The Intelligent Designer

[Bishadi]

 

By Theist

Any truly open minded scientist must realize that there is a Supreme Intelligence behind this phenomenal world

Wrong and extremely biased line of thought. Most scientists know of “God” by understanding the fact that all things are associated but it has nothing to do with a “Supreme Intelligence behind the phenomena.”

What phenomena would you like to know about? Be specific!

 

An example of an open minded scientist would be the agnostic. He honestly admits he does not know but will follow the facts where they lead. That is open minded.

I agree and why it cracks me up that since you have admitted you ‘do not know,’ why would you point to the same ‘cop out’ that theologians have been doing for generations.

Is it possible that maybe someday ‘we the people’ will know God, personally?

And if you and the scientists on this globe basically understand that God is within or “of’ the total, why would His compassion not allow us to know, let alone mention a return?

You are short changing yourself, your rendition and the works of the forefathers.

Are you a preacher (oppressor)? Because to suggest we/us will never know not only is against what out fathers told us, but also suggests God “the total” just never does anything right and can not be believed.

Men make the mistakes in Understanding ….. the ‘total’ never does, and until you take the time to understand ‘all of it’ then please be fair to the persons who want to know….

Please step off the podium!

If you haven’t noticed, I hate with a passion, the people who are not willing to grow but try and teach without knowing what the heck they are talking about.

Sagan is dead and Hawkins is lost in funding pursuits for <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:City><st1:place>Cambridge</st1:place></st1:City>.

What phenomena do you wish to discuss? I like nuts and bolts or even waves. The issue within today’s sciences has a problem of not addressing the wave particle duality and Planck issued a constant from the block box phenomenon which has caused most of the problems within the sciences.

But I think you want to know more on other phenomena…. Open a thread and let’s make fun of my ideas. .. I don’t mind being the butt of a joke …. Laughter releases endorphins which are good for us. (or is that an emotion you also want to oppress)

Next you may say ‘be chaste’ and for you that may work as we the people do in fact wish for negatives to go extinct.

Double edged message …

[Guest guest]

 

An example of an open minded scientist would be the agnostic. He honestly admits he does not know but will follow the facts where they lead. That is open minded.

 

Obviously, for many scientists around the world, the honest, objective research of available facts led to the conclusion that there is no perceivable common intelligent design in this universe. Now because this conclusion is different from yours, how can you conclude scientists are not open minded or are dishonest?

 

You also contradict yourself. If the agnost is the honest one, then you the theist are dishonest just like the atheist and your position is incorrect by your own admission. If you take the position that the agnost should either remain an agnost forever or is allowed to turn into a theist only but never an atheist, then do you consider yourself to be open minded or close minded?

[theist]

Please pardon me for ignoring you Bishadi but I feel responding to your posts in like stepping into a quagmire.

[theist]

 

Obviously, for many scientists around the world, the honest, objective research of available facts led to the conclusion that there is no perceivable common intelligent design in this universe. Now because this conclusion is different from yours, how can you conclude scientists are not open minded or are dishonest?

 

First thing the method of investigation that they employed is severly flawed. They rely solely on the material senses and the extentions of imperfect senses like the telesope and microscope. Then they bring in the materially conditioned mind to form theories on what they observe. Spiritual understanding can never be arrived at by such a clumsy and flawed process. God is self revealing and not duty bound to reveal Himself to anyone with a big telescope and a big brain.

 

 

You also contradict yourself. If the agnost is the honest one, then you the theist are dishonest just like the atheist and your position is incorrect by your own admission.

 

There is no contradiction guest. Having the proper conclusion shown to you and thereby knowing that God exists behnd all phenomena does not make one dishonest. The agnostic is honest and open because he admits he does not know. The theist is honest and open because he admits he does know and he remains open because the Supreme Intelligent being has no limit ,so to continue learning about God one must remain open to more and more revelation should the Lord bless in that way.

 

The atheist is dishonest because he claims to know something he does not know. He boldly states there is no God but in reality all he can honestly say is that he has found no proof that there is God or that there is not God. So the atheist is really an agnostic who is to ****ing arrogant to admit he doesn't know. And by spouting off and posturing like he does know he misleads so many people with his bluff. This is actually a form of violence that is being perpetuate on humanity by these atheistic scientists and to speak openly they are criminals.

 

Let me ask you this. What proof is there that God does not exist? Can you provide such proof? No.

 

Can I provide proof that God exists? Yes. But I cannot make you see God in what I offer as proof. That vision comes from the Lord Himself as does the covering that prevents one from seeing Him. We can only offer logic to the extent we are able to convince another that the possiblity of God is worth exploring. And only the honest agnostic will be open minded enough to consider our proposal.

 

 

If you take the position that the agnost should either remain an agnost forever or is allowed to turn into a theist only but never an atheist, then do you consider yourself to be open minded or close minded?

 

Well I don't take that position. It is not up to me to allow or disallow anything to anyone. The Supremely Intelligent Being Himself allows every soul the choice of being conscious of Him or forgetful of Him. He has obviously allowed souls to think as an atheist if they like. I myself was an atheist until 18. I never thought the topic of God or no God was important enough to even think about. So he allowed me to be an atheist.

 

God awareness is not something that anyone can force on another. The initiative to open oneself up to God comes from within each soul.

 

Do I consider myself to be open minded or close minded? Well I consider myself to be a bit of both. I am in the process of opening. In transistion from totally closed to fully open to God. I suspect the ratio is something like 1% open and still 99% closed. But that 1% is enough to convince me of God's existence and that opening up the other 99% is the only goal worth struggling for.

 

The goal is to become 100% open and to remain eternally in that position. To be done with these shifting mental states of "I believe," I don't believe," Well maybe," and to become irrevocably fixed in the Absolute Truth.

[suchandra]

who can intelligently lift up about 40 million tons of dust and transport it annually from the Sahara to the Amazon basin? Only Krishna can do this! Saharan dust has been proposed to be the main mineral source that fertilizes the Amazon basin, generating a dependence of the health and productivity of the rain forest on dust supply from the Sahara.

"Here we show that about half of the annual dust supply to the Amazon basin is emitted from a single source: the Bodélé depression located northeast of Lake Chad, approximately 0.5% of the size of the Amazon or 0.2% of the Sahara. Placed in a narrow path between two mountain chains that direct and accelerate the surface winds over the depression, the Bodélé emits dust on 40% of the winter days, averaging more than 0.7 million tons of dust per day."

 

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/1/1/014005/erl6_1_014005.html

 

 

"Satellite observations show continuous dust transport across 5000 km from the Saharan sources to the Caribbean Sea and North America in the Northern summer and to the Amazon basin during the Northern winter [1, 2]. Due to the annual cycle in winds over the Sahara, the winter Saharan dust sources are different from the summer sources [3]. In the summer, dust fluxes reaching the Tropical Atlantic shore originate mainly from the northwest and central-west parts of the Sahara. During winter, strong surface winds (the Harmattan winds) occur along the southern border of the Sahara, activating sources on the border of the Sahel, notably the Bodélé depression in Northern Chad.

Analysis of satellite data [4] shows that out of the 240 ± 80 Tg (1 Tg = 10<SUP>12</SUP> g = one million tons) of dust transported annually from Africa to the Atlantic ocean, 140 Tg are transported in the summer and 100 Tg in the winter. A total of 140 ± 40 Tg is deposited in the Atlantic ocean and 50 ± 15 Tg reach and fertilize the Amazon basin. This is four times an older estimate, explaining a paradox regarding the source of nutrients to the Amazon forest. Swap et al suggested [5] that while the source for minerals and nutrients in the Amazon is the dust from Africa, it was estimated that only 13 Tg of dust per year actually arrive in the Amazon. However, they pointed out that 50 Tg are needed to balance the Amazon nutrient budget.

Here we show a remarkable arrangement in nature in which the mineral dust arriving at the Amazon [6, 7] basin from the Sahara actually originates from a single source of only ~ 0.5% of the size of the Amazon or ~ 0.2% of the Sahara: the Bodélé depression. Located northeast of Lake Chad (17°N, 18°E) near the northern border of the Sahel, it is known to be the most vigorous source for dust over the entire globe [3, 8]. Unlike most of the large sources in the Sahara that emit mainly during the summer months, the Bodélé depression emission pattern reaches its peak during the winter months. This depression is a unique dust source due to its location at a bottle neck of two large magmatic formations that serves as a `wind lens', guiding and focusing the surface winds to the Bodélé.

The Tibesti mountains to the north and the Ennedi mountains southeast of the Bodélé form a large (more than 44 300 km<SUP>2</SUP>) caldera-like valley [9]. Downwind, on the southwest corner, the caldera forms a cone with a narrow pass that accelerates the surface winds towards the Bodélé, which is located in a depression along the pass (see figure 1 right). A unique low level wind jet (LLJ) forms over the Bodélé [10, 11], and the maximum dust production occurs in the winter when the LLJ is strongest. <!--[ej/figure/start]-->

<TABLE width="80%" bgColor=#ffffcc><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>Figure 1. The surface wind focusing toward the Bodélé. Right: 3D topography of the Sahara; left: a rare shuttle image of emission from the Bodélé between the Tibesti and the Ennedi mountains (the projection of the shuttle image is marked in black on the map and the viewing direction is towards the southwest). The most significant pass between the northeast of the Sahara and the southwest is the one between the Tibesti and the Ennedi mountains. The structure of the mountains creates a caldera shape that guides and accelerates the surface winds from the northeast through the narrow pass located at the southwest. The Bodélé is located downwind directly after the pass. Several wind tunnels can be seen on the shuttle image starting as far north as 1000 km from the pass and focusing towards it, activating the Bodélé downwind from the passage (marked as white lines in the topographic map). A heavy dust storm leaving the Bodélé towards the Sahel is can be seen in the distance. The white dust emitted from the Bodélé is shown in the middle of the narrow path between the Tibesti (the black mountains on the right) and the Ennedi (left) approaching Lake Chad (see on the right near the horizon). The focusing effect can be seen as the distance between the wind tunnels become smaller near the Tibesti–Ennedi narrow path.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!--[ej/figure/end]-->

During the winter, the near surface winds are consistently northeasterly, making the Tibesti–Ennedi structure very efficient in focusing and guiding the winds over the Bodélé with an average of more than two days per week of winds stronger than 12 m s<SUP>–1</SUP> [9, 11]. The surface winds over the Bodélé have a pronounced diurnal pattern, reaching the critical velocity for dust emission in the early morning and weakening toward the evening [12]. Therefore a clear `dust parcel' forms, travelling away from the Bodélé, shown as an area covered by heavy dust with clear borders. This parcel can be detected by satellites on the day following the emission (figure 3: see the parcel in the right satellite image) and sometimes can be followed up to 3–4 days downwind, southwestward towards the Atlantic. In the same season, the Sahel biomass burning reaches its peak [13]. Therefore, the dust from the Bodélé may mix with the smoke, making retrievals of the dust properties over the Sahel much more difficult. Actual transport of a dust parcel from the Bodélé to the Atlantic ocean can be seen on an ozone monitoring instrument (OMI) [14] movie (available at ). The rate of emission from the Bodélé depression has not been measured yet from space or otherwise, due to its remote, isolated location and difficulties in analysis of traditional satellite data of dust over the bright desert. Here we take advantage of recent advancement in satellite instrumentation to produce the first quantitative estimate of the amount of dust emitted from the Bodélé and transported across the Atlantic ocean to the Amazon. The analysis of emission combines data from two satellite instruments: MODIS (moderate-resolution imaging spectroradiometer), which provides daily observations of dust emitting days and dust parcel area but no quantitative estimates of dust concentration over the bright desert; and MISR (multi-angle imaging spectroradiometer), which provides estimates of the average dust optical depth of the parcel that in turn is used to derive the dust column mass but has only a nine-day revisit frequency.

 

2. Methods and results

The analysis over land is aimed at estimating the contribution of the Bodélé to the total dust flux reaching the African coast, followed by detailed analysis of dust fluxes reaching the Amazon coast, over the Atlantic ocean. Data from the MODIS blue channel (0.47 µm), with 1 km resolution, are used for detecting the area of the dust parcel emitted from the Bodélé. By using information from two satellites carrying the instrument, observing the same spot on ground 3 h apart (Terra ~ 10:30 AM, Aqua 1:30 PM), we observed the patterns of the dust activity. The dust (wind) speed and direction are calculated from the difference in the location of the dust front in the two satellites [9]. Then the emission starting time is estimated from the wind speed, the location of the source and the location of the dust front, and the duration of the emission is extracted from the wind velocity and the length of the dust parcel along the wind direction. Similarly, these properties can be calculated when using the location of the dust parcel from satellite images of the day after the emission. The optical parameters of the dust plume are derived from MISR data [15]. Each MISR pixel is measured from nine different angles, enabling the use of the directional variability of the dust in order to retrieve optical parameters over bright surfaces. The dust flux was calculated by converting the MISR optical thickness into dust mass [4] and integrating it over the entire parcel.

Dust emission starts with saltation and blasting of the surface crust by larger particles that release and lift the finer dust particles [16]. The large particles sink relatively quickly and are not transported to large distances from the source. The aerosol optical depth near the Bodélé may contain a contribution from the large particles. Therefore, to estimate the amount of fine dust that can be transported over large distances we focus on the day following the emission, where the average dust parcel is more than 1200 km away from the source.

The mass column concentration for Saharan dust M is estimated from the dust optical depth τ<SUB>d</SUB> using the following ratio:

as estimated in several field experiments combined with Aeronet measurements and models [17–21]. The mass flux of a particular event over land is the product of the average mass column concentration (calculated from the average dust optical thickness) and the parcel area.

The analysis of the MODIS and MISR satellite data over the desert was complemented with calculations of the dust flux over the Atlantic ocean. To do so, we separated the satellite measurements of aerosol optical depth into dust, marine aerosol and smoke. The amount of marine aerosol is estimated using the NCEP surface winds [22]. Dust and smoke are separated by estimating the contribution of the fine particles to the optical depth derived from MODIS. The flux of dust transported from Africa to Brazil is then calculated by applying the westward NCEP winds to the dust concentration, and the longitudinal length between 20°S and 10°N of the segment through which the flux is being computed near the African and the Brazilian coasts (the method and results are described in detail in [4]).

All dust outbreaks over the Saharan Atlantic zone from October 2003 to October 2004 were analysed in this study. Figure 2 (blue line) shows the accumulated distribution of days that the Bodélé emitted dust form October 2003 to October 2004 defined from MODIS data. Dust emission was highest during the winter time and occurred on 50% of the days during late winter and spring (February–April). The average duration of each event is about four days. The emission decreased sharply in May–June and occurred on less than 20% of the days during July–September. <!--[ej/figure/start]-->

<TABLE width="80%" bgColor=#ffffcc><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>Figure 2. Dust emission from the Bodélé. The blue line shows a cumulative histogram of the Bodélé emission days between October 2003 to October 2004 and the red line is the corresponding cumulative histogram of the estimated dust mass emitted from the Bodélé. This analysis indicates that more than 60 Tg of dust were emitted during this year.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!--[ej/figure/end]--><!--[ej/figure/start]-->

<TABLE width="80%" bgColor=#ffffcc><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>Figure 3. Dust production and transport across the Atlantic ocean from the Bodélé depression northeast of Lake Chad (17°N, 18°E) to the Amazon basin. Main image: distribution of the average aerosol optical depth as a measure for the column aerosol concentration derived from MODIS data for January 2003–March 2003 (http://g0dup05u.ecs.nasa.gov/OPS/Giovanni/). The upper right MODIS true colour image shows a huge dust plume leaving the Bodélé depression in the top right corner. The dust parcel emitted on the previous day, 1300 km downwind from the Bodélé, is shown closer to the ocean. The parcel is marked with an arrow connecting to the parcels optical depth measured by the MISR instrument (upper left). High dust concentrations follow all the way to the Amazon, with cross section profiles of dust western transport flux shown as a function of latitude (averaged for 5° of latitude and longitude) centred at 17°W and 37°W.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!--[ej/figure/end]-->

The average measured wind near the source derived from the Aqua–Terra difference for 40 cases is 13.2 ± 1 m s<SUP>–1</SUP> with azimuth direction of 250° ± 6°, in line with previous measurements [7]. Moreover, during the winter–spring period the wind of the one-day-old dust parcel has a similar average wind speed of 13.0 ± 1.5 m s<SUP>–1</SUP> and direction of 247° ± 9°. The average daily duration of emission is 8 ± 2 h, starting at 5 am ± 2 h. The average length of the dust package is L = 370 ± 100 km, and the average width is W = 700 ± 300 km.

Based on 21 cases of MISR analysis, the one-day-old dust parcel has an average optical depth of 1.1 ± 0.4 (with standard error of 0.1), and neutral spectral reflection of sunlight (Angstrom exponent of 0.2), indicating that the aerosol is pure dust [23]. The error estimate includes the error due to averaging for the entire parcel and the error of the dust retrieval [24]. The total mass of dust emitted from the Bodélé and observed by MODIS on the next day parcel is calculated as the product of the average MISR aerosol optical depth and the average parcel area covered by the dust, yielding M<SUB>tot</SUB> = 2.7 τ<SUB>du</SUB>A, where A is the averaged parcel area, M<SUB>tot</SUB> = 0.77 ± 0.1 Tg/day. The accumulation of emitted dust mass from October 2003 to October 2004 is plotted in red in figure 2. The analysis of the satellite data shows that during the winter–spring time of 2003–2004 more than 58 ± 8 Tg of dust were emitted from the Bodélé, as measured 1300 km downwind from the source. At this distance the dust parcel is mostly free of the large particles that were removed earlier by gravitational settling. The estimates of dust flux emitted from the Bodélé depression are compared here to the dust fluxes across the Atlantic ocean to the Amazon [4]. In figure 3, we show the results of calculation for average of two years (2003–2004) of emissions and two cross section of the Atlantic ocean, one next to the African coast (brown frame) and one next to the South American coast (yellow frame). Out of 80 ± 8 Tg of dust transported to the ocean from Africa (between 20°S and 10°N), 40 ± 13 Tg arrive at South America. If we assume that the deposition rates over West Africa are similar to those over the Atlantic ocean we find that out of the 58 ± 8 Tg of dust emitted from the Bodélé depression, about 45 ± 6 Tg are loaded on the westward trade winds to be transported across the ocean. This amounts to 56% of the total annual burden, all coming from a single source.

 

3. Discussion

Using satellite data and reanalysis wind fields we have identified a remarkable connection between the Amazon forest and a single dust source in the Sahara: the Bodélé depression and its wind regime. A unique combination of global wind pattern and topography forms a vigorous dust source that emits an average of more than 0.7 Tg of dust per emission day and is active mostly during the winter–spring, which is different from most other Saharan dust sources. We estimate that between November and March, the Bodélé depression sends more than half of the dust that is deposited annually in the Amazon forest. Our direct measurements are consistent with a recent modelling study showing that the Bodélé is responsible for > 40% of dust optical depth over the Amazon in the winter season [25].

The soil of the Amazon tropical rainforest is shallow, poor in nutrients and almost without soluble minerals. Heavy rains have washed away the nutrients in the soil obtained from weathered rocks. The rainforest has a short nutrient cycle, and due to the heavy washout, a stable supply of minerals is required to keep the delicate nutrient balance [26]. Kimmins [27] showed that any change in the nutrient supply will convert tropical forests to `wet deserts'.

Despite the insight we gained into the role of the Bodélé in fertilization of the Amazon forest, some key questions remain open. What is the relationship of the mineralogical content of the dust to the local surface mineralogy? What is the size of the reservoir of mineral dust there? And since when has the Bodélé emitted such a huge amount of dust, and for how long will it continue to do so? Such questions, among others, were the motivation for the BoDEx Field Experiment [28]. An expedition to the Bodélé during the spring of 2005 aimed at collecting in situ measurements of the emitted dust, and characterizing the local meteorology and the surface properties [29]. Answers to these questions are needed to understand the nature of the emissions in the past, and the future capability of the Bodélé to fertilize the Amazon."

 

 

Acknowledgments We thank Gala Wind for the help with the MISR analysis. This work was supported by NASA. IK is incumbent of the Benjamin H Swig and Jack D Weiler career development chair. This research was partly funded by the Weizmann–Argentina Cooperation program.

References

<DL compact><DT>[1] <DD>Prospero J M and Carlson T N 1972 Vertical and areal distribution of Saharan dust over the western equatorial North Atlantic ocean J. Geophys. Res. 77 5255–65

Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[2] <DD>Carlson T N 1979 Atmospheric turbidity in Saharan dust outbreaks as determined by analysis of satellite brightness data Mon. Weather Rev. 107 322–35

CrossRef Link | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[3] <DD>Prospero J M, Ginoux P, Torres O, Nicholson S E and Gill T E 2002 Environmental characterization of global sources of atmospheric soil dust identified with the NIMBUS 7 total ozone mapping spectrometer (TOMS) absorbing aerosol product Rev. Geophys. 40 1002

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[4] <DD>Kaufman Y J, Koren I, Remer L A, Tanré D, Ginoux P and Fan S 2005 Dust transport and deposition observed from the Terra-MODIS space observations J. Geophys. Res. 110 D10S12

Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[5] <DD>Swap R et al 1992 Saharan dust in the Amazon basin Tellus B 44 133–49

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[6] <DD>Talbot R W et al 1990 Aerosol chemistry during the wet season in Central Amazonia: the influence of long-range transport J. Geophys. Res. 95 (D10) 16955–9

Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[7] <DD>Artaxo P et al 1990 Aerosol characteristics and sources for the Amazon Basin during the wet season J. Geophys. Res. 95 16971–86

Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[8] <DD>Washington R, Todd M, Middleton N J and Goudie A S 2003 Dust-storm source areas determined by the total ozone monitoring spectrometer and surface observations Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 93 297–313

CrossRef Link | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[9] <DD>Koren I and Kaufman Y J 2004 Direct wind measurements of Saharan dust events from Terra and Aqua satellites Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 (6)

Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[10] <DD>Washington R, Todd M C, Engelstaedter S, Mbainayel S and Mitchell F 2006 Dust and the low-level circulation over the Bodélé depression, Chad: observations from BoDEx 2005 J. Geophys. Res. 111 D03201

Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[11] <DD>Washington R and Todd M C 2005 Atmospheric controls on mineral dust emission from the Bodélé depression, Chad: the role of the low level jet Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 L17701

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[12] <DD>Ginoux P and Torres O 2003 Empirical TOMS index for dust aerosol: applications to model validation and source characterization J. Geophys. Res. 108 4534

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[13] <DD>Herman J R et al 1997 Global distribution of UV-absorbing aerosols from Nimbus 7/TOMS data J. Geophys. Res. 102 16911–22

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[14] <DD>Torres O, Decae R, Veefkind P and de Leeuw G 2002 OMI aerosol retrieval algorithm Algorithm Theoretical Baseline Document: Clouds, Aerosols, and Surface UV Irradiance vol III ed P Stammes<SUP></SUP> ATBD-OMI-03 version 2.0 <DT>[15] <DD>Kahn R, Gaitley B, Martonchik J, Diner D, Crean K and Holben B 2005 Multiangle imaging spectroradiometer (MISR) global aerosol optical depth validation based on two years of coincident AERONET observations J. Geophys. Res.—Atmos. 110 D10S04

Order from Infotrieve <DT>[16] <DD>Shao Y and Raupach M 1993 Effect of saltation bombardment by wind J. Geophys. Res. 98 12719–26

Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[17] <DD>Haywood J, Francis P, Osborne S, Glew M, Loeb N, Highwood E, Tanré D, Myhre G, Formenti P and Hirst E 2003 Radiative properties and direct radiative effect of Saharan dust measured by the C-130 aircraft during SHADE: 1. Solar spectrum J. Geophys. Res. 108 8577

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[18] <DD>Tanré D et al 2001 Climatology of dust aerosol size distribution and optical properties derived from remotely sensed data in the solar spectrum J. Geophys. Res. 106 18205–17

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[19] <DD>Maring H, Savoie D L, Izaguirre M A, Custals L and Reid J S 2003 Mineral dust aerosol size distribution change during atmospheric transport J. Geophys. Res. 108 8592

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[20] <DD>Ginoux P et al 2001 Sources and distributions of dust aerosols simulated with the GOCART model J. Geophys. Res. 106 20255–74

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[21] <DD>Fan S, Horowitz L W, Levy HII and Moxim W J 2004 Impact of air pollution on wet deposition of mineral dust aerosols Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 L02104

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[22] <DD>Kalnay E et al 1996 The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 77 437–71

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[23] <DD>Tanré D, Kaufman Y J, Holben B N, Chatenet B, Karnieli A, Lavenu F, Blarel L, Dubovik O, Remer L A and Smirnov A 2001 Climatology of dust aerosol size distribution and optical properties derived from remotely sensed data in the solar spectrum J. Geophys. Res. 106 18205–18

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[24] <DD>Martonchik J V, Diner D J, Kahn R and Gaitley B 2004 Comparison of MISR and AERONET aerosol optical depths over desert sites Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 L16102

CrossRef Link | Inspec Abstract | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[25] <DD>Tegen I et al 2006 Modeling soil dust aerosol in the Bodélé depression during the BoDEx campaign Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6 4345–59

Order from Infotrieve <DT>[26] <DD>Vitousek P M and Stanford R LJr 1986 Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forest Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17 137–67

CrossRef Link | Order from Infotrieve <DT>[27] <DD>Kimmins J P 1997 Forest Ecology: a Foundation for Sustainable Management 2nd edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall) p 596 <DT>[28] <DD>BoDEx Field Experiment—Chad 2005 http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/bodex/index.html <DT>[29] <DD>Giles J 2005 Climate science: the dustiest place on earth Nature 434 816–9

CrossRef Link | PubMed Abstract | Order from Infotrieve</DD></DL>

[theist]

TRANSLATION SB 2.4.22

May the Lord, who in the beginning of the creation amplified the potent knowledge of Brahmā from within his heart and inspired him with full knowledge of creation and of His own Self, and who appeared to be generated from the mouth of Brahmā, be pleased with me.

 

PURPORT

As we have already discussed hereinbefore, the Lord, as the Supersoul of all living beings from Brahmā to the insignificant ant, endows all with the required knowledge potent in every living being. A living being is sufficiently potent to possess knowledge from the Lord in the proportion of fifty sixty-fourths, or seventy-eight percent of the full knowledge acquirable. Since the living being is constitutionally part and parcel of the Lord, he is unable to assimilate all the knowledge that the Lord possesses Himself. In the conditioned state, the living being is subject to forget everything after a change of body known as death. This potent knowledge is again inspired by the Lord from within the heart of every living being, and it is known as the awakening of knowledge, for it is comparable to awakening from sleep or unconsciousness. This awakening of knowledge is under the full control of the Lord, and therefore we find in the practical world different grades of knowledge in different persons. This awakening of knowledge is neither an automatic nor a material interaction. The supply source is the Lord Himself (dhiyāḿ patiḥ), for even Brahmā is also subject to this regulation of the supreme creator. In the beginning of the creation, Brahmā is born first without any father and mother because before Brahmā there were no other living beings. Brahmā is born from the lotus which grows from the abdomen of the Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and therefore he is known as Aja. This Brahmā, or Aja, is also a living being, part and parcel of the Lord, but being the most pious devotee of the Lord, Brahmā is inspired by the Lord to create, subsequent to the main creation by the Lord, through the agency of material nature. Therefore neither the material nature nor Brahmā is independent of the Lord. The material scientists can merely observe the reactions of the material nature without understanding the direction behind such activities, as a child can see the action of electricity without any knowledge of the powerhouse engineer. This imperfect knowledge of the material scientist is due to a poor fund of knowledge. The Vedic knowledge was therefore first impregnated within Brahmā, and it appears that BrahmāBrahmā is undoubtedly the speaker of the Vedic knowledge, but actually he was inspired by the Lord to receive such transcendental knowledge, as it directly descends from the Lord. The Vedas are therefore called apauruṣeya, or not imparted by any created being. Before the creation the Lord was there (nārāyaṇaḥ paro 'vyaktāt), and therefore the words spoken by the Lord are vibrations of transcendental sound. There is a gulf of difference between the two qualities of sound, namely prākṛta and aprākṛta. The physicist can deal only with the prākṛta sound, or sound vibrated in the material sky, and therefore we must know that the Vedic sounds recorded in symbolic expressions cannot be understood by anyone within the universe unless and until one is inspired by the vibration of supernatural (aprākṛta) sound, which descends in the chain of disciplic succession from the Lord to Brahmā, from BrahmāNārada, from Nārada to Vyāsa and so on. No mundane scholar can translate or reveal the true import of the Vedic mantras (hymns). They cannot be understood unless one is inspired or initiated by the authorized spiritual master. The original spiritual master is the Lord Himself, and the succession comes down through the sources of paramparā, as clearly stated in the Fourth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā. So unless one receives the transcendental knowledge from the authorized paramparā, one should be considered useless (viphalā matāḥ), even though one may be greatly qualified in the mundane advancements of arts or science.

Śukadeva Gosvāmī is praying from the Lord by dint of being inspired from within by the Lord so that he could rightly explain the facts and figures of creation as inquired by Mahārāja Parīkṣit. A spiritual master is not a theoretical speculator, like the mundane scholar, but is śrotriyaḿ brahma-niṣṭham [MU 1.2.12].

[brajeshwara das]

ok, I haven't read all the posts in this thread so forgive me if this is off topic, but here is my perspective: I don't think I want Intelligent Design taught to my kid in US public schools. This is primarily because I believe my Guru and temple, and myself, should be providing this education so he doesn't get any crippling misconceptions. The Christian Fundamentalists definitely aren't friendly to Gaudiya Vaisnavas from my experience (I've been told I'm going to hell too many times now, to me that is the same as being told to go to hell) and these groups seem the most active in getting this agenda made into law. Even subtle wordings of things can have a profound influence.

 

I do like some sort of charter school system that allows groups of all faiths to help run thier own schools where thier faith can be properly represented. I would love to be able to send my son to the Vaisnava equivelent of Catholic School.

[theist]

 

ok, I haven't read all the posts in this thread so forgive me if this is off topic, but here is my perspective: I don't think I want Intelligent Design taught to my kid in US public schools. This is primarily because I believe my Guru and temple, and myself, should be providing this education so he doesn't get any crippling misconceptions. The Christian Fundamentalists definitely aren't friendly to Gaudiya Vaisnavas from my experience (I've been told I'm going to hell too many times now, to me that is the same as being told to go to hell) and these groups seem the most active in getting this agenda made into law. Even subtle wordings of things can have a profound influence.

 

I do like some sort of charter school system that allows groups of all faiths to help run thier own schools where thier faith can be properly represented. I would love to be able to send my son to the Vaisnava equivelent of Catholic School.

 

The secular schools deny God in so many ways. They are under the employment of Hiranyakasipu. Pralhada brought the name and knowledge of God right into the classroom. That is our example.

 

Don't you consider the teaching that life evolved from impersonal and accidental molecular groupings a "crippling misconception."

 

But I am not advocating that Christians run the school system. I wouldn't want them near my kids either(if I had any) but leaving childrens minds in the hands of aheists is a form of violence by neglect IMO>

 

I only support freedom of education because that is the model the Lord gives to every living being. That means atheists can go to schools run by atheists. Religious folks of all different faiths should be able to send their children to schools of their own preference. For you that would be a school that taught what you guru taught. Where the children learned to offer foodstuffs to the Lord and then take the presadam vs. having dead cows slopped onto their plates in some demons cafeteria.

 

Freedom of thought must be respected. Not this present COMPULSORY atheist brainwashing that is happening now.

 

I don't know much about charter schools but they may also be answer especially viable now since the scum bag politicians won't pass the voucher system.

 

I believe we have to be firm here. THERE IS ONE SUPREME GOD. Amongst all deliberations on life by logicians He is the conclusive truth. No compromise on our part and at the same time no attempts to force others to accept our arguments if they choose not to.

 

It must be very difficult for devotees with kids in this western culture.

[Guest guest]

As a theist myself, I support the idea of not introducing ID into science.

 

 

The secular schools deny God in so many ways

 

No,this is a misconception that you have. Which science book promotes atheism or even takes up this topic? Religion is outside the scope of science and the absence of religion in science does not mean science promotes atheism. There is no religion thought in law school. Can we conclude that law schools are brainwashing students and all lawyers are atheists?

 

Science does take any position on God/religion as that is out of its scope just like history would contain no information on mathematics.

 

 

Freedom of thought must be respected. Not this present COMPULSORY atheist brainwashing that is happening now.

 

I am sorry, but the brainwashing is more in your case than with anyone else which holds you back from calling a spade a spade. The group promoting ID is the creationist Christian group. Having failed to introduce creationism into science, they have repackaged their ideas with a new name and are now trying to push this new agenda. A number of theists like myself disapprove ID becoming part of science. Have you considered why?

 

Once again, if you think science promotes atheism, then you are clearly living in ignorance. Not all people who study science are atheists and not all atheists have studied science. It is wrong to create a non-existing link between the two.

 

Om

[theist]

 

As a theist myself, I support the idea of not introducing ID into science.

 

Then I would say you have a verk weak conviction of your beliefs in theism if you think it not right to teach the theistic conception to children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science does take any position on God/religion as that is out of its scope just like history would contain no information on mathematics.

 

God is not absent from scientific investigation. The Lord permeates the entire cosmos and from the atom to a cluster of galaxies all move under His direction alone.

 

This basic tenet is only a foundation to theistic thought. But without it you have no theism. Perhaps you are really a Deist who think himself a theist in confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, if you think science promotes atheism,...

 

So who said I think that? I say SCIENCE PROMOTES THEISM. This is the prime point of the Intelligent Design arguement.

 

Atheistic "science" is not science at all.

It is NESCIENCE.

 

It is violence to teach nescience to children and call it science. This is factual child abuse.

[theist]

 

 

deism

 

One entry found for deism.<form name="entry" method="post" action="/cgi-bin/dictionary"><table valign="top" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td> <input name="hdwd" value="deism" type="hidden"><input name="listword" value="Deist" type="hidden"><input name="book" value="Dictionary" type="hidden">

</td></tr></tbody></table> </form> Main Entry: de·ism

 

Usage: often capitalized

: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

[brajeshwara das]

Theist - charter schools are voucher systems. I totally agree with the sentiments you expressed, especially the demon's caffeteria.

 

Guestabc - I agree with you that contemporary science doesn't necessarily teach atheism. Srila Sridhar Maharaj said "We have to accept something

of what Darwin says but where does the fossil come from?" I think we need to make sure the curriculum in a science class is not preventing this question from being asked, not in that class necessisarily but not teaching children to close the door on the question. Then in philosophy class (younger children should have some exposure before High School!) these sorts of topics can be discussed. In a school run by your faith, then they can be intricately described.

[Guest guest]

 

Then I would say you have a verk weak conviction of your beliefs in theism if you think it not right to teach the theistic conception to children.

 

No one said creation should not be taught; the point is it should not be taught as part of science. Science like other subjects takes no position on God and religion. This is not atheism.

 

 

So who said I think that? I say SCIENCE PROMOTES THEISM. This is the prime point of the Intelligent Design arguement.

 

Atheistic "science" is not science at all.

It is NESCIENCE.

 

There is no such thing as “atheistic science”. This was clarified in the earlier post. Stop mixing the two. Anyone and everyone in the world who is alive at this time and got enough schooling have been taught evolution. By your logic, every educated person on the planet has been abused and is an atheist.

 

Did you go to school? Did you learn science? Do you remember your science teacher tell you that God is false? I went to a Christian school, was taught evolution by Christian priests who had no problems being loyal to Jesus. They had no problems because they saw no link between science and religion which is correct. A simple concept which seems to escape you for some strange reason.

 

Science follows a set of rules and by these rules there is no support for ID. If you disagree with the rules that form science, then you are disagreeing with the concept of science itself! If that is the case, you should not be lobbying to add ID to science; you should be lobbying to remove science from the world! Your current proposition of stating the rules of science are false and then trying to add a concept to science which finds no support by the rules of science equates to absurdity.

 

What next? Will you lobby to introduce the bible into law school curriculum by the logic that morals come from God and this should be the basis of law? Every law student should

take a course on studying morals from the Bible.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

 

They had no problems because they saw no link between science and religion which is correct..

 

Please read this line as,

 

They had no problems because they saw no conflict between science and religion which is correct.

[theist]

Guestabc,

 

The only person between me and you that has mentioned Christianity or the Bible is YOU.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[theist]

This morning I watched a telecourse program on geography put out by Community colleges for distance learning to earn credits. (Something tempting there but that's another subject )

 

It was very interesting and beautifully filmed. They were describing the principle of convection as it applied to the movements of the earth and shifts in platetectonics and volcanism.

 

As I was watching this, half awake from my sleeping mat on the floor, I couldn't help but marvel at the Supreme Intelligence behind it all. I surely could not understand all the concepts they were talking about having no background in geography but yet because I accept that God is the active principle and intelligence behind all physical phenomena a little appreciation for the Lord came through. I was a little open to His revealing Himself in that way and He kindly showed a reflection of one fragmental portion of His spark of splendor in nature.

 

It then became obvious that what is needed to reach those who are truly engrossed in the field of geography, or any other of the natural sciences, is a devotee who understands that material science as well as the science of Krsna consciousness. He/she could explain Krsna consciousness to such people by taking advantage of their own intense interest in the subject. Such a devotee would have their ear as that devotee would be recognized as speaking their language

 

Teaching to the level and pyschological temperment already present in one's students is what teaching according to time place and circumstance is all about.

 

Spending energy and time trying to convince them they have to accept what they consider to be mythological stories about earth formation rather or not those stories are true is counterproductive. Counterproductive because afterall the goal is to expose Krsna's presence behind matter and exalt Him as the ultimate controller is the real point behind Krsna conscious teaching and not to get everyone to believe such stories.

 

I am hoping that devotees who are well trained in this and similar fields will not hold onto the fallacy that God realization and material science are two separate fields divorced from each other by their very constitutions but are in fact perfectly compatable because Krsna is equally accessable to the scientist as He is to the philosophers and religionists. He is afterall Omnipresent and Omniponent. All that is required is to be a little open to hHs presence and willingness to reveal Himself to us.

[theist]

http://www.y-origins.com

 

From the Q&A page

 

Q. WHAT IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

 

A. Scientists have discovered a universe that is brimming with intelligence. Einstein observed that behind mathematics and physics is what he called “an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” When Stephen Hawking saw the evidence for a finely-tuned universe he remarked, "There must be religious overtones, but I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."

 

In fact, many leading scientists, regardless of their religious persuasion, have made similar observations about apparent intelligence behind the laws of our universe. Thus, intelligent design is merely drawing the best inferences from scientific observation as it applies to our origins. (See Articles 1-5).

 

This page has many links to fine articles on ID.

[suchandra]

The on and on repeated phrase by modern scientist is, evolution had 1 million years to develop all this biological diversity on planet earth.

This seems their only comment after discovering all these overwhelming wonders of nature. They know clearly that just one single living cell's functioning works more complex than a Boeing 747 airplane, still they dont consider to acknowledge that the creation is just too perfect in order to make all this develop just by uncontrolled mechanical accidents.

At least they explore all these details, like an ocean turtle which hatches in Australia and enters the Pacific Ocean in Australia covers a distance of 15,000 miles, emerges in California and after 20 years comes back at exactly the same place where it was born to dig out a turtle nest - unfallible navigation system - all created out of nothing by chance.

Poor scientists, why the are so stupid? Krishna is giving them now all these instruments to find things out which are real tiny but still they play the possum. Now they discovered that bumblebees actually couldnt fly according normal calculation, they are too heavy. High speed cameras revealed the bumblebees till now secret wing beat: this heavy insect with such small wings creates such a clever swirling of air that it can fly perfectly even carrying lots of airfreight like farina.

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

The Flight of the Bumblebee

by Matthew Vanhorn

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2528

 

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/March00/APS_Wang.hrs.html

 

 

 

</TD><TD align=right></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>“Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats, and fasten your safety belts. We are ready for take off,” the flight attendant says pleasantly over the intercom. Jet engines begin to roar. You feel a subtle jolt, and the plane begins to rumble down the runway. You grab your seat in nervous anticipation of the unprecedented experience you are about to undertake. Once on track, the plane quickly gains speed. Your stomach drops in awkward exhilaration as the plane lifts from the ground, and you watch the landscape grow smaller and smaller as you float above the earth into a white sea of clouds.

Sound familiar? Unless you are prone to motion sickness or terrified of flying, the aforementioned account is probably reminiscent of your first experience aboard an airplane. Did you ever wonder what makes the airplane’s flight possible? Physicists and engineers understand this phenomenon very well. They have studied the plane’s sophisticated airfoil design. The wing’s round leading edge and sharp trailing edge, powered by 63,300+ pounds of engine thrust, produce an effective lift for the plane.

Now, imagine that there were no engines with which to power the airplane. What would it take for the plane to fly? For an Airplane to fly on its own without engines is impossible. And that brings us to the case of the humble bumblebee. Theoretically, scientists say, the bumblebee should remain grounded, just like the engineless jumbo jet. Considering that the basic equation governing the aerodynamics of flying insects and airplanes is supposed to be the same, there is no apparent explanation as to how bumblebees can fly. Bumblebee wings produce more lift than predicted by conventional aerodynamic analyses. The reciprocating motion of the wings makes the aerodynamics incredibly unsteady and difficult to analyze.

Bumblebees are hairy, robust bees, ranging from ½ inch to 1 inch in size. Bumblebee wings are very small in relation to their bodies. An airplane built with the same proportions of a bumblebee would never get off the ground, but bumblebees are not like airplanes. Rather, they are more like helicopters with flexible blades. A moving airfoil generates much more lift than a rigid one. However, the ostrich can create a moving airfoil and, yet, never lift from the ground. Thus, scientists have been in a quandary as to how the bees generate lift.

Theoretical physicists applied to the bumblebee the theories that are effective in the flight of 747s, and determined that the bees should not be able to take flight. This does not “prove” that bumblebees cannot fly; it simply means that physicists have the equation wrong. Ivars Peterson attempted to defend scientists by saying: “The real issue is not that scientists are wrong, but that there’s a crucial difference between a thing and a mathematical model of the thing.” This seemingly ambiguous statement, however, was followed by a valid reason: “A certain simple mathematical model wasn’t adequate or appropriate for describing the flight of a bumblebee” (1997). Indeed, there is nothing simple about the flight of the bumblebee.

Insect flight in general has been a mystery to scientists for many years. This difficulty traces back as far as a 1934 book by French entomologist Antoine Magnan, who referred to a calculation made by engineer André Sainte-Lague. His conclusion was based on the fact that “the maximum possible lift produced by air craft wings as small as a bumblebee’s and traveling as slowly as a bee in flight would be much less than the weight of a bee” (Dickinson, 2001).

Since 1934, engineers have employed aerodynamic theory to design Boeing 747s and stealth fighters. These aircraft are quite complex, yet their function is based upon steady-state principles. Insects disrupt this principle because they flap and rotate their wings at a rate of 300 to 400 beats per second—over ten times faster than the firing rate of the nervous system! The bumblebee achieves such fast wing speeds by simply contracting and relaxing muscles in its abdomen. Additionally, variations in stroke patterns cause differing aerodynamic forces that disconcert mathematical analyses. Insect wings do not flap like doors on simple hinges. Rather, the tip of each wing traces a thin oval at a steep angle. Also, the wings “flip” during each beat: The topside of the wing faces up during the down stroke, and down during the upstroke.

Animal mechanics specialist Charlie Ellington, from the University of Cambridge in England, discovered something that seemed to solve the puzzle. He learned that the extra lift was generated by a vortex traveling along the leading edge of the insect’s wing. Researchers Michael Dickinson and James Birch, from the University of California at Berkeley, had contrary findings. In the science journal Nature, they shared their research concerning the extra aerodynamic lift created by bumblebees. They built a largely scaled model of a fruit fly, and observed its flight in a tank of mineral oil. They simulated a tiny, real fruit fly flying in air—a much thinner medium. Professor Dickinson said: “Based on these experiments, we concluded that the [Cambridge] hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex through the stroke” (Macphee, 2001).

Ellington’s conclusion nevertheless triggered a quest for an “unsteady function” equation that could explain the superior performance of flapping wings. Distribution of velocities and pressures within a fluid is governed by what are known as the Navier-Stokes equations, which were formulated in the early nineteenth century. Ellington’s findings revealed that the flight of the bumblebee could not be solved through virtue of the Navier-Stokes equations alone. The motions of the bumblebee’s wings are too complex to formulate an exact equation to characterize the aerodynamics of its flight.

In attempts to solve the mysteries of insect flight, scientists made enlarged scale models of bumblebee wings. These models produced viable results by combining the two essential forces in a fluid—a pressure force produced by fluid inertia, and a shear force caused by fluid viscosity. Professor Dickinson reported new findings of his own in 2001 as a result of building upon the theories of Ellington that he previously had attempted to refute. In his study published in Scientific American (“Solving the Mystery of Insect Flight”), Dickinson attributed the flight of the bumblebee to the phenomena of delayed stall, wake capture, and rotational circulation.

Delayed stall occurs when an aircraft’s wing cuts through the air at too steep of an angle. Vortices created by airplanes usually leave behind a pestering turbulence in the slipstream. However, insects require these vortices to remain in flight. A vortex is a rotating flow of fluid, such as occurs in a draining bathtub. When proceeding at shallow angles, the air splits at the front of the wing and flows smoothly in two streams along the upper and lower surfaces. The upper flow travels faster, resulting in a lower pressure above the wing. This draws the wing upward, producing lift. The first stage of stall initially increases the lift because of a brief flow structure called a leading-edge vortex. This type of vortex forms directly above and behind the wing’s leading edge. Airflow in the vortex is extremely fast, and the resulting low pressure adds substantial lift.

 

 

 

 

 

Dickinson’s findings seem to be in harmony with the experimental data recorded by physicist Jane Wang of Cornell University, who wrote:

 

The old bumblebee myth simply reflected our poor understanding of unsteady viscous fluid dynamics. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft with their steady, almost inviscid (without viscosity) flow dynamics, insects fly in a sea of vortices, surrounded by tiny eddies and whirlwinds that are created when they move their wings (as quoted in Segelken, 2000, parenthetical item in orig.).

 

 

In addition to delayed stall, Dickinson discovered that the wings generated short-lived strong forces at the beginning and end of each stroke that could not be explained by the stall. These force peaks occurred during stroke reversal, when the wing decelerates and rapidly rotates, suggesting that the rotation itself might be responsible. Dickinson illustrated the idea of rotational circulation by using a tennis ball. A tennis ball hit with backspin pulls air faster over the top, causing the ball to rise, whereas a topspin will pull air faster underneath, causing the ball to sink. Dickinson concluded that flapping wings develop significant lift by rotational circulation.

 

 

 

 

Finally, Dickinson discovered that wake capture—the collision of the wing with the swirling wake of the previous wing stroke—assists in the flight of insects. Each stroke of the wing leaves behind a complex of vortices. When the wing reverses direction, it passes back through this churning air. A wake contains energy lost from the insect to the air, so wake capture provides a way for the insect to recover energy.

Scientists still do not know every intricacy involved in the flight of bumblebees and other insects. Scientists hope to learn more from the complex wings of the bumblebee in order to apply the knowledge to aircraft. Engineers can design great aircraft by patterning their work after the Great Architect—He who builds all (Hebrews 3:4). God put so much obvious and careful planning into the tiny wing of the bumblebee—and that is only a minute fraction of the awesome Universe He decisively designed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

 

 

 

Dickinson, Michael (2001), “Solving the Mystery of Insect Flight,” [On-line], URL: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EE5B1-DCA8-1C6F-84A9809EC588EF21.

Macphee, Kona (2001) “The Buzz on Bumblebees,” [On-line], URL: http://pass.maths.org.uk/issue17/news/bumble.

Peterson, Ivars (1997), “Flight of the Bumblebee,” [On-line], URL: http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathland_3_31.html.

Segelken, Roger (2000), “Bumblebees Finally Cleared for Takeoff,” [On-line], URL: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/March00/APS_Wang.hrs.html.

[theist]

On Tuesday the 24th there will be a fascinating show on the TV channel Animal Planet @ 8:00 on the west coast. It will be about how man's "inventions" have come about by the intense study of nature. Flies and hummingbirds are studied in order to better understand aerodynamic principles etc. (see Suchandra's post again above.)

 

The thing is many of the scientists who are stretching their brains to try and understand with their intelligence these principles of nature all the while deny that there is a superior intelligence at work through nature. God's intelligence. Crazy puffed up fellows. If they would just acknowledge the presence and supremacy of the Lord then their studies would be a form of jnana yoga.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

The on and on repeated phrase by modern scientist is, evolution had 1 million years to develop all this biological diversity on planet earth.

This seems their only comment after discovering all these overwhelming wonders of nature. They know clearly that just one single living cell's functioning works more complex than a Boeing 747 airplane, still they dont consider to acknowledge that the creation is just too perfect in order to make all this develop just by uncontrolled mechanical accidents.

 

That's a fascinating article about insect flight, Suchandra Prabhu, and, while I agree with you for the most part, the argument that our universe could not have become what it is simply by chance is easily refuted logically (if not spiritually).

 

If you're willing to concede that there exists a finite probability that a particular natural process (a process which is possible) will occur in a given period of time, then, over an infinite period of time, that process is *guaranteed* to happen. If you grant (ignoring the soul for a moment) that life arises from series of mechanical processes, each with a finite probability of occurring, then, over an infinite amount of time

 

So, when you use the "1 million years" figure (I don't know where you got that, the Earth is estimated to be 4.55 billion years. According to this: http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/archean/archean.html it is believed that there has been life on Earth for 3.5 billion years.), that is not really fair, because, it does not take into account the entire universe.

 

3.5 billion years is a long time. Then, consider how many innumerable planets there are and the fact that, according to scientific principles there is no beginning or end to time. So, it's altogether plausible that, after innumerable failures, on our planet, the dice rolled just right and here we are.

 

This particular argument that you present has been a favorite of aspiring Vaishnavas for a long while (I remember it from my childhood in ISKCON). Unfortunately, it's a very hollow argument that is best abandoned lest reasonable folks assume the person bandying the argument about is a fool (as you blithely dismiss the scientists as being fools).

 

While I whole-heartedly would agree with the assertion that way too much faith is placed in science these days, to the point where it has become a religion of sorts. Scientific principles have been twisted and abused in the same manner as the priciples of capitalism and communism, and, in fact, there is no "pure science". Special interests, whether private industry or government exert way too much influence over the scientific process for it to be considered unbiased.

 

That said, science is a *tool* (or should be), and not a blueprint for living. One cannot deny the results (both beneficial and harmful) of science. Science has facilitated so many things (including spreading the Mercy of Mahaprabhu), so what is the point of denigrating or condescending to the scientists?

 

Simply put, faith is required at some point. One cannot logically prove the existence of God (at least not without granting many assumptions).

 

In the logical paradigm, the world most certainly *could* have arisen by chance. However, to the Vaishnava, "not a blade of grass moves without the will of the Lord". The Vaishnava sees the Lord as the "Cause of all Causes".

[arun momia]

whom should we follow?

All religion are sacred we can't establish ones superiority over other.but there are some conflicts as well

 

According to the major teachings of Lord Budha He said that There is hardly a place where you can hide from your karma- phala, you will have to suffer for your bad karmas.

 

But when we try to find the meaning of following verse from Shri Bhagwat Gita,

 

sarva dhrma pritajaya

mam ek sharnam vrja

ahm tvamm sarv papebhyo

mokshyami ma sucha

 

 

is it really possible, if a day when someone gets enlightend his al past karmas burns and he never returns for karm-phala then what about the teachings of Great Budha.

 

plz. someone correct me.

[suchandra]

 

Simply put, faith is required at some point. One cannot logically prove the existence of God (at least not without granting many assumptions).

 

 

 

Prabhupada would say, bhakti-yoga, or proving the existence of God, is a scientific process, not something what you have to believe blindly. Modern sciencists are using their material brains and material senses and come to the conclusion they didnt see an intelligent Designer behind creation, that they didnt see any God. But isnt this like sticking your finger into honey and saying, I cant say if this is sweet or not? Only our highly complex taste buds are able to taste sweetness and send this message, here is something that tastes good, to our brain(http://www.neurobio.arizona.edu/282/Lectures2005/Taste/08_003.jpg) :

 

Similiarly, since the spiritual energy is anti-matter it cant be perceived with material tools like material mind and material eyes.

But this is what modern science insists upon, they only accept that there's a God when they can see God with material instruments. However, isnt this as foolish as insisting, I can only accept that honey is sweet when I'm able to taste the sweetness with my finger? Only by awakening our sleeping soul and spiritual senses we can perceive the presence of God's energy in His creation. So this is not believe but a scientific method.

 

 

Because we cannot perceive the soul by our gross senses, we deny it. Actually there are so many things that are there which we cannot see. We cannot see air, radio waves, or sound, nor can we perceive minute bacteria with our blunt senses, but this does not mean they are not there. By the aid of the microscope and other instruments, many things can be perceived which had previously been denied by the imperfect senses. Just because the soul, which is atomic in size, has not been perceived yet by senses or instruments, we should not conclude that it is not there. It can, however, be perceived by its symptoms and effects.

 

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada from Beyond Birth and Death.

 

 

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Prabhupada would say, bhakti-yoga, or proving the existence of God, is a scientific process, not something what you have to believe blindly.

Well, Prabhu, "bhakti-yoga" and "proving the existence of God" are two entirely different things.

 

"Proof" in the scientific sense has a very specific meaning. It involves mathematically rigorous extrapolations based on accepted and established scientific principles, and, where possible, experimental confirmation of the principle's validity. I still insist that proving God's existence via the scientific method is not possible and defy anyone to prove me wrong.

 

To the Vaishnava, there is no question of proving the existence of God, the Vaishnava sees God *everywhere* (so, of course, there is no question of "believing blindly").

 

 

Modern sciencists are using their material brains and material senses and come to the conclusion they didnt see an intelligent Designer behind creation, that they didnt see any God.

Right. Scientists have no evidence (as defined by science) to show that there is an Intelligent Designer (ID) at play in the universe. Where is *your* scientific evidence? Of course, to a good scientist, the lack of evidence is not proof to the contrary, but, simply, a lack of evidence.

 

 

But isnt this like sticking your finger into honey and saying, I cant say if this is sweet or not? Only our highly complex taste buds are able to taste sweetness and send this message, here is something that tastes good, to our brain.

Frankly, I fail to see how this example applies to the question of the scientific proof of the existence of an ID. Furthermore, as pointed out by Srila Prabhupada many times (and you yourself), our senses are not to be trusted. It's funny you should use the example of sweetness, because Srila Prabhupada liked to cite the example of jaundice:

 

http://vedabase.net/noi/7/

 

 

TRANSLATION

The holy name, character, pastimes and activities of Kṛṣṇa are all transcendentally sweet like sugar candy. Although the tongue of one afflicted by the jaundice of avidyā [ignorance] cannot taste anything sweet, it is wonderful that simply by carefully chanting these sweet names every day, a natural relish awakens within his tongue, and his disease is gradually destroyed at the root.

PURPORT

The holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa, His quality, pastimes and so forth are all of the nature of absolute truth, beauty and bliss. Naturally they are very sweet, like sugar candy, which appeals to everyone. Nescience, however, is compared to the disease called jaundice, which is caused by bilious secretions. Attacked by jaundice, the tongue of a diseased person cannot palatably relish sugar candy. Rather, a person with jaundice considers something sweet to taste very bitter. Avidyā (ignorance) similarly perverts the ability to relish the transcendentally palatable name, quality, form and pastimes of Kṛṣṇa. Despite this disease, if one with great care and attention takes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, chanting the holy name and hearing Kṛṣṇa's transcendental pastimes, his ignorance will be destroyed and his tongue enabled to taste the sweetness of the transcendental nature of Kṛṣṇa and His paraphernalia. Such a recovery of spiritual health is possible only by the regular cultivation of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

So, Srila Prabhupad and the scientists tell us the same things: do not trust your senses. Scientists use the best measurement tools available to them, but they have learned not to blindly trust their measurements, since tools made by imperfect hands often have imperfections.

Here's an example from the Anthropogenic Global Warming discussion:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/

 

Basically, a new array of measurment buoys were placed at various places in the ocean. After a couple of years, the data from these buoys was indicating that the oceans were *cooling* and not warming as the scientists expected. After reviewing all of the involved components, a sensor was found to be defective.

 

I see stories like this all the time. Science is anything but perfect. However, most of the scientists I have known have been very humble, dedicated people. While there are, no doubt, many arrogant scientists, I find it is in the media that science tends to take on a hysterical tone.

 

 

Similiarly, since the spiritual energy is anti-matter it cant be perceived with material tools like material mind and material eyes.

Now, this is nitpicking, but spiritual energy is most definitely *not* anti-matter. Anti-matter is also material, *not* spiritual. Spritual energy is exactly that, spiritual. It transcends the mundane. It is supra-mundane.

 

 

But this is what modern science insists upon, they only accept that there's a God when they can see God with material instruments. However, isnt this as foolish as insisting, I can only accept that honey is sweet when I'm able to taste the sweetness with my finger? Only by awakening our sleeping soul and spiritual senses we can perceive the presence of God's energy in His creation. So this is not believe but a scientific method.

You can say that Krishna Consciousness (KC) is a scientific method (as Srila Prabhupada certainly did). But, in what manner is it scientific? Wouldn't you say, KC, is a process by which, if one follows diligently, a reproduceable result is obtained? That's the basis of science: the ability to reproduce a certain effect.

 

However, as pointed out in Nectar of Instruction, we *cannot* assume we have the taste for the ultimate sweetness.

 

The term "bona fide" is bandied about a lot by the aspiring Vaishnavas, but what does it mean literally? Literally it means "good faith". It does *not* mean "authorized by God", "infallible" or any other such thing.

 

Initially, in our inquiries, whether they be spiritual or scientific we must accept a higher authority on "good faith" since we lack the vision, taste, and insight to comprehend the spiritual, scientific, or mathematical principles they are teaching.

 

In time, based on the results we get, we will see whether our faith was well-placed or not. In time our understanding will grow, perhaps by our own efforts, but, in the case of spirit, through the Mercy of the Lord.

 

Still, whether it's science or religion, faith is required, Suchandra Prabhu.

 

This is already a long post, but I hope to post something about just what Sri Krishna's role in creation is. It is very nicely presented in Brahma Samhita and elsewhere, and should further illuminate this topic.

 

Gaura Hari Bol!!! Jaya Gurudev!!

[theist]

 

Still, whether it's science or religion, faith is required, Suchandra Prabhu.

 

I picture two kinds of faith. Blind faith and what I call sighted faith. Sighted faith is one in which we have learned to have faith in Krsna because of His bestowing a drop of divine vision to us whereby we can perceive Him within material nature to some degree. This gives rise to the sighted faith that understands that Krsna will without doubt reveal Himself more to us as we proceed. This of course can never be shown directly to another because only Krsna reveals Krsna.

 

If we can inspire someone to inquire into the possibility of an Intelligent Designer then we will have done our job. Of the four kinds of inquirers into the Absolute one is the curious soul.

 

I don't see the real difference between real science and real religion. Both would have as their objective getting to the real truth. If openess and honesty are there in the searcher the I must believe that, "he who applies himself well to one will achieve the results of both".

 

The problem lies when the agnostic considers himself an atheist that already "knows" there is no God and then proceeds to discover the truth of things. He has cut himself off from receiving sighted faith from Paramatma's revelations.

 

Krsna says in the Gita that for those who want to worship the demigods he will make their faith steady so that they may devote themselves to that particular deity. The principle here that we need to recognize that faith is directed by Krsna. Which also implies that the blind faith possessed by the atheistic scientist is also directed by Krsna in order to accomodte the atheists desire to deny God. This is why we can never force anyone to accept the existence of the Lord. it is not by force it is by making logical and attractive arguments in favor of ID so that the thoughtful scientist may open up to th possibility of god and thus receive the necessary sighted faith to rightly proceed.

 

The (in)famed arch atheist warrior Anthony Flew is a good example. Finally after considering the mind blowing complexity of creation for so many years while arguing against God with a fervor the knowledge had it's effect and he has become a theist.

 

If it can work for him it can work for all the others. It just needs to be presented thoughtfully and without fanaticism. This is why I am so happy that there are such intelligent and trained devotees like Suchandra and others that are speaking out in this arena with developed examples of how there must be an a Supreme Intelligence behind all we perceive.

 

Stories of the battles between the asuras and devas will only go a little ways with a very few people in the present culture of scientific thinking. We can se that Srila Prabhupada wanted to have God consciousness accepted as a science and not on sentimental religious terms. Like one so-called christian hymn goes;

 

Give me that old time religion...

It was good enough for pappy

So it's good enough for me.

 

Or something like that. You get the point. Blind faith is not enough for spreading God realization.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

In looking back through this long discussion, I came across many gems of note, which I hope to drag back to the surface. However, in looking for a verse in the Vedabase, I came across this one:

 

 

SB 5.19.4: The Lord, whose pure form [sac-cid-ānanda-vigraha [Bs. 5.1]] is uncontaminated by the modes of material nature, can be perceived by pure consciousness. In the Vedānta He is described as being one without a second. Because of His spiritual potency, He is untouched by the contamination of material nature, and because He is not subjected to material vision, He is known as transcendental. He has no material activities, nor has He a material form or name. Only in pure consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, can one perceive the transcendental form of the Lord. Let us be firmly fixed at the lotus feet of Lord Rāmacandra, and let us offer our respectful obeisances unto those transcendental lotus feet.

 

From this verse, it is very clear that the Supreme Lord has no material activites. It's reasonable to assume that that includes material acts of creation.

 

When I hear the term "Intelligent Designer", the image that comes to mind immediately is that of an old God sitting at his drafting table chuckling over His latest design for the platypus.

 

What is revealed in Brahma Samhita, however, is that the Lord's role in Creation is really to plant the seed into the heart of Lord Brahma, who undertakes all the "heavy lifting", so to speak.

 

More quotes to follow, God-willing.