. (You can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow morning either.) You literally have to take it on faith. In fact most people don’t know that outside the science circle is a philosophy circle. Science is based on philosophical assumptions that you cannot scientifically prove. Actually, the scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer.(Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws - and because of those laws, He would not have to constantly tinker with it in order for it to operate.)

I never made the attempt to prove anything was consistent 100% of the time. I even explicitly mentioned that in my last post. I can say, however, with a great deal of certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow at a specific time. Still, no, what's happening with the fact that I'm predicting the sun will rise tomorrow is relying on centuries of knowledge of solar and lunar cycles and the laws that have been observed to govern the earth, sun, and moon that make these repeatable predictions possible.
I'm very well aware that, for whatever reason, the sun may not rise tomorrow as the earth's rotation could stop, the sun could suddenly halt its nuclear fusion at its core, the earth could be flung out of the sun's orbit, or some other horrible catastrophe and all that can stop. That's the nature of predicting the future. Still, I can say with a great deal of certainty that it's likely the sun will rise tomorrow just as it has for billions of years of earth's history, all the above doomsday scenarios are extremely unlikely, and that the natural laws have been consistent with continued observation. There isn't a lick of blind faith that's at all necessary to make future or past predictions based on the science done today.

I've not said, it would be more simple. I said the only rational deduction is, if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

It's a rational deduction based on faulty information and assumptions without the benefit of evidence that produces the false dilemma that you've presented to me. The faulty assumptions include things like how the universe MUST have begun or how the universe MUST be either eternal or finite, beginning at the big bang. Niether of those things are provable or even knowable with current methods of gleaning information about the universe's origins because we can only look back in time to a point during the big bang.

Its enough that he aknowledges that the universe had a beginning. The rest is his personal opinion. Nothing more.

He certainly does. It's interesting that you can pick and choose what his personal opinion is and distinguish between his professional opinion in what is clearly a professional paper. I wasn't aware that scientists, particularly those as well known and in the spotlight as he is, can get away with putting personal opinions of things in his professional work.

sprang into existence. What does that mean to you ?

... no. No it doesn't. Not when he also utterly confirms the point I've made in his overall paper. Otherwise, you're just picking and choosing small, out-of-context quotes that allow you to think that certain people are acknowledging your worldview when they so very clearly disagree with you.

and how do you know, this clearly isnt the case anymore ???

I've read books and papers by two of those individudals (Hawking and Penrose) precisely on this topic. Niether of them say that the universe was created at the moment of the big bang. Penrose in particular has gone on about the string theory's method of creating universes, which has clear implications on events prior to the big bang. I'll give you a hint - an eternal hyperintelligence isn't involved at all.
While I'm unaware of George Ellis' work and I've not seen any literature of his findings in the realm of astrophysics, I would find it difficult to believe that, if he were an physicist as Penrose and Hawking are, that he would disagree with them in the matter of the beginning of the universe.

Dr. Ken Ring published a paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer, 1993) concerning near-death experiencers who, while out of their bodies, witness real events that occur far away from their dead body. The important aspect to this phenomenon is that these events seen far away are later verified to be true. Experiencers not only witness events from great distances, but they have been documented to hear conversations between people at the same events. Conversations such as these have also verified to be true. An even more fascinating phenomenon occurs when the experiencer actually appears in spirit to someone, usually a loved one, during their NDE and it is verified to be true by the experiencer and the loved one. It is evidence such as this, if scientifically controlled, that can provide absolute scientific proof that consciousness can exist outside of the body. A scientifically controlled NDE that can be repeated which provides such evidence would be the scientific discovery of all time. However, science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close. This kind of evidence and others provide very strong circumstantial evidence for the survival of consciousness.

I don't have the time or energy to dubunk everything you've thrown at me in your links because we're talking hours of time just to drudge up all the information I'd need, but I'll attempt to cover what I can in a cogent manner.

First off, it's readily apparent that your link isn't one to a scientific paper. This person's website where he's releasing his information: http://www.near-death.com/index.html is clearly a religious leaning website which also means that it's not a scientific place for papers to be peer-reviewed. Their entire viewpoint is scewed to a certain perspective that's unacceptable in scientific fields.

Second, he provides no evidence whatsoever of the conciousness actually vacating the body that can't also be proven simply by actions on the brain. Things like knowing what's going on during surgury isn't unusual. Some patients are even known to completely awaken during a surgery despite whatever anesthetics the patient might be under. It's not too much of a stretch to also believe that an out-of-body experience, brought on by the brain surgery, which seems to be in many of these examples, was brought on by having that clustesr of nerves in the brain stimulated while also being at least somewhat awake during surgery and listening in to what was going on with the brain filling in details where necessary.
I've yet to see 'evidence' that isn't some variation on things happening above or readily differientiated between neural activity and any supernatural explanation.

If you want to impress anyone with this information, get an example of a completely sensory-deprived patient who cannot sense anything outside of a deprievation tank. Then get two people to converse in another room that is specified to the individudal in the tank. Induce an out-of-body experience in that person and have him or her describe the individuals in the designated room and reiterate what they're discussing.
Instead, the 'proof' is easily explainable by the brain simply not being 'dead' and watching and listening to things going on around him or her during this OOB expeirence. The thing about the events in which people experience things farther away is that, assuming for example, it's out of the hospital for a brain cancer patient, is that it's easily 'guessed and 'verified' by simplying finding someone, somewhere that matches the description stated by the patient, assuming that the patient didn't somehow witness it without remembering (such as by looking out a window) or some other explanation.

Still, the point of all this is that no, there really isn't a whole lot here that can't be explained by the brain simply acting up. This has even been proven in a laboratory multiple times that people can have an out of body experience with a natural causation.

you can call evolution science. But macro evolution has not been proven true until today.....

It's been proven ever since the archeoptrix was uncovered as the link between dinosaurs and birds. This was done in Darwin's own lifetime. I can't even describe to you about the libraries and museums full of evidence of this very thing but what I can tell you is that the people working in this field are far more aware of the vast completeness of the fossil record dating all the way back to the beginning of life on this planet that hasn't made its way to popular media or even any one particular library or museum. This information, however, is largely available in places like this:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject...tion.shtml
This:
http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/evolution.html
This:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/13_early_mammals.htm
This:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/1/243
This:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/267/5198/637
This:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4523440
This:
http://www.praize.com/members/cforumsatt...lution.pdf

... and that's just what I dug up on a google search. The first few being on a standard search and the remainder done with a focus on scholarly papers concenring evolution of early mammals.
The scholarly papers brought 363 thousand hits on that specific topic, not to mention what you can find on evolutionary biology in libraries and museums. The best you've gotten for me is 'creationwiki' and 'heavenforums' and other websites that have nothing to do with science, everything to do with attempting to use any method they can with proving a heavily biased viewpoint, and nothing to do with truth.

has evolution adequately explained enough within its biological framework? The answers for many is no! Even if it could, does it make such stories that the evolutionists make factual? No! Because science cannot deal with the past outside human experience and there is no way of verifying what happened in that past. Without verification, we can speculate and give "explanations", but they have no truth value. The circumstantial evidence paraded as unambiguously pointing to evolution is not so unambiguous.
Also the things explained by evolution, a good number of them, if not all of them, can be explained from another framework other than the theory of evolution, i.e. research into creation science.

Creation science isn't. There's nothing scientific about it. There's zero evidence for it and no testable predictions that can be gleaned from it.
Evolution is a theory designed to explain the process of speciation over time. The current fossil record supports this, as does biology, genetics, and probably a few things I'm forgetting offhand. To say this hasn't been verified is a massive exercise in ignorance over an undeniable fact that is now the basis of many forms of science including medicine and biology.
One of the most probable methods, for example, of bringing dinosaurs back from the dead involve finding a species of bird and reverse-engineering its genetic code by shutting off the newest genetic markers and changes in the DNA until the species it was millions of years ago is again reformed. This is far more probable than finding its DNA in the wild and mixing it with modern species (such as a frog, done in Jurassic Park) and the result would be far more accurate using the exact same method of finding out that you're related to other people, which can go as far back as the early human ancestors in Africa (as far as I know) and europe in some cases, since it's apparently become recent that europeans have a not-insignificant amount of DNA from Neanderthals. This is done entirely through genetics, though the fossil record allows us to paint early human migration matters over the course of our history prior to known civilizations and thus historical accounts.
Things like this very article (click here).
Things like that are embedded in our very genetic code and it almost reads literally like a book, if you understand its language. When you do, you can see far into our own history, made very complete with the readily apparent and overabundant fossil record of human evolution over time.

These are things that are readily apparent assuming you're not reading into the heavily biased viewpoint of creationism.

Its up to you to show me, the dilemma presented is false. Can you ? If not, why do you not aknowledge i might be right, there are no more options ? are you being honest ?

As a matter of fact, I have. Just not in the manner in which you specifically instructed. For that, you'll have to go back and re-read my original post concerning this topic.

@ Adrian:
To be fair to nogodaloud, he didn't say that X was true because someone said it, I believe he was making the point that these people agree with is position.

@ Lastpoet:
Awesome. Awesome to the MAX... and thank you.

[NoGodaloud ?]

Okay, NoGodAloud. To prove your case, first show that something cannot come from nothing, without merely asserting it or pointing to our experience, for our experience is irrelevant outside the universe.

First of all, i am not here to prove something. Secondly, what difference does it make, if the question about, if something can arise from nothing, is from inside, or outside our universe ? absolutely nothing has no properties at all, and can therefore not make something appear. Thats worse tha the rabbit out of the magicians hat. Its utmost irrational to believe, something like this could happen.

Then, show that it is impossible for the universe to have existed in some form forever, or as an infinite series of universes.

there is more than one reason to show why this is not a very convincing hypotheses.

First because of the second law of thermodynamics.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronom...g-t199.htm

Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system. That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

...if the universe...is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed--one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before--in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point--for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point--or any point before it.

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite...1
That's why the universe can't be infinite: if time is infinite, then sequential events cannot occur. So option one is not an option, after all.

---

And secondly, its not wrong to cite authorities, when they are specialists in their fiels. What Hawking undoubtly is.

It wouldn't be wrong if he were talking about physics. His views on God, however, are irrelevant, for two people can have the same scientific facts and come to a different conclusion. God's existence still requires philosophical demonstration based on the scientific facts.

the issue here, is, if the universe had a beginning , or not. So Hawking is the right person to cite as authority.

---

And secondly, its not wrong to cite authorities, when they are specialists in their fiels. What Hawking undoubtly is.

It is when you use that authority to somehow make a statement of truth on something. It doesn't matter if the authority is a specialist in the field they are talking about; it is a fallacy to say "because X says Y, and X is an authority on Y, Y is true".

It might be more likely to be true, but you cannot use it in an absolute sense.

Hawking writes about the Big Bang. An issue, he certainly would have a excellent understanding, faced the fact who he is.

[LastPoet]

Trying to show science shortcomings won't prove the god you defined exist, nogodaloud sorry. I hate to say it to you: You are doing it wrong,

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

First because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Since this point is relevant to my interests, I will make a statement on this in addition to the other things:
First off, the second law does not prohibit a big bang-big crunch cycle that is one still-pervading theory of the universe, even with the current acceleated expansion of the universe does not prohibit this as a possibility.
Note that Einstein was one of the individuals who first postulated this model and newer versions of this are still cycling through today's field of physics. Thus, no, the second law does not absolutely prevent any possibility of a cyclic model of the universe.

Thus your attempt to use the second law to prevent any attempt to eliminate the validity of your claim is itself invalid.

[NoGodaloud ?]

Yeah about this 'historical science' thing... no. If it is what you say it is, then it can never be rightfully be called sciecne because 'educated guesses' cannot make testable predictions unless it's also based on something substantive.

But these are what historical sciences do. And they are called science. The Big Bang for example cannot be proven to have happened. Its a conclusion based on the evidence we have on hand. Nevertheless, its a guess, it happend, as the current most accepted theory shows it did.

Actually, it's readily apparent in the past because of everything we've dug up from the ground, revelations in genetics, observations both in laboratory conditions, observations 'on the field' in nature, and nature has readily preserved fossils and a genetic code markers that date all the way back to the beginning of life on this planet billions of years ago.
Below is a link of observed evolution, a few of which actually resulted in species that were no longer compatible with its parent species.
Observed speciation (evolution) of a multiple species
The amount of evidence is favor of the sort of evolution that scientists speak of is utterly undeniable.

Speciation is NOT Macro-evolution. If you want to prove Macro-evolution, you need to show, how animals developed new features, like feathers, new limbs etc. This has not been demonstrated so far. So Macro-evolution remains a theory. At best.

Fine. Lets cite some literate scientists then.

A fat lot of good that your link provided. All of them are out of context and the first one from Stephen Hawking already allowed me to point out that he doesn't seriously believe that the Universe was created at the big bang. All of them are clearly only saying the same thing with only slight variations of the same theme - "the universe began" ... "the universe began" ... "the universe began". As you note, I didn't argue with this summation because none of them say anything about the universe having been created at the moment of the big bang.[/quote]

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronom...d-god-f15/

The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing.

Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it.

I think that should be clear enough.

Our universe certainly began at the big bang, as I've been saying, but only because everyone you've quoted understands that our ability to garner information about the universe can only go back to the big bang and not prior, so Hawking mentioned, the universe essentially began at the big bang.
None of those quotes has anything about the 4 x 10^69 joules of energy of everything that currently exists in the universe with energy was created at the same time the big bang happened. It's entirely an acknowledgement of our inability to obseve events prior to the big bang.

You can speculate about a oscillating universe, but these theories have gone out of consideration because of the implications, which make these hypotheses very unlikely.

It's a rational deduction based on faulty information and assumptions without the benefit of evidence that produces the false dilemma that you've presented to me. The faulty assumptions include things like how the universe MUST have begun or how the universe MUST be either eternal or finite, beginning at the big bang. Niether of those things are provable or even knowable with current methods of gleaning information about the universe's origins because we can only look back in time to a point during the big bang.

but you can try to provide another possible scenario. What else is left, if we include the possibility of a eternal universe in some form, and a universe, which came to be a finite time ago,at the Big Bang, from absolutely nothing ? Either the universe is finite, or its not. Thats all we have. I am wondering, why you try to attack this statement, if its plainly clear and logical.

and how do you know, this clearly isnt the case anymore ???

I've read books and papers by two of those individudals (Hawking and Penrose) precisely on this topic. Niether of them say that the universe was created at the moment of the big bang. Penrose in particular has gone on about the string theory's method of creating universes, which has clear implications on events prior to the big bang. I'll give you a hint - an eternal hyperintelligence isn't involved at all.
While I'm unaware of George Ellis' work and I've not seen any literature of his findings in the realm of astrophysics, I would find it difficult to believe that, if he were an physicist as Penrose and Hawking are, that he would disagree with them in the matter of the beginning of the universe.

String theory is also pure speculation, without any evidence whatsoever to backup these models.

First off, it's readily apparent that your link isn't one to a scientific paper. This person's website where he's releasing his information: http://www.near-death.com/index.html is clearly a religious leaning website which also means that it's not a scientific place for papers to be peer-reviewed. Their entire viewpoint is scewed to a certain perspective that's unacceptable in scientific fields.

wrong. I cited :

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivi...et_NDE.htm

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands
Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich

Division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, Arnhem, Netherlands (P van Lommel MD); Tilburg, Netherlands (R van Wees PhD); Nijmegen, Netherlands (V Meyers PhD); and Capelle a/d Ijssel, Netherlands (I Elfferich PhD)

this is indeed a scientific study.

Second, he provides no evidence whatsoever of the conciousness actually vacating the body that can't also be proven simply by actions on the brain. Things like knowing what's going on during surgury isn't unusual. Some patients are even known to completely awaken during a surgery despite whatever anesthetics the patient might be under. It's not too much of a stretch to also believe that an out-of-body experience, brought on by the brain surgery, which seems to be in many of these examples, was brought on by having that clustesr of nerves in the brain stimulated while also being at least somewhat awake during surgery and listening in to what was going on with the brain filling in details where necessary.
I've yet to see 'evidence' that isn't some variation on things happening above or readily differientiated between neural activity and any supernatural explanation.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/m...alism.html

In the September 2006 issue of Science, Dr. Owen and his colleagues published a study entitled "Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State." Owen and his colleagues studied the responses of a woman who was in a persistent vegetative state, which was the consequence of severe diffuse brain damage that she had suffered in an automobile accident the year before.

The patient had no evidence of any mental function. Based on a battery of standard tests, including MRI scans, electroencephalograms (EEG’s — brain wave tests), and careful bedside examinations by neurologists and neurosurgeons, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. Persistent vegetative state means that she had no mental state — no consciousness. She was, in a sense, a shell, a human body without a mind. That’s what "vegetative" means.

Owen and his colleagues did a fascinating series of tests. First, they asked a group of normal volunteers to have a kind of research MRI scan of their brain, called a functional MRI (fMRI). fMRI doesn’t measure the actual activity of the neurons in the brain, but it measures the blood flow and brain metabolism in specific regions of the brain. It has been found to correlate to some extent with mental activity. Thinking about things can make the metabolism in certain parts of the brain increase, and fMRI can detect this. The observation that brain activity can locally increase brain blood flow and metabolism was originally made a century ago, in animals in the lab, so it’s not new. What is new is that we can now measure it in living people non-invasively, using fMRI.

The Cambridge researchers asked the volunteers to think of things, like playing tennis or walking across the room, and they recorded their fMRI brain responses. They also presented the volunteers with nonsense words, to distinguish understanding in the brain from the mere reflex to sounds. The response to understanding was different from the response to sound. The fMRI test seemed to test understanding, not just reflexes.

They did the same tests to the woman who was in a persistent vegetative state. They asked her to imagine playing tennis or imagine walking across the room, and they did the sham test with random words as well.

When they examined her fMRI responses, they found that her fMRI patterns were identical to those of the normal awake volunteers. By fMRI criteria, she understood. In fact, by fMRI criteria, she was as conscious as the normal volunteers. Her brain was massively damaged, to the extent that she had been diagnosed as having no mind at all. Yet the blood flow and metabolism patterns in her brain were those of a normal person. And just like normal people, she showed different fMRI responses to nonsense words. So she not only heard what was said to her, but she understood, and complied with the researchers’ requests to think about specific activities like playing tennis and walking across a room.

It's been proven ever since the archeoptrix was uncovered as the link between dinosaurs and birds.

that is not a proven fact.

"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.' (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89).

"It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved assumed additional functions, but how they arose initially presumably from reptilian scales, defies analysis." (Stahl, Barbara J. [Professor of Biology, Saint Anselm College, USA], "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution," Dover: New York, 1985, p349)

"In point of fact, the number of modifications in reptilian structure which the birds have managed to effect in order to adapt themselves for flight is so large as to constitute a real problem and deserves our further attention. To begin with, many modifications serve to reduce its weight. The bones are hollow, the skull very thin. It has abandoned the heavy tooth-studded jaw for the light but rigid beak. The body is condensed into a compact shape, the reptilian tail being abandoned, as also the reptilian snout. The centre of gravity has been lowered by placing the chief muscles beneath the main structure. Where organs are paired, like the kidney, and the ovary, one has been sacrificed. the pelvis has been strengthened to absorb (allow me the teleology) the shock of landing. The legs and feet have been reduced to minimum the muscles operating them have vanished to be replaced by muscles within the body. The brain has been modified: a larger cerebellum to handle problems of balance and co-ordination, a larger visual cortex now that vision has become more important than smell. Less obvious but even more remarkable is the change in bodily metabolism. To produce the energy for flight the bird must consume a lot of fuel and maintain a high temperature. Not only do birds eat a lot, as anyone who grows fruit or has seen the bullfinches systematically remove every bud from a treasured shrub knows, but they have a crop in which they can store reserve fuel. So that it can handle more blood, the partitions in the heart have been completed. The lungs too have not only been enlarged but are supplemented by air-spaces within the body. In land creatures like ourselves, much of the air in the lungs remains static; we exchange only a very small proportion of it in a normal breath. The bird, by passing the inspired air right through the lung into the air-sacs, contrives to exchange the lot with each breath. This system also serves to dissipate the heat generated by the muscles during flight. It strains the imagination to visualise so many beautifully apt changes occurring by chance, even when one considers that 150 million years elapsed between the emergence of life from the sea and the appearance of the first birds. For my part I can imagine that each change might have occurred by chance during that time, what I find hard to swallow is the accumulation of different changes integrated into a single functional pattern." (Taylor, Gordon Rattray [former Chief Science Adviser, BBC Television], "The Great Evolution Mystery", Abacus: London, 1983, pp.70-71).

This was done in Darwin's own lifetime. I can't even describe to you about the libraries and museums full of evidence of this very thing but what I can tell you is that the people working in this field are far more aware of the vast completeness of the fossil record dating all the way back to the beginning of life on this planet that hasn't made its way to popular media or even any one particular library or museum.

the incompleteness of the fossil record is actually one of the evidences against the theory of macro evolution.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fss...rpsfrgnsms

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt (John and Miklos 1988, 307)." (Wesson, Robert G. [political scientist and philosopher], "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45).

"Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links or transitional forms between the major groups of organisms." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Geological and Paleontological Arguments," in Godfrey L.R., ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1983, p.156)

Creation science isn't. There's nothing scientific about it. There's zero evidence for it and no testable predictions that can be gleaned from it.

I would love to see the macroevolution theory tested......

These are things that are readily apparent assuming you're not reading into the heavily biased viewpoint of creationism.

So where is the evidence through genetics, that we have a common ancestor, with all animals ?

---

Trying to show science shortcomings won't prove the god you defined exist, nogodaloud sorry. I hate to say it to you: You are doing it wrong,

you are boring me, in asking for proofs.

---

First because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Since this point is relevant to my interests, I will make a statement on this in addition to the other things:
First off, the second law does not prohibit a big bang-big crunch cycle that is one still-pervading theory of the universe, even with the current acceleated expansion of the universe does not prohibit this as a possibility.
Note that Einstein was one of the individuals who first postulated this model and newer versions of this are still cycling through today's field of physics. Thus, no, the second law does not absolutely prevent any possibility of a cyclic model of the universe.

Thus your attempt to use the second law to prevent any attempt to eliminate the validity of your claim is itself invalid.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronom...e-t119.htm

in a 2003 paper Dr. Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin showed that that the exact same issues of entropy that plagued earlier cyclic models still plagued Steinhardt and Turok’s model and that while it was possible for the cyclic model to be eternal into the future, it had to have a definitive beginning in the past.