Religion In A Clubby Hole Hamid mian #198: ``and, by the way, where did you learn that ``basic`` scientific postulates never change .........``

OK. Now you are finally debating the question. It`s the first reply you have made, without mentioning God. It`s good to see that you are over your knee jerk reaction of associating anyone who disagrees with you as someone pushing religion. Hopefully the other two individuals, whom I interact with on this site (DM and Anil) will start looking at my arguments in this sense also.............

So let`s discuss this..........from your comments I will conclude that you also agree that there is a paradox, and that science has agreed that matter and energy cannot be created out of nothing. And that you do not know of any research or direction of research, which is proving this to be wrong, i.e. more and more data is only solidifying this theory. Not proving it wrong..........This is what I have found in whatever I have had a chance to study......

So can we agree on this............Yes or No.........

After this, we can debate the affects of changing postulates of science...........

Religion In A Clubby Hole hamdim mian#196: ``so you, of all people, independently and without any outside influence were able to figure out that since energy and matter cannot be created out of ``nothing`` there must be a god who runs around talking to prophets in caves``

How many times do I have to tell you that it cannot be proven whether God exists or does not exist. I am not trying to prove anything like that. It is the tenth time I am stating this. You seem to have this paranoia then that anyone who asks you a question, is a religious nutcase, then you need to handle that, on your own..........

If you cannot counter the questions I have asked, simply admit that you cannot. Why are you trying to answer them by bringing God into the equation. Simply answer the questions. I have asked scientific questions, without bringing God into the equation. Yet you want to bring Him in again and again........

I am afraid I will have to move you from group 3 to group 2. It is getting harder and harder for me to figure out who is more indoctrinated - those of group one or group two. The moment anyone challenges any of either`s long held beliefs, they don`t answer the question. They start accusing the questioner...........

So forget about religion. We are talking science. If science has itself, stated that matter and energy cannot be created from nothing. And the big bang theory is based on mass being created out of energy (and not out of nothing), how in the world did the initial building blocks - be they energy or matter - get created?

I am not trying to prove anything about God. So kindly get that out of your system. Just answer the question. If you cannot answer it admit it is a paradox. And we will stop there. If you, like Anil and DM think science will someday prove its own well-established laws to be false, then point me to some scientific research in that direction........

It is possible I am wrong. Maybe it is being proven that matter and energy can be created out of nothing. I want to learn. And since you and DM and some others, are so learned and confident, educate me, also.

If you cannot answer the question and the paradox, nor do you know of anyone who has, then accept my argument.............The third option is, of course, to neither answer the question, nor accept my argument, but to equate me with those who hung burned scientists............

I have to say, in that sense, Urstruly is quite a bit kinder. He only declares me an Ahmedi, when he cannot answer a question I ask him. Your group (you are now in group 2 with DM and Anil), accuse me of being, ``indoctrinated,`` or of burning others at the stake.............

So let`s not mention the word God in the next reply. Just stick to the scientific discussion..........

Religion In A Clubby Hole I think there are four kinds of intelligent and well-informed groups, when it comes to science and religion:

1. Urstruly group: This group`s members analyse everything with reason, as they step back logically towards the paradox of creation. They eventually get to the point where one has to figure out how the intial building blocks of the world were created. A question, beyond science or the human thinking capacity.

They, then fill this paradox with religion. At that point, they stop using reason. They cannot prove God exists, or who created God, but just have, ``faith``.......If one points out their lack of reasoning, they declare the person to be an Ahmedi..........

2. Dost-mittar group: This group reaches the paradox also. They fill the pardox with science. They assume that while science cannot answer this question today, it will answer it someday. They also stop reasoning at that point. They have no idea how science will prove it. They just have, ``faith`` that it will. When when points them to scientific laws, which are the basis of science, itself, indicating that science has already proven that it cannot answer this paradox, they declare the person to be, ``indocrinated,`` with the thinking that led to people being burned at the stake.........

3. Hamidm group: This group is intelligent enough to reach the paradox also. They are also intelligent enough to realize, unlike the first two groups, the limitations of science and religion. However, they do not try to fill the paradox with anything. They just ignore it, and are least bothered by it. They figure, who cares. I want to live life and enjoy it..........

4. The fourth group reaches the paradox, and realizes the limitations of science and religion, like group 3. However, it tries to keep researching for answers........

In my experience, the first two groups are the most confident in their views. They consider the other group to be complete idiots. Anyone who does not agree with them is automatically bracketed into the other group. Either with us or against us. They see every argument as an attack on them. They are, infact, in a state of blissful ignorance. Primarily because, they, themselves, are operating on a, ``faith`` based approach of thinking, i.e. they cannot answer any questions, regardless of how many times one asks them, yet they are confident that they are on the righteous path...........In many cases, the let their political and social views on reglion, overshadow any reasonable thinking.........

The third group is usually the happiest. They know they don`t have the answers, but are least bothered..........

The fourth group is usually the least confident, because it know it does not have any answers. It is also not happy like group three. Infact it is in a state of inquisitive frustration, because it wants to find the answers, through reason. Not through a misguided, ``I don`t have answers, but I know I am right`` approach of group one and two.............

I sympathesize with the simplistic approach of those in group one and two. I envy those in group three. However, I would prefer to be in group four.........

Religion In A Clubby Hole anil #173: ``Science hasn`t proven any such thing. The reason you have forwarded has been put forward by theologians for centuries, to pull down scintific thoughts and many scientists have given their lives on burning stakes. ``

Please study the first law and second law of thermodynamics. Also Einstein`s equations.........These are proven laws, on which scientific discovery is based...........

No one is trying to pull down anything. I think your analysis is incorrect, because, you (like DM) are perhaps letting your political and social views overtake logical analysis. I have had these discussions with multiple people. And invariably, they consider any such discussion to be an attack or a defense. For example, you seem to have automatically considered this an attack on science. If I were to have this discussion with someone pushing religion, they would consider it an attack on religion..........

I would like to encourage you to get out of that line of reasoning, which is based on a like or dislike or religion, and use reason and logic to discucss this. I am neither pushing religion, nor pushing science. i am pushing reason. I think you are pushing science, like DM, to the point of being ideological...........Much like people push religion. I never stated that Islam is the end-all of everything. Yet you assumed, for some reason, that I did. I am just stating science isn`t either (science itself says so).......

Science is not some random magical phenemenon that appears and disappears. Scientific discoveries are, invariably, built on rules and laws discovered before. Rules and laws are varified through experiments. One stands on the shoulders of one theory to prove the next one, thereby pushing the envelope.

The current rules of science, themselves, state that matter and energy cannot be created from nothing. These are proven scientific facts. All future discoveries will be based on these facts. If these facts are proven false, the whole field of science will come crashing down. One will then need a completely new kind of, ``science`` . Not a new branch of science. But a new kind, altogether.

So science, as we know it today, and as the human mind analyses it, has these limitations. I would like to challenge you to disprove this statement, or point me to someone who has laid out a path for disproving this statement................I am looking at it purely from a scientific point of view; not a religious point of view........

You could, of course, add yourself to the group that states someday science will turn this on its head, without acknowledging the facts that science, itself, has proven it cannot. That to me, is the same kind of naivete that many people have about religion..........It is not based on reasoning. It is based on ideology................

Religion In A Clubby Hole Dost-mittar #166: ``It means, dear Romair, that I am not as smart as you are. While you seem to know for sure what the scientists are going to discover in the next 100 or 1000 years, I do not claim any such knowledge.``

I don`t know if you are less or more intelligent than me. I do think you are quite a bit more confident in your views than I am. You seem to have settled on some conclusions.. Much like Urstruly has. Nothing wrong with that. As long as one can back them up with reason.

I am not sure what scientists will discover in the next 1000 years. What I do know is what they will not discover. The reason I know this is because scientists have themselves stated it. These are now the laws of science, on which science itself is based. They are the foundations of science. Amongst them is the law that energy and matter cannot be created from nothing.

This is also the limitation of the human mind. The human mind cannot go across the chasm of figuring out how something can come into existence without a creator. This is why even if God was to show up Himself, the human mind would not be able to answer the question on, who created God........

Hence I recognize the limitations of science and the human mind. Limitations that are proven. While you think, ``maybe`` some miracle will occur, and these limitations will disapper...........

``But you have not addressed the question that I have posed several times. Why give the parents the right to indoctrinate their children so that they lose their faculties to objectively reflect on these issues when they become adults?``

I did not know you had addressed this question to me. It is hard for me to answer it, because my parents never did this to me. I don`t think anyone should indoctrinate anyone on anything. Having said that, to refuse to look at the limitations of science and the human mind itself, and assume that someday, ``maybe`` science will answer certain questions is an indoctrination also...........

``Whe did I say that?``

You said this multiple times. You stated, ``No one is arguing that science provides answers to these questions, at least not yet.`` What does at least not yet mean. It means that you think someday science may prove that energy and matter can be created out of nothing. When, in fact, science (unless someone can correct me) has already proven this is not possible............Hence the hope of, ``not yet`` is a false hope...........

Religion In A Clubby Hole hamidm mian #160/161: ``are you sure that there is a god ?``

No, I am not sure there is a God. I will never be sure, since I do not know of any way to prove it. However, I do know that science has its limitations. There are certain questions, which it will not, ``someday`` answer. This has already been proven by science itself.......I am discussing the later point, not the former..........

``... and by the way, when did you become an expert on god ?....... since you asked dost mittar for his credentials, let`s see yours ................``

Hmmm.....I will take this as a compliment. For some reason, you think I am an expert on everything. I am, by no means, an expert on God. I, thus, have no credentials. I am only an expert on military training, computer science, bulleh shah, karahi ghosht, punjabi movies, bathroom singing and the seductive art of aromatherapy massage..........

However, I admit my lack of expertise. All I am trying to highlight is the misguided wishful thinking of certain individuals who have conveniently concluded that, one day, science will, itself, turn its own rules on its head. They don`t know how. They just know it will happen, through a miracle...........

`` like i said before what is wrong with simply stating ``we don`t know yet, but we are working on it ``

There is nothing wrong with this. This is what I try to do. However, others aren`t so flexible. They are still stuck on notions that science will establish the concept of magic, someday. To accept what we are working on, we have to first know what can and cannot be done. Science cannot fill the gap I described. It, itself, states that. So hoping, needlessly, that science will someday fill it, is a road to nowhere. What will fill that gap:

I don`t know yet, but I am working on it..............

Religion In A Clubby Hole While Khurram details out his theories on how, someday, it will proven that energy and matter can be created from nothing, and DM works on his theories that someday, it may proven that energy and matter can be created out of nothing. The following is what the rest of the scientific community has agreed upon:

First Law of Thermodynamics:

Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state

E = mc2:

This equation proves that energy and mass are interchangeable. Held together by a gigantic constant, c2 - the speed of light (squared). This implies that a small amount of mass can release a huge amount of energy. This also states that energy can be turned into mass. A gigantic amount of energy could (I suppose) turn into mass. This is one way of creation of mass of the world, after the Big Bang...........

However, this equation, itself, proves that while mass and energy are interconvertible, one has to exist, for the other to be created, i.e. if energy is = 0, then mass cannot be created out of, ``nothing.`` And if mass = 0, then energy cannot be released out of, ``nothing.``

It doesn`t matter how much data one feeds into these equations, they are not going to provide different results. So while some of our contributors eagerly await these equations to be proven false, ``someday`` through a science which itself is based on them, I would like to find out if there are any pure scientists, here, who could discuss the subject in more detail. There is only so much one can discuss with retired economists and MBA consultants on this subject.......

Religion In A Clubby Hole Hamidm mian #155: ``......what the heck are you trying to prove ? ......... are you suggesting that until science proves (or disproves) the existence of god people have to believe in something ? .........``

No I am not trying to prove that. As I said, that cannot be proven.........I am only trying to describe the boundaries of science, and trying to find out whether all the people who keep proclaiming all these views on how science can actually answer everything, ``someday`` have even bothered to study science, at all. The more and more I debate with them, the more I am realizing that their confidence of their own theories is based, more on blissful ignronce than anything else..........

People don`t have to believe anything. What they should be willing to do is, at least, reason, based on logic. There is, indeed, a huge gap around the creation of the building blocks of, ``things.`` It is a gap that science, according to its own rules, can never solve. Science, itslef, admits it. If it was ever solved, science itself would collapse..........

Different people will fill this gap differently. Some through God. Others will just ignore it and not think about it. That is fine, it is eveyone`s choice. I am only trying to explain that this gap has been defined by science itself.........and it is no longer a mere theory, it is a proven scieintific fact.............

I think too many people are locked into their religion and anti-religion political views, to be willing to discuss something based on logic. Those who want to push religion, automatically, put God into this gap. Those who want to push anti-religionims in their politics, automatically put, ``someday science will solve this`` into this gap............Neither can provide any factual explanations..........

Religion In A Clubby Hole khurram #: ``It is absolutely a natural phenomenon that will one day be explained by science. I know of no scientist who claims otherwise. Please point me to some evidence if you disagree.``

If you don`t know of any scientists that state that organic life cannot be produced from inorganic life, then I am afraid you have not spend too much time, studying the subject. Before I answer your question, could you let me know whether you have reached your conclusions, on your, ``someday`` theory, based on study, or just through blissful ignorance..........

I suppose an existence of blissful ignorance is very comforting..............But I would encourage you to study the phenomenons and rules of science, if you want to indulge in a debate. Your theory is like someone saying, ``Well someday, we will run into God, hence he exists.``

Religion In A Clubby Hole Dost-mittar #122: ``You are telling others that they are not debating the issue while the fact is that you are changing the debate.``

There are multiple debates going on this thread. Of which I am involved in one.

``You misinterpreted again. When I said at least not yet, it clearly implies the possibility that science may never find asnwers to the question.``

Dil ke khush rakhne ko Ghalib yeh khyal achha hae.....seems to be the approach you are following. This is the problem. You are also stuck in a fantasy land. Much like Mr. Khurram. I can tell that neither of you have indulged in any kind of academic study of science. As I mentioned to him, blissful ignorance, based on an assumption that someday magic will occur, must be quite comforting. This is probably why people in such states are so confident of their views.... I shall leave you in your state of blissful ignorance........However I will address one point you have made.......

What exactly does, ``at least`` not yet mean?

Are you seriously suggesting that one fine day, science might discover that matter and energy can be created out of nothing!! Hasn`t science, itself, established, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by its own rules, that matter and energy cannot simply, ``appear?`` Isn`t this an established rule of science, on which all scientific equations, formulae, laws, theories and hypotheses are based?

Are you waiting for this rule to be turned on its head?

If one fine day, someone uses science to discover that matter and energy can appear out of nowhere and from nothing, then all the scientific rules, on which current science is based, will disappear. The method used to prove your, ``at least not yet,`` and Khurram`s ``someday/more data`` theories will itself be discredited. The equations on which such a discovery will be based, will involve matter and energy, and will themselves be useless. Thereby discrediting the discovery itself............

The impossibility of the appearance of energy and matter from nothing is an established law of science. It cannot be undone with the same science, ``someday,`` which you are claiming adherence to. It defines the limitation of science. And of our human mind. Both of which are not infinitely powerful.

Since I am a computer, ``scientist,`` and not a scientist in the pure fields, I would be interested in any comments from pure scientists, who have studied this. Maybe I have missed something. Can energy and matter be created from a vaccuum of nothingness?

Can you point me to any scientists you have studied, which have convinced you that someday such a thing maybe proved. Kindly no last minute Google searches (as you do when I ask you questions about your miltary theories). I would like to know if you have actually studied the subject, and formulated your view............Or are you just shooting from the hip.............

Religion In A Clubby Hole khurram #: ``Invoking a supernatural being doesn`t seem necessary in either case. The First Cause argument is very old and has been shown to be inadequate for just as long.......You can invoke God at the creation of the universe or even at the creation of life.``

You are unnecessarily bringing God into the discussion. As I stated earlier, the existence of God cannot be proved. So let`s end that side of the discussion. What I am trying to debate is the limited nature of science. The gap and paradoxes that exist in science itself. You are unwilling to discuss those. You have not provided a single counterargument, other than stating that, one fine day, some miracle will happen, and the questions, I have asked, will be answered.........

The whole basis of scientific thought is based on the fact that matter and energy cannot be created from nothing. This is, thus, not an argument. But a proven scientific fact. Every single equation in an scientific field that has matter or energy in it, proves it. E=mc2 proves it. Na + Cl = NaCL proves it.

Science has proven itself, based on its own rules that matter and energy cannot be created from nothing. If they could, then the whole field of science will disappear. Matter and Energy will become undefinable and uncalculatable variables. E will no longer be equal to mc2. It will, infact become impossible to define a value for E (or m). F will no longer be equal to ma. You will not need Na and Cl molecules to make Salt. Salt will just appear from nothing.

In fact, the whole concept of using fossil fuels etc. to produce energy will go down the drain. One will not even need nuclear energy. Because energy will just, ``appear`` from nowhere, as per your theory. You could have a vacuum, and a nuclear explosion could occur in it, even if there isn`t a single atom in there. Water will appear in the vaccum, even if there is no hydrogen or oxygen.........

This is the caveman approach to life that you are suggesting. It is called magic. If one day magic takes over and things start appearing from nothing, then the science used to prove that magic, will itself be discredited........

This is the paradox.............

Science only informs us about how things evolve from one thing to another. It assumes the existence of a set of basic core elements. However, it cannot, by its own rules, inform us on how those basic core elements came into existence..............And the more data it gets, the more the paradox is solidified. Infact, these are all laws. They are not mere theories.

There is not a single occurence in the gazzillions and trillions of chemical reactions and energy transfers that are taking place in the world on a daily basis, where matter and energy came into existence from nowhere!!

Yet you are stuck on your, ``historical event.......which will someday be explained by science`` theory. When science, itself, has already agreed to laws on which it is based, which state that such an event cannot be explained by science...........

The American Nightmare: No Exit, No Entry SaimaShah #184: ``It is a long standing myth that Canadian taxes are higher than US.``

Having paid taxes in both countries, here is how I have analysed it. I cannot remember everything completely...........:

- Canadian taxes are pretty consistent across provinces. US taxes change considerable across states. Some states have no state taxes. Others like California have pretty high ones....

- Canadian Federal taxes are pretty consistent with US Federal taxes........

- Canadian sales taxes are about double of US sales taxes (which vary across states, but not by much).........

- Interestingly, Canadian tax brackets progress upwards, like USA, but USA, ironically, has two tax brackets higher than Canada. The highest tax bracket in Canada is around 113k (?).The highest Federal tax any individual will pay in Canada is 29% (over 113k). The highest someone in USA will pay is around 35% (over 300k or so?)............

- Canadian business taxes are consistent at 21% or so, now. In the USA I think (not sure) they progressively increase to 35% (?). I do know that for my small business, I pay less taxes in Canada than I would be in California............

So a person living in Florida or Nevada, where there is no State tax, I will pay quite a bit less personal tax than Ontario. And more business tax. If I live in California, then I will pay about 2-3% more tax in Ontario, if I am in the 113k bracket. However, I will pay more in California, if I go past 200k. And I will pay more business tax in California.........

I will pay twice the sales tax in Canada. In return I will get free health. And I will get near free college education, through loans and huge subsidization. In addition, Canada is running large budget surpluses for the foreseeable future. Also, Canadian unemployment or social security (can`t remember which one) is overflowing with money..........

Withdrawing from Iraq: A Disaster Waiting to Happen? Interesting comments from well-known jouranlist Eric Margolis:

``Archives > November 14, 2005

AMERICANS ARE RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE WITH THEIR `WAR PRESIDENT’

``.......While I was recently in London, leaked cabinet documents shockingly revealed that shortly before Bush invaded Iraq, he actually told PM Tony Blair he `wanted to go beyond Iraq’ by occupying Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This is the first time we have concrete evidence that two key US allies were in the White House’s crosshairs........``

Religion In A Clubby Hole parthab #111`` You are unnecessarily letting your views about religion cloud your judgement. Let`s leave religion aside. Let`s look at science, only. And, see if scientific thought has paradoxical gaps. You can fill those gaps with whatever you want. God, Bhagwan, aliens, or just not think about them........

Do you, at least, agree that science, itself has proven that matter or energy cannot appear from nothing? Isn`t this the basis of scientific research and theories? Is more and more data that is appearing, proving this fact to be more and more solid? Or is it disproving it?

Do you agree that there is this big hole that exists in science, and that it is not because of lack of data. But because science, itself, based on its own logic, demands this hole. This hole cannot get filled with the current, ``scientific`` thought we have, because the filling of this hole, will lend science, itself, to be wrong...........i.e. the mechanism used to solve the problem, will, itself, be proven wrong, if the problem is to be solved........

This is called a paradox..................And paradoxes cannot be solved by more data. They exist because the more data that becomes availalbe, the more solid the paradox becomes...............i.e. the more science evolves the more it is going to prove that matter cannot be created from nothing................

So how the initial building blocks of matter (the raw material) and energy came into existence is beyond the scope of science to answer.........hence the paradox...........you may not want to fill the paradox with an entity called, ``God.`` But at least, admit the paradox exists! Or prove that it doesn`t exist.............

Religion In A Clubby Hole Dost-mittar #103: `` had used your or my names in a hypothetical sense to make a general point, not about you and me specifically.``

If one is going to present a hypothesis, then one needs to ensure that the samples used in the hypothesis, prove one`s hypothesis. Otherwise the hypothesis becomes invalid.

``No one is arguing that science provides answers to these questions, at least not yet. So your repeating that argument is just fighting a straw man.``

I am always quite amazed how people can simply write off such debates, with such simplicity. I think they want to avoid indulging in such debates, because they may prove the limitations of their arguments. Religious folks tend to avoid the debate, because it leads to questions they cannot answer. And non-religious or anti-religous folks tend to do the same.........

How can you simply state that science cannot provide answers to these questions, ``yet?`` Have you even studied the questions, and the direction science is proceeding towards? Or are you living in a comfortable state fo ignorance, where you have assumed that someday science will provide the answers and hasn`t done so because enough data isn`t available? My experience has been that whenever I discuss this subject, people simply state what you and Khurram have done, i.e. the, ``not yet`` argument.

The fact is that science has already concluded the answers. It has already proven the questions to be a paradox. It has proven them to be the limiting boundary of science. This assumption that science or human logic is a boundless phenomenon is incorrect. Human mind and its capacity to inquire and research is, infact, finite. Science is a creation of this finite capability, hence it will always be finite, also........

We don`t have to fill this gap with the concept of God or anything else, if you don`t want. But, at least, accept the finiteness of the scientific thought and human intelligence. Or provide a valid counter-argument. Maybe, I haven`t researched the subject enough. Maybe, something can appear from nothing. You, and others, are doing neither. To simply state that some scientific miracle will happen, at sometime in the future, if we wait long enough, is too limiting an approach. Science, itself, does not support such thinking.............

Religion In A Clubby Hole khurram #: ``There is not enough data at present to form a reasonable hypothesis. So let`s keep looking. No need to resort to unprovable supernatural hypotheses.``

Finally, we have some sort of a discussion going. Thank God (no pun intended)! I was starting to get a bit tired of all these guys who keep letting logic dictated by their political views..........

More than enough data is already available, and science has already forumlated its laws, regarding the questions I asked.........Hence I cannot agree with your, ``not enough data`` theory............

Forget about religion, for a moment, and how gaps are getting filled. Just stick with science. You agree that, at the moment, science cannot answer these questions that I asked. You have stated that there isn`t enough data available. I am not sure in how much detail you have studied these questions, and the data that is available or unavailable...........If you haven`t studied them, then I suggest you do. It is a fascinating area of study.......

From what I have seen and studied, the answers to these questions are not a problem of data, i.e. if we keep researching and science advances enough, the questions will get answered. It is actually a paradoxical anamoly, i.e the more data that is becoming available, the more it seems to indicate that science cannot answer these questions.

It is like defining the value of infinite. Will infinite be defined, if more mathematical data becocmes available? Or are we becoming more and more sure that infinite is becoming more and more undefinable, as more and more data is becoming available? Or suppose, people want to find out whether a nuclear explosion can take place, without an atomic reaction taking place. Should they say that maybe science will discover that it can be done, so we should simply wait. Or if more and more data is becoming available that it cannot be done, then should they accept the results?..........I would suggest that science demands the later............

1. Science (and logic), itself, through its own laws, dictates that things cannot be created from nothing. This is a core fact on which scientific thought is built. If you take away this principle, science itself comes crashing down. There is more than enough data available to support this. Hence we accept this fact.

Now, you can keep hoping that enough data will become available, someday, that proves that things can be created from nothing. I think you would be living in a dreamland and will have to keep waiting. Or you can accept the hard scientific research that matter and energy have to be created from other things. Isn`t this what Einstein proved? ``Proved,`` being the key word. E=mc2 is proven. As are other equations related to matter and energy. They do not require more data. Much like 2 + 2 = 4. It is not going to become 5, if we wait long enough for more data..............More data will simply solidify the fact that it is equal to 4..........

So, lets set aside religion. Do you, at least agree with the hard scientific facts that matter cannot be created from nothing? i.e. if there is a vacuum, air isn`t just going to appear there from nothing? Or do you plan to keep waiting for more data, which, magically, proves that air can appear? Much like people keep waiting for God to show them a sign.......

The second point is regarding organic life appearing from inorganic life: Aristotle thought that organic life could appear from inorganic life. As do you, it seems like. But since then, science has proven this to be impossible. Do you know of any example in the world, from anytime, where organic life, spontaneously, appeared from inorganic life? Even Dr. Abdus Salam says it cannot happen. Out of the billions and gazzillions of examples of organic life being created in the world, from ameoba to human beings, can you provide me with one example which contradicts this......Or can you, at least, provide a theory, which if fed with more data, could prove the creation of organic life from inorganic life?

Once again, if you research this area, what does science tell you? As more and more, ``data`` is becoming available, isn`t science proceeding in the direction of telling us that organic life just cannot appear from inorganic life?

Once again, let`s just look at it from a scientific point of view. No need to worry about filling the gaps. Just talk about science. I think people get too emotional when religion becomes involved. And refuse to think logically. So even if you are an athiest, could you throw light on which direciton more and more data is taking us, with respect to the questions mentioned above? To me, the argument, ``let`s wait for some miraculous data,`` which will turn every scientific research on its head, upside, is not a good enough argument.

The appearance of such data will have to be a, ``miracle.`` And scientific thought does not recognize miracles............