Kazmer Ujvarosy, science genius
Friends, This is the last in our series of articles from our sister site http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com, please join me in thanks for all the good work they are doing to help teach Americans about science. Today’s article by OE blogger “quizzlestick” asks some profound questions about the very nature of science. Tristan
Critics of Intelligent Design often present the same few objections to our theory: They claim that we do not yet offer a testable theory, and that we avoid peer-review of our discoveries because we have something to hide.
Those of us who have spent hard years grappling with the finer points of Intelligent Design know that nothing could be further from the truth: There is no group I know who work harder to attempt to explain these difficult scientific topics than ourselves. We engage with all levels of society, and our findings are plainly true to anybody with an open mind. More importantly we are on the verge of some of the most important scientific discoveries in the entire history of science which could yield benefits to the whole of mankind were it not for a conspiracy of Darwinists who will stop at nothing to preserve the reputation of their absurd science.
Intelligent Design’s discoveries will one day be considered more important than those of Einstein.
But what of the claim that our theories have not been tested and that we have not published peer-reviewed papers. It is initially quite astonishing that something as obvious as intelligent design should even need testing. Do we test the idea that the sun will rise in the morning? It’s just not needed because we can be certain that it will. Nonetheless, the skeptical biological community demands that our theories be tested ? and so in due time I predict that it will be one of the most rigorously tested theories known to man.
I’d like to introduce one of the scientists who will ensure that it is so. He is building on the work of Behe and Dembski. He is also one of the best communicators that the ID community could ever wish for. I would like to introduce Dr. Kazmer Ujvarosy, chief scientist of the Frontline Science Institute, one of the most prestigious research organizations dedicated to Intelligent Design.
Kazmer is one of the smartest men living today. He has been shunned by the establishment of orthodox theoretical physics because of his Christian beliefs, however his exciting results speak for themselves.
While mainstream science predicts that we would not be able to make testable claims about ID, Kazmer has done exactly that. His astonishing predictions unify areas of science which were previously considered unrelated. He may be, in the opinion of many ID researchers, at the verge of discovering a ?theory of everything?, one of the goals of high-energy physics. This is a challenge which even Einstein and Hawking have failed.
Professor Stephen Hawking: Perhaps if he had applied his intelect to Biblical creation and not the junk-science of big-bangs and astronomy then God might not have punished this limey cripple so harshly.
But let’s examine some of his discoveries ? these extracts from a recent peer-reviewed paper published at the American Chronicle show the depth and breadth of his important research:
?Dark energy, that drives the expansion of the universe, is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in modern science. We posit that dark energy is the field manifestation of the parent seed of the universe, just as the cosmic vacuum?s zero-point energy. They all originate from the cosmic seed?s biophoton emissions, which blackbody radiation provides a holographic biofield for the generation of the physical universe. Based on the fact that the biophotonic radiation emitted by DNA is coherent, we predict that the cosmic seed’s biophotonic field or “dark energy” is equally coherent.?
“Dark energy” - this enigma has baffled scientists for more than three decades. By abandoning materialist naturalism Kazmer has answered this mighty riddle.
?The elusive Higgs boson ? so vital to the Standard Model of particle physics that it is dubbed ?the God particle? ? is identical with the genotype of the phenotype universe, and each human genome is its reproduction. Based on this identification we posit that mass-giving is life-giving because the elementary particles that come into contact with the cosmic seed’s biofield or quantum vacuum receive their mass and property as a result of that interaction. ?
Both of these are 100% testable scientific statements. For example, to falsify we merely have to observe a Higgs boson to see if it has the expected properties. What could be simpler?
If Kazmer were still laboring under the shackles of materialism would any of this have been possible? Of course not ? these are the kinds of discoveries that can only come about when we first reject the rigid dogma of the philosophy behind atheism and Darwinism’s only life-support.
Perhaps the most telling illustration of the benefits of a pragmatic approach to science can be seen in Ujavorsy’s validation of Dembski’s explanation of how an unembodied designer can influence the natural world by co-opting random processes (indeterministic quantum states) and inducing them to produce specified complexity. This is of ultimate importance, because it may explain the process by which other previously inexplicable historical phenomena occurred.
Kazmer’s important theories help us understand the historical factual events told in the Holy Bible. Can standard physics help us do this - heck no. It’s time to abandon materialism.
For example, how was Elijah able to read the mind of the king of Syria, and tell the king of Israel the words Syria?s king spoke in the privacy of his bedchamber (see 2 Kings 6:8-23) ? the same mechanisms that power quantum-creation may also enable this kind of telepathy.
These are exciting times for true scientists like us. Intelligent Design is the tiny-seed from which will grow an enormous tree of science, one which I am certain will soon prosper and provide benefits to every living soul.
15 Comments so far
Leave a reply
“Professor Stephen Hawking: Perhaps if he had applied his intelect (sp) to Biblical creation and not the junk-science of big-bangs and astronomy then God might not have punished this limey cripple so harshly.”
You have GOT to be kidding me!!
And to think you people call yourselves Chrisitan. Shameful.
It’s hate-filled, holier-than-thou people like you that drove me away from the church. What happened to “love thy neighbor as thyself”? You self-righteous asshats make me sick. If your almighty rapture does actually take place, you better be prepared to be the first ones to go down in flames.
P.S.
I’m still trying to convince myself that this site is just a horrible, horrible joke, but the more I look around, I’m not so sure.
Please, God, let this be a joke….
it’s not, i still have a sllight hope that it is, but i don’t think so really…
“Professor Stephen Hawking: Perhaps if he had applied his intelect to Biblical creation and not the junk-science of big-bangs and astronomy then God might not have punished this limey cripple so harshly.”
He’s always been like that, he can’t help being crippled anymore than you can help lying and being stupid.
it really isnt a joke, people really are this fucked up and out of touch with reality. wat the film jesus camp, these poeple actually exist. you shud what in this film jesus camp, its the worst form of child abuse.
The scientific method requires that things can be proved. If something comes along that can be proven that overturn previous ideas this is accepted. In this discipline nothing can be taken as being absolute. This applies to all realms of science. In science doubt is good.
Intelligent Design is supported by those people that have firm religious beliefs. They view the truth of God as being absolute. This lies outside the realm of proof. The presence of a guiding intelligence is not something that can be proven. It is something that has to be believed in and taken as fact at face value. As such it is not a scientific theory but merely an extension of a belief system.
You cannot use scientific principle to justify ID, no more than you can use religious faith to support the theory of evolution. Note that evolution is a theory, not a proof. Its the best thing that anyone has come up with to explain the observations that does not rely on a leap of faith.
?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?Professor Stephen Hawking: Perhaps if he had applied his intelect (sp) to Biblical creation and not the junk-science of big-bangs and astronomy then God might not have punished this limey cripple so harshly.?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?
Would you say the same thing about Terry Schiavo, I wonder?
It looks like ID justifies existence of magic, telepathy, existence of vampires… and so on.
I don’t thing that we should accept scientific theories to explain fantastic and science fiction stories.
I don’t know what “biophoton emissions” is. As math&physics student i know that answer is not in metaphorical abstraction but in equations and measurements. If equations fits results of measurements and observations we can bring some metaphor. But metaphor itself cannot act as proof. You must understand that words like “seed”, “the God particle” is metaphor used by men, influenced by his imagination. But i know how important is connection of things based on word similarities for uneducated STR people.
In this light, ID is victory of metaphor over correctness.
>>
The scientific method requires that things can be proved.
>>
Baloney. The scientific method requires that theories can be falsified. That’s a vital distinction: Not to prove things, but to be able to disprove them. As attempts to disprove a theory fail and the theory is shown to explain the available observations well, that theory is strenghtened.
There is no “proof” in science - outside mathematics, that is - only well-tested theory that, in time, may be accepted as scientific Fact. Even Fact can be challenged when significant new contradictory evidence is introduced.
Science sure is nifty. However, ID is niftier. There are too many things science cannot explain. As a Pastafarian, I embrace ID. As several notable scientists have attested, Pastafarianism is just as based in science as “classic” ID, and thus if ID is to be taught in science class, Pastafarianism deserves to be taught alongside ID.
And remember: Our heaven has beer! And noodles.
wow… you guys must be butt-buddies with these guys http://www.godhatesfags.com
btw, would u still support the fetus’ rights if it was gay?
Intelligent Design?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s discoveries will one day be considered more important than those of Einstein.
Dream on!
Kazmer?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s important theories help us understand the historical factual events told in the Holy Bible. Can standard physics help us do this - heck no. It?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s time to abandon materialism.
Could it be that he also has no proof whatsoever to really prove the bible? It?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s time to abandon that fairy tale!
Do we test the idea that the sun will rise in the morning?
No, that it rises is proof enough. And we have enough FACTUAL DATA theat it will do so another few million years. But the bible ain?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t the sun. There?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s the high possibility that it?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s just a fairy tale. Read: Sun = Physical phenomenon; Bible = Unproven claims & rubbish.
the Frontline Science Institute, one of the most prestigious research organizations dedicated to Intelligent Design.
That?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s an oxymoron.
And he offers another theory that can?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t be scientifically proven. He?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•s a looser then.
The German Guy
IMPEACH BUSH!
Listening to what Syrian king privately said in his chamber? Reading his mind? ….
You didn’t have childhood, did you? Visit a magician for God’s sake. He’ll show you waaay crazier tricks. At least help yourself by watching Houdini or Copperfield shows.
From European Man:
‘The scientific method requires that things can be proved. If something comes along that can be proven that overturn previous ideas this is accepted. In this discipline nothing can be taken as being absolute. This applies to all realms of science. In science doubt is good.’
Well, this requires elaboration. Technically, it’s not just about proof, as Thorsten pointed out. In fact, most studies are designed to rule out possibilities, not narrow the field down to one overnight. However, the scientific method does require one thing. That is the ability to be reproduced by any person anywhere, and achieve the same (or similar) results. Basically, any other person that repeats the same steps as described in the original study should come up with virtually the same results.
That’s the funny thing about the bible. You *can’t* set up any kind of test, except tests of faith. And even if you could create a test of faith that could be justified as science, you still couldn’t have another random person repeat that method and achieve the same results. It just wouldn’t happen. For this, I have plenty of proof. Just the existence of other religious structures in and of itself validates this point.
Oh, and I’m still trying to convince myself that this is a hoax, but I’m not so sure anymore…
-Rev.
?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?Professor Stephen Hawking: Perhaps if he had applied his intelect (sp) to Biblical creation and not the junk-science of big-bangs and astronomy then God might not have punished this limey cripple so harshly.?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?
How you dare to say such a thing? Hawking is one of the brightest minds all over the 20th century. Even if he is wrong, why would God punish him? don’t you say that God is love?
I think that you justify everything that is of your interest in the name of God, whatever it is good or bad.
Heh… another nice one, but I have to agree with the Reverend on the “scienticifness” of ID — there’s nothing else but a test of faith, which cannot be reproduced universally with the same results.
That part with the “biophotons” seems to me like a genuine pulp science-fiction. I’ve seen better, written by people that didn’t claim they’re scientists.
And Elijah and quanta… ever heard of Heissenberg? “Biophotons” should obey the uncertainity principle if they want to share that name.
Slovak Bloke
Don’t even think about insulting Stephen Hawking. His sister was our family doctor and she was bloody good too.
I still hope this site is fake, but I really think it’s real.
Rev. David.