Calendar of Credulity - Part II: Holi
This Tuesday is the Hindu holiday known as Holi. It’s a fascinating tradition that’s hard to criticize because it sounds like a hell of a lot of fun, but the religious basis for it is ridiculously muddled. Hinduism is generally considered to be the world’s oldest religion, and it has a long history of digesting and incorporating just about any new idea to enter India, at least until the arrival of Islam. As a result, modern Hinduism looks quite unlike the Vedic tradition that first arrived in India with the Aryans. The religion has grown layer upon layer and god upon god for millennia, and the result is a confusing, self-contradictory faith that varies widely from one place to another. Holi demonstrates this perfectly.
First, let’s talk about the actual celebration. The holiday is celebrated over two days in most places, though it is a sixteen day event in some regions of India. For the weeks leading up to Holi, Hindu boys gather wood, food and other materials for a bonfire, which is lit under a full moon on the first night amidst a good deal of shouting and general chaos. Things really get going on the second day. In the morning, people celebrate by throwing water and colored powders at each other. They also indulge in bhang, which is a traditional beverage made with marijuana. Needless to say, spirits (and celebrants) are high. It is said that one can get away with just about anything on Holi, and that even the sternest of gods would pardon you for any indiscretions. People simply say “bura na mano, Holi hai” (don’t be offended, it’s Holi), and all is forgiven. Anything goes, and caste differences are temporarily ignored. At noon, the insanity comes to an end, and everyone bathes. People spend the afternoon at home, quietly eating candy. All in all, it sounds more like a frat party than a religious holiday, which may explain why it’s celebrated on so many American college campuses.
In general, religious holidays celebrate a given event or idea. Holi, however, has at least six different legends behind it. The most commonly cited is the story of king Hiranyakashipu. He was a demon who had been granted near invincibility by Brahma. Since he believed he could not be killed, he became arrogant and demanded that the people worship him as a god. His son, Prahlad, worshipped Vishnu and would not stop his devotions to the god. Hiranyakashipu tried several times to kill Prahlad, but Vishnu protected him. Hiranyakashipu’s sister, Holika (after whom the holiday is named), had a magic shawl that protected her from fire. One day, the king ordered Prahlad to sit on his aunt’s lap on top of a pyre. Why Prahlad wasn’t sent into the fire alone is unexplained. Prahlad prayed to Vishnu to protect him, and the god moved the shawl from Holika to Prahlad, killing her and saving him. In some places, the bonfire on the first night features an effigy of Holika.
Holi is one of the oldest festivals in Hinduism, and actually predates the story above. The Aryans celebrated a holiday called Vasantotsav at the same time of year. It was simply a spring festival to celebrate the end of winter. It’s said that the king would come out of the palace to celebrate with his subjects. The suspension of the caste system probably has its roots in this story.
In southern India, Holi comemorates the story of Kamdev, the god of love. He carried a bow made of sugarcane with a string made of live bees. Like Cupid, Kamdev had arrows that prompted passion in their targets. Once, Kamdev came across Shiva meditating in the forest and aimed his bow at him. Shiva opened his third eye, and Kamdev was reduced to ashes. Kamdev’s wife, Rati, was grief-stricken, and Shiva agreed to bring the love god back… sort of. She could see him, but he would never be corporeal again. Songs are sung about these events during Holi.
Another popular account of the origin of the holiday centers on Krishna. When Krishna was young, the evil king Kamsa sent the demon Putana to his village to kill him. She went through town suckling the young children, killing each one. However, when Krishna suckled, he sucked her blood right out of her breast and killed her. The bonfire is said to represent the victory of Krishna over Putana and the victory of spring over winter.
The second day’s events are also sometimes attributed to Krishna. As a young man, Krishna enjoyed playing pranks on the gopis (female goat herders). He especially liked splashing them in the river. The throwing of colored water represents this. In the region in which Krishna was born, there is an additional tradition on the second day. Men of Krishna’s home town and the women of Radha’s home town come together to play Huranga. The men abuse the women and the women retaliate by beating the men with sticks.
This is just a sample of the justifications used for the Holi celebration. I’m sure further research could turn up ten more stories. That’s just how Hinduism works. The question then, is how can any of the stories be taken seriously? Putting aside for a moment the fact that any one of them is absurd, how can these contrasting traditions live side by side? Well, it’s no different than Christianity, is it? In fact, if you can show me a religion that doesn’t contradict itself, I’ll give you a dollar.
It’s easy to suppose that no one really believes any of it and that Indians just like getting high, throwing water at each other and beating each other with sticks, but that can’t be the case. Despite its modern illegality, the caste system is still alive and strong in India. It is the basis for the entire civilization. People obviously take it seriously. Furthermore, female infanticide, which is prescribed (or at least suggested) by the Vedas, is still practiced. Cows are revered and continually block the streets of Indian cities. I could go on and on. Belief in the stories and legends of Hinduism is strong, and it has as much (if not more) impact on daily life as any other religious belief in any other part of the world.
So, if you’re planning a trip to India, go in March and pack old clothes. You’ll have a great time. But don’t forget that you’re surrounded by people who worship a god with the head of an elephant and fully expect to come back to life as a cockroach if they’re bad.
~I AM~
March 11th, 2006 at at 1:14 pm
I am saddened that an elephant is the god of one of the world’s most obscure religions. If Yahweh was an elephant, maybe Judeo-Christianity would seem more appealing.
Sigh.
March 11th, 2006 at at 2:02 pm
one of the world’s most obscure religions.
It’s the third largest in the world. 14% of humans are Hindu.
March 11th, 2006 at at 2:17 pm
I meant ‘obscure’ in the ‘weird’ sense. But that’s probably just ’cause it seems foreign to me.
March 11th, 2006 at at 3:02 pm
I thought Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism were the three largest.
March 11th, 2006 at at 4:21 pm
Here is a link that shows the world religions (and non religion included) according to rank.
Major Religions of the World
It shows Atheists third…Hindu comes after…BUT atheism is not a religion and don’t know why they keep trying to say it is.
March 11th, 2006 at at 11:14 pm
Technically, the third group isn’t all atheists — its a combination of free-thinkers and the vaguely religious. I think.
March 12th, 2006 at at 9:23 am
How exciting.
March 12th, 2006 at at 1:58 pm
Hinduism is “generally considered to be the world’s oldest religion….”
No so, EA. There was a highly developed, complex civilization in place in India before the relatively barbaric Aryans took over: the peaceful and complex ancient Indus Valley Civilization, with highly complex cities like Mohenjodaro and Harappa. It was a Goddess civilization. There’s little doubt in my mind that a peaceful, healthy Goddess religion was in place in what is now India for millenia before the crude war gods smashed everything and forced their high-god religions down the peoples throat. As they’ve done all over the globe, for the past 6000 years.
For a short intro, go to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ANCINDIA/HARAPPA.HTM
March 13th, 2006 at at 5:25 am
I Am:
In fact, if you can show me a religion that doesn’t contradict itself, I’ll give you a dollar.
can i make one now? or does it have to be more than a day old?
March 13th, 2006 at at 6:20 am
I Am:
In fact, if you can show me a religion that doesn’t contradict itself, I’ll give you a dollar.
can i make one now? or does it have to be more than a day old?
Feel free. However, if you make your own religion, I’m free to make my own dollar.
March 13th, 2006 at at 2:50 pm
I’m glad to see you discussing religions other than christianity. Very few atheist web sites do this.
March 13th, 2006 at at 3:00 pm
I’m glad to see you discussing religions other than christianity. Very few atheist web sites do this.
I’m an Equal Opportunity Atheist (EOA). I disbelieve ALL the gods.
March 13th, 2006 at at 4:46 pm
Well, I don’t believe in any of this crap, but that indian chica sure is cute
March 13th, 2006 at at 6:54 pm
You are right I AM, that party looks like a lot of fun. Sometimes fun activities are fun because they are nonsensical, and this holiday looks like it has BOTH nonsensical legend and nonsensical behaviour.
The Mardi-Gras of India, thats what this is. Sign me up!
March 14th, 2006 at at 5:14 am
I believe people just want to have another reason to have fun and that is it. Be it Christmas or Diwali all people really care is another chance for shopping. I am from India; you will not believe Christmas shopping season is as good as Diwali season when we have more than 80% Hindus and 1-2% Christians ?
Holi seems to be fun if you play with your friends but many even use it abuse women.
I have to differ to ‘I am’ on one thing, why you think people do infanticide after reading Vedas?
Trust me, almost no Hindus may have read Vedas.
Vedas say that to acquire ‘moksh’ you should get proper cremation. In addition, a proper cremation is only done if your son lit the pyre. Therefore, it means you need at least one son.
Otherwise, you will not get ‘moksh’.
However, it never says kill your daughters. (fyi. I have previously commented on one of your post concerning this.)
I want to say another thing.
People in India kill the girl children. No denying that, numbers tell that.
But it is prevalent across all religions. You know,
what are the leading states in imbalance of sex ratios in population?
1st one is Punjab and the second one (and a very close one) is Haryana.
Punjab is the state where Hindus are in Minority but in Haryana Hindus are in Majority.
Why then is this similarity? I will tell you.
These are neighboring states with almost same culture and same language. They have the highest per capita income in India. People from these states can afford the medical facilities which people from other states cannot. They can know the sex of child before birth, and abort the child if it is a girl. (Many people in India call it infanticide although I think that word should not be used.) If you see that data on the first the ratio of boys to girls is natural. But is the first child is a girl the next child in most of the cases will be a boy! And if first two are girl the third one will definitely will be boy.
You should keep in mind that Indian government promotes two-child policy. There are many bans on people having more than two children even if they were out of two pregnancies. (Just imagine having twins on second pregnancy!)
I know many people consider this as bad. I also want this to stop.
However, I have few questions for you and others.
Does the parent have the right to choose number and the sex of their children?
Is abortion infanticide?
Who is to be blamed Vedas or the two-child policy of government?
March 14th, 2006 at at 11:43 am
ND,
Many religions practice infanticide, yes. But it is also much of a cultural tradition. For example, in America, even with such a large Christian population, the Americans do not commit infanticide. They do not kill their girl or boy children.
Actually, there are a few cases, like Andrea Yates and Denna Schlosser, but those people were mentally insane and were quickly apprehended. Killing ones children is frowned upon even among most of the religious in America.
Due to natural circumstances, America actually has a slightly higher amount of women than men. Male babies are more likely to die naturally, and males dont live as long, so America has more girls than boys.
March 14th, 2006 at at 1:13 pm
Infanticide was rather common among Medieval Christians, though. Religion does a very poor job of discouraging widespread behavior — clergy always find a way to ignore something if there is enough incentive.
March 14th, 2006 at at 1:28 pm
As a practicing atheist, it is clear to me that it is, in fact, a religion. It is also clear that it is rarely practiced…and it should be.
Many theists confuse the simple absense of religion with the practice of atheism. This is because, sadly, they have never been confronted with the aggressive practice of atheism. Personally, I practice the same sort of denouncement that I have heard from the pulpit of those whose beliefs disagree with the “faithful” speakers. Speak up when you see stupidity, waste, and superstition. Call it what it is….because they are not preaching love for you from their pulpits.
March 14th, 2006 at at 5:54 pm
Mr. Simicich, I would have to disagree. Atheism is, by definition, a lack of religion (essentially, theism=religion, A-theism=lack thereof).
If you feel strongly about atheism, and “practice it” (which I gather from your comment means denouncing theism wherever you find it) constantly, I don’t believe it makes it a religion. Atheists are not united under the banner of a religion, because… well… it’s is not a religion, this is probably why we have so much less affect on the world than theists.
If you really think that atheism is a religion, and have a set of moral guidelines and correct actions to go along with it, then you should give it a name, declare it an official religion, and start collecting money.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for an “agressive practice of atheism.” But it’s not religion, saying that it is just undermines it’s very existence.
March 14th, 2006 at at 5:57 pm
…But I fully agree with that part…
March 15th, 2006 at at 12:12 am
Being an atheist makes you realize the faith of people in so many things seems so stupid. Religious festivals are just one of them.
People do what they want to do. Many look for religious pretexts to legitimize their deeds.
March 15th, 2006 at at 9:05 am
I think there should be some sort of Atheist Party Day. Do they have that? They should definitely have that. Make it really festive and crazy.
“You have Christmas? So what! We’ve got ATHEIST PARTY DAY!”
“Damn!”
March 15th, 2006 at at 12:05 pm
Atheists should make a new holiday! And it should be called “Hot Sex Day!”
That way everyone will want in on a piece of the action and they will deconvert to atheism.
March 15th, 2006 at at 12:06 pm
I agree with Aethernon that atheism is not a religion. What I would say, speaking only for myself of course, is that as an atheist, I still have a set of ethical and moral principles that I use as a guide to my conduct.
March 15th, 2006 at at 4:09 pm
Quick comment on the caste system. I worked for an import brokerage firm a couple years back, and one of our main suppliers were based in India. The owner of the factory/company was of a lower caste then one of his managers. This meant that while they were on company property the owner was given and viewed with more respect, but when they left company property they essentially switched standing…
I could never get my head around that situation
March 15th, 2006 at at 4:11 pm
Oh and I agree with jahrta….that is one lovely female pictured.
March 16th, 2006 at at 2:30 am
23 people drowned in southern India during Holi celebrations, according to local police reports.
March 18th, 2006 at at 6:13 am
Here is a link that shows the world religions (and non religion included) according to rank.
Major Religions of the World
It shows Atheists third…Hindu comes after…BUT atheism is not a religion and don’t know why they keep trying to say it is.
Any group of people who collect together like you’s do, and have common beliefs (e.g. there is no God, the Bible is a fairy tale etc.) and have an exclusive membership that favours other members and is contingent on believing and/or not believing certain things is a religion!!! lol
March 18th, 2006 at at 6:29 am
Infanticide was rather common among Medieval Christians, though. Religion does a very poor job of discouraging widespread behavior — clergy always find a way to ignore something if there is enough incentive.
Tanooki Joe,
I would like to see the source of your reference for infanticide being common among medieval Christians, or is it just your opinion?
March 18th, 2006 at at 7:16 am
Any group of people who collect together like you’s do, and have common beliefs (e.g. there is no God, the Bible is a fairy tale etc.) and have an exclusive membership that favours other members and is contingent on believing and/or not believing certain things is a religion!!! lol
No. What you’re describing is a political party. A religion is all of the above, but based on a fictional account of impossible events and arbitrary rules. Wait, that may still be a political party…
March 20th, 2006 at at 3:28 am
I am,
Christians consider atheism and evolution science to be religous in nature and belief systems in that they have set tenets and oppose the doctrine of Christianity - it takes a belief and religious antithesis to do that.
Let me demonstrate, atheists attack belief in God and evolutionists attack the account of creation by God - But if they truly didn’t believe there was a God at all as they seem to state why argue against Him?
For instance, we all know that Superman, Spiderman and Batman are ficticious characters right? And because we have no doubt that they don’t really exist you will never hear us criticising or praising Batman, Superman or Spiderman in a serious conversation for anything they have done in the comic books we have read will we? So the very fact that atheists and evolutionists oppose this God they claim is not real shows they are acting from a belief system based in reality, after all no one opposes a ficticious being like Superman do they? Likewise Christianity (a religion by your standards) also opposes other beliefs and religions (atheism, budism, hinduism, etc.) in serious conversations, therefore if atheist have a belief system that acts on, and has a firm belief system that is the antithesis of other beliefs and are prepared to speak it out in serious conversations like Christians do, how can you say that atheism is not a religion?
March 20th, 2006 at at 7:27 am
SS, if people believed in Spiderman, atheist would have been arguing against it. However Jesus is one of those fictional charactors, which people believe in.
If I did not have a believe in Spiderman and the president of my country was saying he was talking to him everyday and based his decitions on his talks with him, don’t you think I should have been alarmed and speak on where I stand?
March 20th, 2006 at at 9:01 am
SS:
Roya made the basic argument here, but I have a few more comments. First of all, if you want to be taken seriously in a conversation with atheists, don’t use the word “evolutionist.” It makes you look ignorant, and I don’t believe that you are. Evolution is a scientific concept. It has no “adherents,” as it were. There are no Gravitationists or Magneticists. Those who reject the well-supported theory of evolution use this kind of terminology as a semantic game to undermine those of us who are plugged into reality, and we resent it.
Second, not believing in something is not a belief. I don’t believe in fairies or unicorns either. Are those additional religions to which I belong? The evangelical nature of my (and others’) atheism is only necessary because of people who believe in god. If no one believed in god, and god was therefore never talked about, would you still consider atheism a religion? It’s preposterous. Now, if you want to call science a belief, you might have a little more luck there. I believe in the scientific method. That’s a positive position, not a negative one. I happen to have well over 1,000 years of evidence to back up my position (instead of a collection of ancient, inconsistent books), but it’s still a belief in some sense.
March 27th, 2006 at at 5:24 am
I am says:
“Now, if you want to call science a belief, you might have a little more luck there. I believe in the scientific method. That’s a positive position, not a negative one. I happen to have well over 1,000 years of evidence to back up my position (instead of a collection of ancient, inconsistent books), but it’s still a belief in some sense.”
Let’s see how you fare on a debate about the science of evolution according to the so-called “scientic method” as you put it. Here is the assignment I received high distinction for in the Academic Literacy Skills Unilearn study I did, bear in mind I am not a Scientist I am a Social Scientist as in majors in counselling, human services community development etc. Stand in awe at how EASY it is for an ametuer like me to take down the theory of evolution that is presented as a FACT to children in schools in Australia despite the fact it is an unproven theory. Let’s see you defend your “so-called” scientific method when it is examined by non Christian scientists (all bar 2 quotes).
THEORETICAL SCIENCE OR SCIENCE FICTION
Some of the bizarre notions of science fiction are inspired by the hypotheses of theoretical science. In commenting on black holes and science in relation to science fiction, David Filkin (1997, p. 198) has said “ … many of the best science fiction writers are themselves scientists. Science fact feeds science fiction; and science fiction is perhaps just as important in supporting science fact.”
For example, American astronomer Carl Sagan wrote the science fiction novel Contact (Sagan, 1985) about an advanced alien community who construct a space time tunnel wormhole, that allows rapid travel between two distant parts of the universe. In order to make his fictional tunnel plausible, Sagan asked the Cal Tech astrophysicist Kip Thorne, a black hole specialist, for advice. Intrigued by the idea, Thorne investigated the physics of the proposal with some younger colleagues. Thorne Calculated what restrictions apply to known physics that might prevent such a space time tunnel existing.
Black holes are an essential part of theoretical science which alleges there is a million solar-mass black hole at the centre of our galaxy. They conjecture that once every 10,000 years this massive black hole flings stars at a speed of 4,000 kilometers per second. There is no evidence for black holes.
Theoretical scientists claim black holes are time tunnels through which an infinite number of universes are connected. If a person could survive the singularity at the centre of a black hole, theorists claim they would travel to the future, or to the past if they could exceed the speed of light. But if they re-entered the same black hole they would not return to our universe and space-time, but would enter a third universe.
Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle wrote the science fiction novel The Black Cloud (Hoyle, 1991) in which a gas cloud of living molecules were organised into a thinking, purposeful individual. This cloud moved from star to star to feed on the energy it needed to survive; and was able to communicate to humans through a chosen radio signal.
Hoyle (Davis & Gribbin, 1992, p. 292) has built a detailed theory, the roots of which can be traced back to this idea. In collaboration with Chandra Wickramasinghe, he now suggests that the microscopic grains of interstellar material found within such clouds are living bacteria encased in a protective shell. Hoyle claims an enormous number of different micro-organisms pervade interstellar space, ready to make contact with a suitable host planet or comet.
Astronomers (Davies & Gribbin, 1992, p. 293) have studied and located these clouds using infra-red telescopes, but doubt there is microbes in them or that microbes could survive space. If it were possible, it would explain how life may have been established on Earth so quickly after the formation of the planet. By providing billions of years for pre-biotic chemistry to work on the material in clouds before the Earth was formed, it makes the Evolutionary theory of DNA arising out of nothing by chance more plausible.
Physicist John Gribbin has written the science fiction novel Brother Esau (Gribbin, 1982) in which scientists discovered not only the sculls of missing links, but captured a living link to man. The scientists did DNA tests on Esau (the name given to the hominid) and found him to be a 99% match to Homo sapiens. Later when they released him he led them to a small colony of 11 other hominids living in the Himalayan Mountains. This story re-enforces the billions of years dating for the evolutionary process, and found the missing links real scientists would dearly love to find.
A book review for David Brin’s science fiction novel Kiln People, (Brin is an astrophysicist consultant to NASA) appeared in New Scientist (12 January 2002, p. 45). The review was written by Elizabeth Sourbut a judge for the 2001 Arthur C. Clarke (science fiction) Awards. The novel explains a break through in science called Soulistics in which science can imprint a copy of a human soul’s standing wave into a specially prepared clay duplicate. These copies of the original human only live for 24 hours, millions of people live double lives and transfer memories back from their clay selves. Sourbut says “David Brin has always had a talent for inventing new twists to familiar science.”
The ‘familiar science’ that this relates to is an ambitious project by British Telecom called Soul Catcher 2025. Soul Catcher is to be developed by the year 2025 and is a chip which could be implanted in someone’s scull to record all their life experiences to be downloaded to another person, or played back on a computer. British Telecom claims such a chip would require the memory capacity of 7,142,857,142,860,000 floppy disks. Dr Chris Winter says “By combining this information with a record of the person’s genes, we could recreate a person physically, emotionally and spiritually … This is the end of death.” (Daily Telegraph, July 18, 1996).
With such a strong similarity and connection between theoretical science and science fiction the demarcation between science and pseudoscience is difficult. Karl Popper (1902 – 1994) a professor of physics and philosophy attempted such a demarcation between what he termed ‘science and non-science,’ which became accepted by leading scientists. Popper outlined important demarcation tests in several books as a criterion to identify non-science.
The first point Popper made (Magee, 1975, pp. 23 – 47) is that evidence alone could not verify the truth of a theory, and no number of tests proved a theory. Popper realised this when Einstein’s theory of gravity (relativity) displaced Newton’s theory of gravity. Newtonian physics was confirmed by countless observations, technological advances and accurate predictions. Predictions of undiscovered planets, the movements of tides and even the operation of machinery were formulated from Newton’s laws of physics.
Einstein’s theory was different to Newton’s and went beyond Newton’s theory (in speculations about the speed of light). Yet all the observational evidence which supported Newton’s theory also established Einstein’s theory of relativity.
The second point Popper made (Magee, 1975) was that though theories were not verifiable in an empirical sense, they could be falsified. Popper held that scientific laws were testable and a balance between verification and falsification must be maintained. He insisted that even the most proven theories should only be accepted as provisional knowledge, not as facts.
Popper’s guidelines (Magee, 1975) for making a statement testable, and therefore scientific and refutable were as follows: A theory must be compatible with all know observations and contain its predecessor, contradicting it were it failed, and accounting for its failure. It must yield precise predictions with a high informative content consisting of non-tautological propositions. If all possible states of affairs fit in with a theory then no observation or experiment can be claimed as supporting evidence. And having proposed a theory in this manner, he required theorists must not evade refutation. They must not reformulate either their theories or their evidence to accommodate contradictory evidence. Nor should they dispute the reliability of every test that refutes their theory then ignore the results.
Popper (Magee, 1975) denounced Freudian Psychology and Darwinian Evolution as unscientific because they were unfalsifiable and did not advance scientific knowledge. Popper was cautious and never judged a theory to be true or false, he distinguished only between what was and was not scientific.
When Darwin published the origin of species (1859), his theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed (for evolution to occur). To date no missing links or living links in previously unexplored regions have been found. But the predictions Popper (Magee, 1975) outlined differed to this, in that he required achievable tests that could refute the theory, to be built into the theory. The claim by theorists that radioactive carbon dating supports their assertion that evolution happened over millions of years, would not validate the theory by Popper’s standards. The accuracy of radiocarbon testing as a technique to date geological discoveries would have been refuted by Popper’s demarcation procedure also.
Evolutionists claim it takes thousands of years for wood to petrify into stone (according to carbon dating methods). But petrified wood of a know age (less than a hundred years old) is consistently discovered. For example, the Chapel of Santa Maria of Health (Santa Maria de Salute), built in 1650 in Venice, Italy, to celebrate the end of the plague is a prime example. Because Venice is built on water saturated clay and sand, the chapel was constructed on 180,000 wooden pilings to reinforce the foundations. Even though the chapel is a massive stone block structure, it has remained firm since its construction. How could wooden pilings have lasted in these conditions for longer than 35 years? The chapel now rests on (petrified) stone pilings (Segment on Burke’s Backyard, Channel 9 TV, Sydney, Australia, June, 1995).
Pearce (1970, p. 33) reports similar discoveries, Pearce says “I understand that down in the Sandhill country below Boulia [S.W. Queensland, Australia], where fences are often completely covered by shifting sand, it’s a common thing for the sand to shift off after a number of years, leaving stone posts standing erect.”
Evolutionists claim it takes millions of years for sediments like mud or sand to harden into rock (according to carbon dating methods). But in the Creation Science Answers in Genesis Museum in North Kentucky, there is part of a clock mechanism encased in solid rock along with sea shells, on display. The ‘Clock Rock’ was found in 1975 by Dolores Testerman, near the south jetty at Westport, Washington, USA. The Creation Science Foundation (Creation 19 (3) June – August 1997, p. 6) states “Obviously, the clock was not made millions of years ago!”
When determining the age of the universe or distant stars, the main method is redshift measurements. Radioactive carbon dating has established the age of the Earth and its Solar System at 4.5 billion years old. Theorists have conjectured the universe to be between 10 to 20 billion years old (in agreement with evolutionary requirements). Hubble’s redshift measurements (Gribbin, 2000, p. 128) revealed the distance of stars moving away from us and calculated how long the inflation had been happening, making it possible to date the universe. If the expansion had been going on at the same rate, it can be calculated from the constant of proportionality in the redshift distance relation, how long it has been since the galaxies were a compressed lump (Big Bang theory).
Using Hubble’s constant (a value of 525 Km/sec) the age of the universe comes out at about 2 billion years, which is less than half the radioactive carbon dating age for the Earth. Theoretical scientists evaded refutation by questioning Hubble’s interpretation of Hamason’s redshift measurements. Then they speculated that the universe has not been expanding at the same rate, carbon dating was never doubted. By Popper’s standard this would not only falsify the accuracy of the radioactive carbon dating method, but constitutes rejecting the reliability of contrary evidence and reformulating the theory to accommodate the contradiction.
Every aspect of the evolution of the universe or life has been reformulated to accommodate contradicting experimental or observational evidence. The scientific community announced (New Scientist, 11 April 1986, p. 26) that the expansion of the universe was accelerating with ever increasing speed. But then they changed their mind (New Scientist, 15 December 2001, p. 15) and claimed the accelerated inflation was an illusion caused by a mirage of axions dimming light as it travels.
According to theorists axions are hypothetical particles postulated as a candidate for (cold) dark matter. Together with neutrinos, photinos, gravitinos, black holes and antimatter they account for 90% of the universe’s mass (gravity) causing galaxies to congregate. It is hypothesised that axions are formed when protons decay into axions, the creation of axions depends on protons decaying. But it was discovered by Pagel (1985,
p. 275) that “ … it would take the proton 10 30 years [that’s 1 to the power of 30 or 1 with 30 zeros after it] to disintegrate into a positron and a neutral pion. This is 100 billion times the age of the universe – a very long time indeed.” But scientists are still searching patiently for proton decay to show up in tests.
Meanwhile researchers at the CERN nuclear physics laboratory near Geneva have spent a year analysing data from the LEP accelerator. Researcher detected neither symmetry nor super-symmetry particles, which includes axions (New Scientist, 8 December 2001, pp. 4-5). Though Popper never equated non-science with science fiction, the lack of evidence with theoretical science such as the evolution theory and science’s agreement with science fiction rather than evidence of reality, implies it strongly.
References
Filkin, D. & Hawking, S., 1997, Stephen Hawking’s Universe, BBC books, London.
Sagan, S., 1985, Contact, Constable books, Hawthorn Victoria, Australia.
Hoyle, F., 1991, The Black Cloud, Macmillan, London.
Gribbin, J. & Orgill, G., 1982, Brother Esau, The Bodley Head, Great Britain.
Magee, B., 1975, Popper, William Collins Sons & Co, Great Britain.
Pagel, H., 1985, Perfect Symmetry, Billing & Sons, London.
Pearce, R. C., 1970, ‘Petrified Wood’, The Australian Lapidary Magazine, June, 1970.
Davies, P. Gribbin, J., 1992, The Matter Myth, Penguin Books, England.
Gribbin, J., 2000, The Birth of Time, Phoenix, London.
March 27th, 2006 at at 5:38 am
I am,
I tried to post an assignment that I got high distinction for called “Theoretical Science or Science Fiction” but your site will not allow me to post this. I assure you that if there is some way to overcome this barrier and I am able to address this issue with this assignment you will find it hard going to defend your “so-called” scientific method.
April 1st, 2006 at at 11:48 am
I am,
I tried to post an assignment that I got high distinction for called “Theoretical Science or Science Fiction” but your site will not allow me to post this. I assure you that if there is some way to overcome this barrier and I am able to address this issue with this assignment you will find it hard going to defend your “so-called” scientific method.
A apologize for my overzealous spam filter and for not dealing with this sooner. Your paper is above. I will read it when I have time, but that is a very limited commodity for me at the moment.
April 3rd, 2006 at at 4:43 pm
At first glance, social scientist, you should probably flesh this out a bit. Go deeper to support your assertions. You might also try writing a paper that disagrees with what you wrote here, to see if you can find evidence to contradict those assertions. I think you will find the task remarkably easy, no offense intended.
April 4th, 2006 at at 2:57 am
At first glance, social scientist, you should probably flesh this out a bit. Go deeper to support your assertions. You might also try writing a paper that disagrees with what you wrote here, to see if you can find evidence to contradict those assertions. I think you will find the task remarkably easy, no offense intended.
Uberkuh,
These are not my assertions, all bar the Burke’s back yard quote on petrified wood, and the reference to an actual fosilised clock part I referred to in the Creation Science Museum in North Kentucky; both of which are actual evidence that speaks for themselves; I have only used the evidence and quotes from the books and magazines of non-Christian pro-evolution theory scientists. I still have a truck load of information from molecular biologists that disproves the theory of the evolution of life that I can whip out if the subject goes that way further. This essay is just a starting point, I have to start somewhere, I can’t pull out every fact I have in my filling cabinet you’s wouldn’t be able to deal with that much all at once. No offence taken Uberkuh.
Fay
April 4th, 2006 at at 10:11 am
Lol. SS, you did what I do almost all the time. That is to quote people I haven’t read but have found those quotes in other books. You also forgot to mention them in your reference.
“I have only used the evidence and quotes from the books and magazines of non-Christian pro-evolution theory scientists.”
No you didn’t, as I explaind. You also showed this here.
“I still have a truck load of information from molecular biologists that disproves the theory of the evolution of life that I can whip out if the subject goes that way further.”
April 4th, 2006 at at 1:43 pm
Kay, by assertions, I mean that you affirmed or supported them as worthy of lending support for your point of view. In other words, any time a person makes a statement about some aspect of reality, with no indication of doubt or coercion, that statement reflects the intention of the person responsible, so all such statements are assertions in this sense. For example, you state, “There is no evidence for black holes.” This is an assertion. You further state, “Theoretical scientists claim black holes are time tunnels through which an infinite number of universes are connected.” This is, likewise, an assertion. In the first case, you state what you consider to be a fact, while in the second you state what you consider to be a fact based on similar considerations in others. In both cases, you are asserting or affirming something. I could go on. And, btw, you can call it whatever you like, but the point is that you are, again, making statements about reality that correspond with your understanding of it.
In that light, your paper can be refuted where you have made false assertions. Take your assertion that there is no evidence for black holes. This is false, so, were I critiquing your paper, I would explain why this is false. For instance, I might mention that there is, indeed, strong evidence for the existence of black holes and that astrophysicists generally agree that they exist. Btw, black holes, by definition, cannot be directly observed; the closest we’d come is an event horizon, but the evidence we have now is equally confirmative.
April 4th, 2006 at at 3:39 pm
Kay, I don’t know if you’re interested, but here is a 2005 article on the state of black hole research. Some of this stuff is pretty cool. For those who wonder what the hell that circle with a dot in the center stands for, it stands for one solar mass (i.e., mass of the Sun).
April 5th, 2006 at at 2:48 am
Lol. SS, you did what I do almost all the time. That is to quote people I haven’t read but have found those quotes in other books. You also forgot to mention them in your reference.
“I have only used the evidence and quotes from the books and magazines of non-Christian pro-evolution theory scientists.”
No you didn’t, as I explaind. You also showed this here.
“I still have a truck load of information from molecular biologists that disproves the theory of the evolution of life that I can whip out if the subject goes that way further.”
You are a lovable rogue Roya,
I have made all the references available in the text or in the reference list and I have read the books of the evolutionists scientists that I quoted from cover to cover. The only two quotes I used that were not from evolutionists scientists in the above essay were not people giving a scientific opinion (even though one was a honours graduate scientist), they were simply a source of undeniable evidence that supports my assertions about the age of the universe and inaccuracy of carbon dating methods in relation to the plausability of evolution’s necessary millions of years doctrinal requirement (e.g. the clock rock, petrified wooden pillings under the temple). When I said I have truck loads of information in my filing cabinet I did not mean that the above essay was incomplete in giving you every source I used to complete that essay. What I meant was I research every area for months for that essay but decided not to use the molecular science information for that essay as I was limited to 2000 words and could not develop the point on every area according to the title I had to give for the major essay (the last one worth 50% of my marks). So I kept the research from non-scientists that I did not use in that essay in my filing cabinet, as I do with all study notes. It is hard to believe but I did read more that a dozen large science books and countless science magazines from cover to cover to get the information for my essay, so I did gain a reasonable knowledge of science in that research even though I have not done academic study in science.
Fay
April 5th, 2006 at at 3:00 am
Kay, I don’t know if you’re interested, but here is a 2005 article on the state of black hole research. Some of this stuff is pretty cool. For those who wonder what the hell that circle with a dot in the center stands for, it stands for one solar mass (i.e., mass of the Sun).
Arg, I clicked on the link to see the new black hole research and the link failed and I didn’t get to see it.
April 5th, 2006 at at 6:22 am
SS, “You are a lovable rogue Roya”
April 5th, 2006 at at 1:50 pm
Arg, I clicked on the link to see the new black hole research and the link failed and I didn’t get to see it.
Hey, that sounds like a black hole! If you like, contact me at my website and I’ll email it over to you.
April 6th, 2006 at at 8:08 am
SS, “You are a lovable rogue Roya”
Sorry Roya,
I am being too Australian to you, that was meant as an endearing comment, a robust Australian would have taken that as an affectionate compliment. I meant it that way Roya sorry it is the Aussie way of saying you are ok even when we might not agree on everything seems to be too teasing to mean that.
Fay