Contrary to popular belief (of my critics), it doesn't really bother me if people call themselves atheists. I'm not a big fan of anti-theists, though. Life is too short to spend much time in the company of thoroughly unpleasant people. What annoys me more than anything is when people presume that I'm stupid and try talking down to me merely because I have identified myself as theist-agnostic. Because I believe in a supernatural God, they immediately assume that I'm some sort of idiot, before I can even say another word. Since we are all agnostic by nature, we can then claim to be either theist, atheist, or apathetic (because you apparently don't care enough and don't know enough to even form an opinion). While describing my beliefs, I usually attempt to justify them using scientific evidence, logic, reason, and common sense. This strategy often upsets my atheist counterpart, because rarely if ever do I refer to the Bible, unless I am forced to defend my Christian beliefs. I certainly know better than to assert I can prove what I believe to be true beyond any and all doubt. Nor can I claim to know with absolute certainty that I'm right about everything (or anything) that I believe. Hence the "agnostic" bit was added as a qualifier. This was all explained in my book Counterargument for God, though perhaps not quite this clearly -- I meant to say that everyone should consider themselves agnostic. Nobody knows for sure the true nature of our supernatural Creator, nor even whether or not God actually exists. According to my analysis, however, the probability of … [Read more...]
Evolution and the origin of life: analysis by C. W. Bobbitt, PhD
This article written by (retired) Professor Charles W. Bobbitt explains his interpretations of the evidence that may explain the origin of life and the origin of species currently available to the scientific community. Only minor formatting changes have been made to improve its readability. Professor Bobbitt's thoughts regarding the origin of the universe and the Big Bang theory were published earlier here at southernprose.com. Since my book inspired the beginning of our conversation, I am taking the opportunity for shameless self promotion, perhaps even to sell a couple of books in the process. The original plan was to publish a photo of Professor Bobbitt with a short biography describing his background and academic credentials, but apparently our wires have gotten crossed, and the article has been ready to be published for several days. As always, reader comments are welcomed. [Special thanks to Joel Washburn for his expert assistance resolving a rather puzzling and difficult technical problem that prohibited earlier publication of this piece.] A FRESH LOOK AT THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE ON EARTH C.W. Bobbitt, PhD © Copyright 2014, C.W. Bobbitt In a sense, both Darwin and Wickramasinghe/Hoyle were right in their suggestions as to how life on earth began, as will be shown in this hypothesis; but first, let us make a few remarks to serve as a framework for this presentation, in order to avoid unnecessary and unproductive conflict. Mortal man has been endowed with an insatiable curiosity. He wants to know things simply because they are … [Read more...]
Carbon dating and the Shroud of Turin
If queried for their opinion about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, probably 9 out of every 10 people would essentially say the same thing -- carbon testing performed in 1988 clearly proved that the religious artifact was nothing more than a brilliantly conceived fraud. I can't say that I find fault with the Shroud's critics, because I've seen the same evidence. After all, test results obtained by careful application of the scientific method are really tough to dispute. And the 1988 tests seemed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Shroud was a forgery. Even as stubborn as I can be when it comes to accepting "facts" when other people have told them to me, I must concede that when multiple independent tests have reached the same conclusion, it is almost always because they invariably have gotten the correct answers. It should be noted that the key word in the sentence above is "almost." As part of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) three different laboratories in Zurich, Oxford, and Tucson performed independent carbon dating tests. They all concluded the alleged fake shroud was supposedly manufactured sometime between 1290 and 1360 AD, ostensibly for no other reason than to fool a lot of people and legitimize belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Interestingly, the STURP experiments produced a puzzling mix of results. Tests and analysis eliminated any possibility the image on the fabric had been painted. One test indicated that a copious amount of human blood had saturated the fabric after oozing from the gruesome … [Read more...]
Atheism and life after death
Why are atheists so adamantly opposed to the idea that consciousness could possibly survive physical death of the human brain? For several years now, I've conducted personal research mostly to satisfy my own curiosity about what might happen when we die. I've read dozens, if not hundreds of articles describing various scientific studies of the near death experience to learn what doctors and scientists think they have discovered about this phenomena. I've personally interviewed people making NDE claims. I seen enough and read enough to believe that the mind and brain separate at death. The spiritual mind survives; the physical brain does not. Dr. Bruce Greyson established what is now called the Greyson NDE scale of 16 specific attributes many alleged NDE claims share in common. These attributes include seeing a bright light at the end of a tunnel, reuniting with dead relatives, the sensation of leaving their physical body, etc. My atheist friends have vehemently argued that these events are hallucinogenic in nature, originating from chemicals produced by the dying brain to make the transition to death more pleasant and less traumatic. However, the typical atheist's arguments are fatally flawed, for two reasons. First of all, not every NDE is a pleasant or euphoric experience. Some are quite terrifying. After learning about his experience from the television program I Survived: Beyond and Back, the reason I sought to interview Matthew Botsford in particular was because he was by every account an innocent bystander accidentally gunned down in a drive-by shooting … [Read more...]
The Big Bang by C. W. Bobbitt
When he noted parallels between his independent research and my musing on the Big Bang theory in my book Counterargument for God, Professor C. W. Bobbitt was kind enough to share his thoughts on that same subject. This post is overdue -- it really should have been published along with his writings on the origin of the universe published on this web page last month. Professor Bobbitt has also offered a unique perspective on Darwin and evolution theory that I will post that article in the near future, as soon as I locate the email that I accidentally filed in the wrong folder. HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN: THE BIG BANG The realm of existence contains everything that has being, everything that is. This includes “nothing”, which is the absence of something. This is said to set the stage for our understanding of how something can come from nothing; that is, how the universe could come to be. At some point in existence, “nothing” spontaneously separated into two somethings---two universes, mirror images of each other, each with its own space and time. Since we presently live in a universe which contains matter, let us choose one of these universes to be ours, and let the other universe be one of anti-matter so that the net change of matter due to this event is zero. This has the advantage of satisfying in a measure our innate sense of scientific correctness. We can focus on our universe and forget the other one, which is now in its own space-time .somewhere in existence. The appearance of our universe in existence was instantaneous: there was nothing, then there was … [Read more...]
