Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
SCIENCE AND THE PROBLEM OF DEATH
Good evening, I am glad to be here with everyone this evening in Novi Sad.
I am emotionally connected with Novi Sad since I went to school here.
later in life I attended school at another place but I enjoy visiting this city.
I am glad you could join me during this nasty weather
where we will treat some questions which I believe are very important.
This series is not intended to be academically popular like "Survival".
We will not talk about teleological topics...
we will not get involved with imagination.
Here we will try to answer humans most important questions.
Questions related to human life, human existanace.
In this life of ours, there are many uncertainties.
The planet we live on only looks beautiful from a spaceship...
when we look at photos taken by astronauts from space, we see our beautiful planet.
However when you land on the surface of the earth, when we pass through these streets we can see there is a rampage of sickness.
cry, death.
Planet Earth became a water mill of death where people come in and disappear.
Thats why we are going to deal with the issue of death...but from a scientific view.
We don't want to make hypothesis...imagination or go into illusions.
but as people who think logically, we will try to find the answer to this question.
Can we approach this question, or is it not within our reach?
Perhaps we don't think about death that much unless someone from our family experiences death.
Then we start to think about some questions which never crossed our mind before.
The science that could potentially provide the answer about the issue of death
is the science dealing with life.
The name of that science is called Biology.
The word itself says "Bios" means life, "Logos" means science.
If we asked Biologists today what they think about death, they would say death is a natural.
There is nothing on planet earth that can protect you from the disease of death.
We are all going to die.
A famous Nobel price winner Monod said that a humans' life is like a spark from a flame.
The meaning of human life does not exist.
Another author describes life like a path between two hospitals.
In one hospital we are born in another we die. That's all there is.
After the second hospital where we die, there is nothing else.
The majority of scientists today think that death is natural.
However the important thing to remember is that a group of scientists claims that with science we can tackle the issue of death.
Not only that but science has resolved the issue of death.
I belong to that group of scientists.
Paleontology is like Biology. Science about life in the past.
Therefore if we try to analyze the past and based on that, reconstruct the present...
we can make future predictions.
Did you know that Science has an aspect called "Science Predictions".
We don't have to be nuclear physicists to make predictions.
We can make predictions easily.
Science is applied logic like Hegel said.
We can find apropriate predictions, for example,
if we mishandle our oven, it will break down.
however if we clean it, the predictions are it will last longer.
The same applies to our health.
Based on how much we invest in our well beeing, we can logically predict the future of our health.
Therefore we can make some predictions and the same applies to Science.
For that reason, Paleontology will be used as a tool to help us answers some of these questions.
Today, paleontology is used for geological research.
so we are going to address the geological questions.
Majority of scientists today think that death is natural.
The important thing to remember is that even in the past, people claimed that the issue of death can be attempted scientifically.
Not only can the issue of death be attemped scientifically but death is defeated enemy.
Science has solved the issue of death as was claimed by people in the past...
and there are people who claim the same today, that death is defeated enemy.
Who are these scientists really? Overall scientific community claims the opposite.
I still belong to this other group of scientists who claims that science has solved the issue of death.
Thats why in this series, I invite you to be the jury.
Just like a trial, you are the jury.
When you come to a trial, you have a prejudice because you read the charges.
You may think that this party is guilty but you still would like to hear the argument first hand.
Regardless of the other side, greater in numbers who claims that death is natural.
Like a jury in the trial, you may listen to the other sides arguments.
Then like logical thinkers determine a proper conclusion.
To be a jury in a trial, you are not required to be a high hounours student.
Its necessary to be honest.
One of my friends says he has a big problem finding an employee.
The work that he does is specific and hard, one has to know it, but the work can be learned.
He just needs to find an honest employee.
But how to learn to be honest?
The jury is expected to be honest.
no academic degrees, no academic knowledge, etc.
The questions treated here also require no academic degrees or higher education, required is just a little honesty and seriousness.
I trust that all those sitting here came to this presentation with serious intentions.
Why did people in the past (and present) claim that death is defeated enemy?
Who are these people? What areguments do they use?
I am going to show you a list of some of these people who claim that death is defeated enemy.
One of them was Isaac Newton.
He was the biggest scientist of all time.
Historians claim that Isaac Newton had the largest coefficient of intelligence.
Isaac Newton claimed that death is defeated enemy.
Louis Pasteur, the founder of Microbiology.
man who solved the issue of rabies when very little was known about viruses and microorganism.
He risked his life to find cures for diseases, a great man, the founder of microbiology claimed that death is defeated enemy.
Gregor Mendel, founder of Genetics, claimed that death is defeated enemy.
The list doesn't end here. Lord Kelvin, Michael Faraday, Johan Kepler, Georges Cuvier and many more
People who created the foundation in science claimed that death is the defeated enemy.
How can these people claim that?
Today many scientists claim the opposite.
You can go to the faculty of Biology and ask any professor.
The founders of microbiology, physics, genetics and palentology claims otherwise.
How's that? What arguments do they use?
To understant the academic approach of a problem, we will use an illustration.
Imagine we call a professional civil engineer with many years of experience who wishes to explain how a building is constructed.
Now this highly qualified professional will explain to us, laymen, how its done.
How is a building constructed?
He states, inside the earth there is an explosion, tectonic shocks cause clay to breakout of the earth ...
the clay will be exposed to the sun where it will bake...
erosion will form the clay into bricks...
next, earthquakes from the seismic activities after many millions of years will form a building.
after that iron will breakout of the earth, forming in the hot sun to create water pipes.
After a long period of time, about 4.5 billion years, we have a fully functioning building.
The question I am going to ask the jury now is would you believe in such a concept?
The civil engineer explaining this, as credible as he may be, can contact his colleagues who can tell you that this concept is valid.
Army of authoroties claims that a building is constructed in such a way.
Would you believe in such a concept?
I think that there is no serious person who would believe in this concept.
You would say that no scientist believes this.
However if you think that than you are wrong.
There is an army of scientists and authorities who believe in a more unbelievable concept.
Many biologists and historians claim that humans originated as products of explosion.
Humans are more complex than the tallest building on planet earth.
One man is more complex than the city of Novi Sad, billions of times.
Many people today believe that humans are the product of explosion, How?
We are taught from kindergarden to university how humans came into existence.
Its claimed that our universe was created from an explosion 15 to 17 billions years ago.
It is not clear what exploded.
but it became known as the "Big ***".
After some unknown material exploded, the universe contained only water and helium.
These two elements started to form clouds.
Humans were then created from this gas some 15 billion years later.
We will look at the conventional explanation.
This gas started to thicken on its own, without explenation...
and this transformation led to the creation of the stars which created galaxies.
Formations of very complex systems like this one. Two rotating galaxies which don't collide.
A very complex system presumed to be created on its own.
.
From one star, so called "protosun" (our Sun which used to be in a different state) about 4.5 billion years ago.
One small piece was separated and as it cooled formed the Earth more than 4 billion years ago.
So, we came from the "Big ***" about 15 billion to 4 billion nearing the creation of man.
Conventional theroies claim that Earth was glowing and as it cooled seas and oceans formed.
No one knows how the oceans were formed.
The Earth is a very complex system.
The currently explored space provides no evidence that any planet, other than Earth, can sustain water.
If all the planets in our solar system were created from the Sun, as conventional theories argue,
then it would be logical that all planets have similar features.
However, the structure of each planet in our solar system is very unique.
In any case, life formed by accident in one of these oceans from an inanimate material.
A cell, before 3.5 billion years ago.
The Earth formed before 4.5 billion years ago and first cells appeared 3.5 billion years ago.
From inanimate materials.
There is a big problem.
Louis Paster, whom I mentioned earlier provided the law of biogenetics.
Even then scientists argued that life can shape itself from something lifeless.
However, Louis Paster has has made simple experiments (you can read about these experiments)
where he demonstrates that life comes only from life.
Life cannot arise from non life.
However conventioanl theories argue that non-living formed into living.
They argue that if non-living reaches a high level of complexity, it becomes alife.
In nature we see that life comes only from previous life as Pasteur's law supports.
A cell is more complex than this city.
with many internal functions, its billions of times more complex.
If this system can emerge on its own, than this building in which we are in can also emerge on its own.
logically speaking.
In science only facts and evidence are relevant.
In one academic class students learn about a clear definition "Authoritative arguments are poor, but facts are valid".
In any case, 3.5 billion years ago we have a cell, man's oldest ancestor.
Furthermore, 3 billion years passed, than 500 million years ago,
It's unknown how, but the bacteria (from the cell) transformed into worms
and invertebrate formed 500 million years ago.
This is known as the Cambrian Period.
An explosion of life, what happened?
We will talk more about fossils in the next sessions.
Mans even closer relative are worms and invertebrates.
After that, vertebrates such as fish emerged.
No one knows how the transition happened.
There is no evidence in the fossils.
Nowhere in the fossils will you find animals which look little bit like fish and little bit like invertebrates.
This does not exist.
For example you will not find vehicles in a transitioning form on a scrap yard.
You will expect that to be impossible.
However, palenthologists today seek out transitioning lifeforms between invertebrates and vertebrates.
but they can't find any.
This is a big problem in the conventional theories about evolution.
In any case, How do we know that a fish is Man's oldest ancestor?
Evolution theory argues that a fish called "Coelacanth" transformed into an amphibian.
Some researchers concluded that the bone structure in the fins of the coelacanth resembles feet.
and thats why this fish could be responsible in the transformation to amphibians.
This is a drawing from the worlds leading paleontologist Dr. Romer.
Coelacanth used to live in shallow waters, which dried and the fish had to adapt to new environments.
It came to the transformation from gills to lungs, fins to legs, shoulders and waist
This picture is from school textbooks.
These are reconstructions, lets look at facts.
This is a fossil of the Coelacanth.
How can we see from the fossil that this type of fish could walk?
that this is man's ancestor 400 millions of yeays ago.
Allegedly this fish transformed into walking 400 million years ago,
70 million it became extinct.
In the seas near Madagascar
the Coelacanth was discovered and caught alife.
It never was extinct.
Representers of convensional theories argues that this is a living fossil.
Interest in the scientific community has lead them to believe
that finally we have proof about the evolution of humans.
The fish was analyzed in great detail and the conclusion was that it was just an ordinary fish.
It has no resemblance to any amphibian creature.
Today you can find this fish in museums.
Many scientists today still believe that this fish transformed into a amphibian,
amphibians transformed into reptiles
reptiles transformed into mammals.
We are arriving to a class of animals which we belong to based on conventional theories.
Its claimed that reptiles sweat glands transformed into milk glands based on conventional theories.
How? it came to mutations etc,
you can read about these descriptions which are very problamatic.
I treat these answers non-scientific.
Mammals have one lower jaw bone,
and three bones in the ear.
Reptiles have the opposite,
they have three lower jaw bones,
and one ear bone.
Then, its claimed that two lower jaw bones in raptiles
transformed and moved to form ears of mammals.
I think that this transformation is impossible.
Do you know how complex the ear is?
Humans are located at the top of a placental mammal pyramid (above all other mammals)
Humans closest relative is the most primitive mammal, (Insectivora, like hedgehogs)
4 to 8 million years ago.
Its assumed that these most primitive of all mammals
transformed (evolved) into Tarzier primates.
Tarziers then evolved into lemurs.
and finally lemurs into apes.
This tree of evolution, at the root of which a cell
brenched into plants on one side and animals on the other
with humans at the top.
Therefore, some 15 to 17 billion years (depending on the author) after the "Big ***"
arises Man, from explosion.
If this concept is acurate,
then Monod's argument is also valid.
that death is natural.
If a bulding can arise from products of explosion
and after it breaks down, it can only be reconstructed with new explosive events.
But if someone constructed the building, then the same one can re-construct it again.
If someone created humans, and we did not evolve by accident,
Einstein claimed that there is an impersonal force.
He claimed that there is a force which created humans.
On the other side, Newton, Pasteur and others
claimed that a personal force created humans.
Today you have heard about cloning
and we can create every man in the lab.
This is a very simple process
Humans have about 20,000 billions cells
in each of these cells there are genes
one copy from the mother and one copy from the father.
This long chain can contain about 100,000 genes.
That gene can be extracted and inserted into an egg.
The fetus will develop to be your twin.
Physically identical, but not spiritually
Genetics started with Mendel
but the main breakthrough started a few decades ago.
Genetics is a very fast growing field.
In a short time, we were able accomplish so much.
If humans evolved than death is natural.
However is there a force which created humans?
Important to remember is that you can't plant a brick
and expect a house to grow.
But you can plant seeds, and plants will grow.
How's that possible?
If you bury a brick, water it and come back after a month
and you see the foundation
What would be your conclusion?
Would you conclude that the buried brick drew materials from the ground
and formed the foundation?
Or would you conclude that some came and built the foundation?
You can bring construction material to the site but
it will never move on its own.
However living organisms draw enery
How can a planted seed draw enery on its own?
Thats the difference between living and non-living systems.
Non living systems, if not maintained will break down
However living systems do something incredible.
For example, every seven yours our cells regenerate
Take your age and dive by seven
and you will get the number of times you physical changed.
However your appearance doesn't change as is states in your genes.
You are constantly beeing renewed regardless of your age
This is the difference between living and non living systems.
Newton and Pasteur claimed
that someone maintains the living systems.
This statement needs to be highlighted in red.
Living systems can't function on its own
Living systems can multiply
How can this be?
Because someone maintains the living systems from outside
The existance of living systems on planet earth
is proof that there is a force
who maintains our lifes.
This is important to note, otherwise we can't go further.
You have read some unbelieveble explanations claimed by conventional theories.
You don't have to be professor to see whats happening around you
You building can decay but plants don't.
Plants grow and bear fruit every spring.
How?
Because someone maintains it.
and thats the difference between living and non living systems.
If someone created these living systems
then someone can also create them again.
If we can scientifically prove that someone created us
and all other living systems and maintains it all
then we have the evidence that death can be defeated.
If someone created something, he can create it again.
We will analyze this force in detail.
Pasteur's law stats life comes only from life.
I was created by my parents
my parents were created from their parents ,etc
Going back in that sequence, we arrive at the first human
How was he created?
Conventional theories argue that humans were created from non-living material
a product of explosion
Second explanation, claimed by Newton and others
argues that an eternal material transformed into living matter some 3.5 billion years ago.
Creationists claim that a eternal living beeing is the creator of life.
Therefore, life is created by life. Not life from lifeless.
I represent the creation concept.
I don't agree with the first concept because
Life cannot form from lifeless.
First humans were created by a living beeing.
He is the giver of life.
There are two ways to form life.
One is creation and the other is birth.
This is the explanation of the creation concept.
If you were to ask a person on the street, "Who created you?"
Majority of people would say, "I was created by my parents".
Therefore, how is a person created?
A human is not created at birth, instead
a human is created when *** fuses with the egg.
In 9 months we are born.
In 10 year, boy or girl
in 20 years, young adult
In 50 years, mature person. etc
Lets look at this process more closely.
and analyze how we are created.
and who created us.
Is it based on the conventional explanaition
or is there an alternative answer?
Therfore, a human is created at the moment when *** fuses with the egg.
The process looks like this.
Inside the womb there is an egg,
represented in the picture.
Two or more eggs can also exist to form twins.
In most cases, one egg is surrounded by billions of *** cells.
The spermatozoid is represented as dots in this picture.
Once a spermatozoid breaks throught the outer wall of the egg
a mechanism will prevent other cells from reaching in.
These spermatozoids discharge an enzime which erodes the wall of the egg.
An opening in one spot is created
to allow one spermatozoid to enter.
Logically, now it would be possible for spermatozoids to swarm in.
But what happens? Once an opening is made, spermatozoids move away
especially around the area where the one spermatozoid will enter.
As if someone is leading it during fertilization.
This one,
Why don't spermatozoids conflict as stated by the probability theory?
Only one enters.
For example, in a sand watch all grains of sand will rush down.
Likewise, according to the probability thoery, its logicall for all grains to rush through the opening.
However, something incredible happens.
This is not by accident.
This is a guided process.
Because when someone says "I was created by my parents"
that's scientifically invalid.
In comparison, as if a book was created by the printing press and not by a person.
I was created by my parents
is scientifically invalid.
There is proof that a force is responsible in the moment of creation.
Who wants to create me
and not someone else.
If some other spermatozoid fertalized the egg, I woudn't be born,
It would be my brother or sister.
What we have to note is that life on planet earth is not a product of explosion.
All living systems are maintained
and we didn't arise from probability theory, by chance.
There is a force
Einstein defined it as some energy.
Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Maxwell, Faraday claimed
that there is a personal beeing responsible for life.
One who is interested in us.
We will test both concepts in the preceding talks.
The conventional concept is scientifically invalid.
It can't be true,
its absurd to say that living is formed from nonliving.
Whoever claims that living is formed from nonliving,
can also claim that this building is formed on its own.
Stating the non-life to life theory is the same as stating that we live in a Geocentric model.
In the preceding lectures we will talk more about this force.
If this force exists and there is a beeing responsible for all life.
or is this some energy?
Can we communicate with this force?
Can we gain some information from this force?
If we can prove that someone created humans,
we can automatically prove that death is defeated.
If we are created, we can be created again.
Maybe this force is not interested in creating us again.
but there is a possibility that if we are created, we can be created again.
The same way we can reconstruct damaged bridges.
We don't have to wait for chance.
Life is more important,
Thats why we have to be interested in life.
I invite you to my other lectures
to hear the arguments of creation
who claimed that death is defeated.
Not only are we a product of creation but we can
also communicate with the force who created us.
We can also associate.
We can still get some very useful information
important to our life.
And we can solve the issue of death with science.
I would like to stop here for tonight.
I invite you to my next lecture, tomorrow.
The title is "Humans and dinosaurs"
Translated by dtolj https://github.com/dtolj/cps