Before looking into his controversial theory, consider Lanza's credentials, outlined as follows:
"Dr. Robert Lanza is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is currently Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology, and a professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He has several hundred publications and inventions, and over two dozen scientific books: among them, Principles of Tissue Engineering, which is recognized as the definitive reference in the field. Others include One World: The Health & Survival of the Human Species in the 21st Century (Foreword by President Jimmy Carter), and the Handbook of Stem Cells and Essentials of Stem Cell Biology, which are considered the definitive references in stem cell research. Dr. Lanza received his BA and MD degrees from the University of Pennsylvania, where he was both a University Scholar and Benjamin Franklin Scholar." - Lanza's biography is summarized in more detail at this link.
In essence, Lanza proposes that consciousness holds supremacy over the material world. This, of course, is in keeping with the biblical account of Genesis in which the material world was created by the consciousness and will of God. In his article, "Is There a God or Is There Nothingness? New Scientific Paradigm" lanza states,
"And perhaps, if science is clever enough to see, it will realize that religion may not be too far off with its concrete imagery; and that relative to the supreme creator, we humans are much like the microorganisms we scrutinize under the microscope.”
I have explored the question of God's existence with regard to quantum physics in another post, How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence.
Tags: physics proves afterlife, Robert Lanza's theory biocentrism,
Indeed... Let a medical doctor be the expert on Quantum physics. Not to mention that his claim that conciousness hold primacy other the physical world does not in any way prove theology. Still a liar for Jesus, keep the good work. 8)
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for you, Anonymous. Based on your immediate accusation of calling a person who presents a theory a "liar," it seems fairly obvious that you are the same Anonymous that has offered slander and libel at this blog on numerous accounts. You had called me a liar repeatedly because you evidently could not understand that certain words have overlapping areas of meaning, as clearly documented in the following post for all to see:
DeleteSlander, Logic and Venn Diagrams: Adventures in Internet Apologetics
http://templestream.blogspot.com/search?q=slander
And, here again, you cannot seem to understand how a person's theory is not necessary a "lie" just because you do not agree with the summary conclusion.
I don't even agree with Lanza's theory 100%, but would not attempt a civilized discussion with you on this subject because you've demonstrated time and again you are not interested in such. Slander and name-calling are not acceptable here.
R:You had called me a liar repeatedly because you evidently could not understand that certain words have overlapping areas of meaning,
DeleteThere is no overlapping meaning when you try to discredit your opponent by distorting their views, i.e. lie about their views. Remember PZ Myers and his statement that "nothing should be held sacred"? You tried several times to claim Myers meant nothing should be held precious, when he actually said that nothing should be held beyond investigation. The context of his quote was provided to you, but you still repeated your slander in several of your articles and you refuse to retract your statement still. There also at least dozen of examples of your dishonesty and you know it, Rick.
R:And, here again, you cannot seem to understand how a person's theory is not necessary a "lie" just because you do not agree with the summary conclusion.
Nope, Rick. I am not calling you a liar because I disagree with the summary of your conclusion. I am calling you a liar because you try to pass off an unscientific theory for a scientific one.
Fact check time.
Delete"... when he actually said that nothing should be held beyond investigation."
Um, no. This is what he "actually" wrote:
"Nothing must be held sacred."
You are quoting Myers better than Myers? Nice try.
The actual quote was documented by me at this post:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html
And when you click the reference to the original post at Myer's blog where the quote originated, guess what... the article has been taken down.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration
Unfortunately, this will likely be great encouragement for people like you who love to try and change documented facts with subjective revisionism. That is why I have taken screen shots on occasion, just for people like you:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/sets/72157629509280955/with/8497791548/
You can try to change facts if you want to, but you will never be able to alter the fact of God's existence. And your baseless libel and slander only serve to identify you with the Father if Lies and affirm the darkness of your condition. I do feel sorry for you.
R:Um, no. This is what he "actually" wrote
DeleteGood job, Rick. You constantly bitch about how quotes from the bible should not be taken out of context. But when it comes to your opponents, who cares? You can add to your title of a liar also hyppocrite.
You quote mine Myers and infuse his views with something he never claimed. Here is the complete quote, where you can see that he never claimed that nothing should be held precious:
"...They are just paper. Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet. You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanity’s knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality. You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance, but you can find truth by looking at your world with fresh eyes and a questioning mind."
R:And when you click the reference to the original post at Myer's blog where the quote originated, guess what... the article has been taken down.
Google is your friend, Rick.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/24/the-great-desecration/
R:u can try to change facts if you want to, but you will never be able to alter the fact of God's existence.
Sorry... The invisible all-knowing invisible pink unicorn, who cannot lie, told me god does not exist. His words are much more trustworthy than the voices in your head.
That is pure
"...You quote mine Myers and infuse his views with something he never claimed. Here is the complete quote..."
DeleteWould including the title and all the other points relevant to my comment about his post also be considered "quote mining" in your view? :)
What is the "actual" title, Anonymous. Let's see, "The Great Desecration"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/24/the-great-desecration/
Surely that title implies that Mr. Myers is interested in "questioning" the veracity of ideas, as Anonymous has claimed is his main point. Wait, what is the definition of desecration:
"des·e·crate
transitive verb \ˈde-si-ˌkrāt\
: to damage (a holy place or object) : to treat (a holy place or object) with disrespect.
What does the title correspond more with, Mr. Anonymous' claim or my claim, that Mr. Myers wishes that "Nothing must be held sacred." Obviously the latter.
And there is a nice quote outlining how Mr. Myers "questions" the efficacy of a communion wafer which the Bible claims offers grace to to those who partake with faith:
" I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffeegrounds and a banana peel."
Yup, that is a real solid and logical means of "questioning" ideas, Anonymous.
Oh, and let us not forget that PZ Myers refuses to have his own ideas and views on morality questioned. as a true hypocrite. On the one hand PZ claims the following:
So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions..."
http://www.conservapedia.com/PZ_Myers_on_bestiality
But then PZ refuses to define what those conditions would look like when asked several times.
The obvious reason is that PZ Myers has no foundation for his moral codes. He has his "moral tools" in a plastic toy secular humanist tool box that he cannot logically account for. But he does like to pretend they are useful in a childish kind of way.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html
So, Anonymous, your slander against me is in no way justified.
R:Would including the title and all the other points relevant to my comment about his post also be considered "quote mining" in your view? :)
DeleteNope, quote minning would be to put a part of a quote into your article and distort the views of the person for your personal gain. Like maybe how you you did with Myers quote about "nothing should be held sacred", you included human life in it and claimed PZ thought human life was no more precious than the life of cattle.
R:Surely that title implies that Mr. Myers is interested in "questioning" the veracity of ideas, as Anonymous has claimed is his main point.
Sorry, I constantly forget you have a reading disability and reading comprehension is not your forte. Pinpointing the main idea of a text is a heroic feat for you, isn it?
You seem to fail to understand that atheists do not care that much for crackers and that what they are against is dogmatic believes.
R:The obvious reason is that PZ Myers has no foundation for his moral codes. He has his "moral tools" in a plastic toy secular humanist tool box that he cannot logically account for.
Great Red herring. Myers views on morality have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
However, I will humor you.
1) The fact that Myers did not explain to you his moral system in details does not mean he cannot do so. I already told you, Rick. Many consider you a pest and they are free not to interact with you just like you are free not to interract with them. And yes, it hypocritical of you to accuse other people of something you practice yourself. Like ignoring Havok maybe?
2) As a true hypocrite yourself, Rick. You should not call people names like that. For example, you seem upset that Singer supports theoretically infanticide of children for the greater good, but at the same time you, Rick, support the practical infanticide of Canaanite children because a "good" god ordered that.
3) You are also an immoral monster for not even having an idea why people might behave decently to each other without the orders of a celestial dictator. I offered you my own working secular moral system that I have explained in details several times. You just dismissed without any arguments telling it is impossible to objectively tell things like smoking are good or bad for the individual and society.
R:So, Anonymous, your slander against me is in no way justified
Nope, nothing changes, Rick. You are still a liar. You tried to use PZ s quote "nothing should be held sacred" to distort his views and that was pointed out several times to you. You tried to make it look that PZ considered the life of human beings no different from the life of cattle, which is blatantly false. Human life does not need to be sacred to be more important than the life other animals