38: Entities That Had To Exist Before Life: Were They Designed, or Just Dumb Luck?


The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at AmazonThe URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The page begins below.

 

 

carbon atomEv-illusionists always seem to begin their discussion of evolution at a point in time after the formation of living cells has already been completed.  They illogically seem to think that living cells somehow came together without the benefit of evolution.   Then evolution began, as if evolution was a new driving force in nature that started with the existence of living unicellular organisms. Ev-illusionists separate evo-abiogenesis from evolution, as I stated earlier in this book, for no other reason than there is no plausible explanation for the formation of the first cells and the injection of life into those cells.  In fact there isn’t even an imaginary explanation that passes the stink test.  There simply is no explanation for the first living cells. If evo-abiogenesis had a plausible and scientifically provable explanation, evo-illusionists would grab and hang on to evo-abiogenesis like their lives depended on it.  It would be happily and confidently claimed as the beginning of evolution.  What science actually has is a weak fake science, concocted and separated from the supposed REAL science of evolution.  Ev-illusionists can accept that the origin of the first life forms is described by a very weak fantasy-laden science called evo-abiogenesis.  They can separate evo-abiogenesis, which they  accept as some sort of a mix science and fantasy, from the real science of evolution.   They preach that evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; an absolute.  While there may be doubts about the way science portrays evo-abiogenesis, there is certainly no doubt about evolution.  It is no longer a theory, they say.  It is fact.  No need to question or doubt. If you do, you are something less than a fool or religious nutcase.  So, according to evo-illusionists, evolution was born with the existence of living unicellular organisms. Evolution did not exist before. Of course trying to account for the formation of the DNA code, and virtually every part of a living cell can never described by evo-illusionists without claiming evolution as a main driving force for  for their source.  It’s as if they say evolution started with the first living cells not before, but it was intimately involved with the formation of those cells.

I have yet to read or see a scientific description of the origin of the first cells without natural selection and random mutational changes being the major driving force.  How else could evo-illusionists say the DNA code formed?  And all of the goodies that code is responsible for forming?  The DNA code HAD to form by natural selection and random mutations for evolution to be a valid science.  There simply had to be a continuum for the assembly of non-living biochemicals to living organisms. Natural selection and random mutations could not have suddenly turned on like an electric switch.  Nature just doesn’t work that way.

Ev-illusionists assert that evolutions’ main source for the gradual changes that originated and assembled all of modern living nature is the minor mutational changes that occur in the gene pool over many generations and millions of years. Evolution says the changes that were/are beneficial are “selected for” by natural selection, which is made up of predation survival, sexual choices among individuals within species groups, environmental survival, and a few other minor items. Basically that’s evolution in a nutshell. This entire science is based on the natural selection of random positive useful mutations. Here is just one of my many major problems with this scenario. Every item listed above is a characteristic or feature of living organisms. Living organisms bring natural selection and random mutations into existence. Without living organisms, there would be no natural selection or random mutations. They simply wouldn’t exist. Natural selection and random mutations are dependent on living organisms, and they are a characteristic of those organism.

With that fact in mind, here is my question. Can the characteristic of an entity also be the source of that entity? Since natural selection and random mutations could not have existed before living organisms, they could not have been around when living organisms were first formed. And therefore they could not have been the source for those living organisms. Just as a wind-up watch has hands that move, and a spring that rotates back and forth as its characteristics and features. But those features could not have been the source of that watch. Natural selection and random mutations could not be the source for living organisms as well. Living organisms produced natural selection and random mutations, not the other way around. This is true with any entity you could think of, living or non-living. Any entities’ characteristics and features could not produce that entity; which means that natural selection and random mutations could not be the source for all of living nature.

Evolutionauts have so  many problems and hurdles to overcome.  They must look at the incredible designs of nature and feign that they don’t or can’t see design.  They will swear, argue, insist, demand  that what they see when they observe nature is a “piggledey wiggledey mess”, as one evolutionaut told me.  Certainly they see no design. Or at least they say they see no design. Supposedly one of the most remarkable “discoveries” of Charles Darwin is that what seems and looks designed in nature is not designed, and nature really shows no design at all.  The question is how does any human have the power to declare that what is so obviously designed in nature isn’t.  I don’t care who the human is, the notion is absurd.  And no one has the power or importance to declare such a monumental “discovery”.

Of course, many evolutionauts have studied gross human anatomy, biology, zoology, kinesiology…..and when they studied these subjects, they studied design.  These subjects are the study of the design of the subjects of the classes. So, according to evolutionauts, if they are studying the hoses of an automobile, they are studying design; but if they are studying the tubes that bring air into the lungs of a human, well, that isn’t design.  If they are studying the fuel pump of a car, they are studying design; but studying the human heart that pumps blood, well, again, that is not design. They have to pretend they are not studying design, because they know that natural selection and friends cannot invent and design.   They cannot face that fact, so it’s easier to just say they see no design.  That gets rid of the problem they have in explaining how an entity with zero IQ , natural selection, could invent and design.  It reminds me of my daughter, Tami, when she was three.  We took her to see Santa Claus.  She was scared to death.  She reacted not by crying, but simply by closing her eyes.  Santa would go away; disappear.  So that is what she did.  When we sat her on Santa’s lap at the department store, and again, when we ran into a Santa at the drug store she shut her eyes;  she stayed calm as could be.  She wasn’t afraid.  Santa was gone!  Evolutionauts do the same; by feigning the closing their eyes, and minds, design is gone.

Is I discussed in earlier chapters,  according to evo-abiogenesis, amazingly ALL of the proto-cells, the earlier “simple cells”  became modern cells.  Not a one of the proto-cells remains on the planet earth today, at least none that we humans can find.  Interestingly, ev-illisionists point out all of the “simpler” types of eyes that exist on organisms today, such as the simplistic eyes of the Nautilus.  But they ignore the huge fact that the simpler “proto-cells” are not represented at all in modern nature.  The perfect example of picking and choosing which “evidence” helps evolution, and which hurts.  The fact is, abiogenesis did occur.  There is no doubt, and no one argues that fact. The earth was once a very sterile place.  Then life somehow formed, came about, was invented…. So abiogenesis did occur; but by the method claimed by current science?  Of course not.  The currently accepted model and pathway to life simply isn’t plausible or possible at all. So I must agree, of course, that   “abiogenesis” did occur in some unknown fashion, and is a valid term. Reality is we are  light years from figuring out how life first formed on earth.  Honest science would say we just don’t know.  Dishonest science says chemicals came together on the sea floor and constructed living cells by and through the power of Dumb Luck.

For evolution to truly be the source of all of living multi-celled nature, the moment these simple proto-cells came to life, evolution had to begin, so the first proto-cells could become more complex cells, then link together, differentiate, and become the cells of future, and what are now modern, multi-celled organisms. So, evolution is completely intertwined with evo-abiogenesis.  The moment life formed, evolution was in action.  In fact, evolution had to occur before the first cells came to life.  Or else what other forces or entities brought about the design of living cells.  What power selected the organelles and proteins that operate modern cells? No matter what ev-illusionists say, the birth of life and birth of evolution are nearly one and the same, if things happened they way current evolution science says it did.

So, according to evolution, natural selection and friends began their “work” with the beginning of life, continued on to the present day, is going on right now, and the entities that are so incredible in nature are not designed, and don’t display design in any way.  That is if you are an evolutionaut. Since life began around 3.8 billion years ago,  multicellular life about 600 million years ago, and natural selection and friends started their functions somewhere in between 3.8 BYA and 600 MYA, but not before evo-abiogenesis, it would be prudent to take a look at the building blocks for life.  What went into making the chemicals and lipid bubbles that ended up forming the beginnings of life?  If current evolution claims that life arose without a plan or design, were the entities and building blocks that went into the formation of that life designed?  Does the carbon atom, and all other building blocks of the universe  show the same lack of design that evolutionauts pretend to observe for life on Earth?  The horrible design or lack of design constantly complained about by evolutionauts was supposedly brought about by natural selection and random mutations. That cannot be the case with entities that existed before the beginning of life.  Of course the design of the carbon atom or any of the entities I will list cannot be credited to natural selection and random mutations, et al, since evolution didn’t begin until the advent of living unicellular organisms.  So what entity would ev-illusionists  actually credited the design of the carbon atom to?  Is there some other design producing entities and pressures that functioned before the existence of life? That is not possible under the tenets of evolution, of course.  There couldn’t have been some sort of god that designed the carbon atom, because there is no god.  If natural selection wasn’t around to form carbon atoms, they must have formed  in a Dumb Luck sort of way without the help of natural selection and friends.  Unless there is some other evolution-based entity beside natural selection that I am unaware of, step after incredible step of absolute Dumb Luck is all evolution has to explain entities that existed before life on earth.  And, of course, the Dumb Luck steps couldn’t have been “selected for”. Whatever Dumb Luck events occurred, one after another, had to be on the exact right track for life to result.  None could be disposed of by predation or death if they were not advantageous,  as was the case with evolution.  The Dumb Luck steps had to be exact, and  were  completely on their own.  Just as NS and RM had to be on the exact right track to form species, bio-systems, and us.  A very strange fact is that the carbon atom, with its highly unusual design characteristics,  is the perfect atom for use in the designs and formation of all of living nature.  The carbon atoms’ characteristics allow for the formation of chains and different molecular shapes that are an absolute requirement for life.  If the carbon atom wasn’t designed the way it is, if it did not have the characteristics it does, there could be no life.  So the designs of the carbon atom, or the lack of design as is preached by ev-illusionists, is why there is living nature today.

I am going to list ten items that must have existed before the beginning of life on earth, and discuss each one.  It will be then up to evolutionauts to determine if these items show design, or are just Dumb Luck happenstances.  I find it interesting the way evolutionauts can take one single entity, such as a eyeball, and promote that the eyeball isn’t and was not designed, and that they can’t see design in the eyeball’s awful design (isn’t “awful design” design?).  They cannot and must not look at the big picture.  That there are millions of dumb luck happenstances that lead to the existence of man on earth.  One dumb luck happenstance certainly is possible, but another, then another, then another…….?  Putting together dumb luck circumstance time and time again would be like winning a 360 million dollar lotto millions of times.  Could that happen without cheating?  Without direction? They of course would say yes, we are here, so dumb luck steps and characteristic formations happened over and over and over…..and there is no end to the number of Dumb Luck steps that they will believe in.  An infinite number would be just fine, as long as their belief system is intact. BTW, this list is not a pathway.  It is simply a list of items, in no particular order.

1. The hydrogen atom. What could be more fascinating than the design, or should I say configuration, of the atom.  The universe started with particles in the Big Bang coalescing into hydrogen atoms, the simplest of all atoms; and the most important.  The hydrogen atom has qualities and traits that make life possible.  The hydrogen atom is the building block of all other atoms, and without it, and the way it is configured, life would not be possible.  I made two videos on the design of atoms, so instead of a discussion, you can watch the videos if you like.  Oh, and feel free to comment here or on YouTube:

2. The fusion of hydrogen to form helium.

Matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing. Matter can be transformed into energy, and energy into matter.  A hydrogen atom, as I described above, is composed of a single proton. This subatomic particle has a mass of 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001672 kg. Taken individually, this is a tiny mass.  This number must be, of course, multiplied by the number of atoms present in any given quantity.  To give you an idea, the number of atoms in a glass of water is greater than the number of glasses of water in the all of the oceans of the world.  In one kilogram (2.2 lbs.) of pure water, the mass of hydrogen atoms amounts to just slightly more than 0.111 kg.
Albert Einstein, in possibly the most famous physics formula in history, determined that matter’s energy can be calculated by multiplying the mass of the matter by the square of the speed of light.  The speed of light is approximately 300,000,000 meters per second.  (186,000 miles per second).  His formula is recognizable by almost every educated person on the planet earth.  If you are not familiar with the speed of light, light can travel around the earth seven times in one second.  Just imagine the amount of energy from matter being determined by this speed SQUARED!  In calculating energy that can be given off by hydrogen in one single kilogram of water, the calculations look like this:

E=MC2

= 0.111 x 300,000,000 x 300,000,000
= 10,000,000,000,000,000 Joules

A Joule is a unit of energy used in physics. One Joule is about the energy released when you bounce a basketball. But the amount of energy in 111 grams of hydrogen atoms is equivalent to burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline!  If the energy from oxygen is included in the calculations, the resultant energy yield is close to 10 million gallons of gasoline!

For this amount of energy to be released, the entire amount of water, all of its atoms, must be totally annihilated. The only way this can occur is by meeting one kilogram of water with an equivalent amount of antimatter, which is matter composed of opposite charged particles.  In antimatter, protons are negative, electrons are positive.  Antimatter is short lived, and only exists, for humans in laboratory settings.  Antimatter annihilates itself as soon as it meets matter.  So getting that kind of energy out of water is not possible, but it sure is a great thought.

Another fascinating way matter annihilation could take place is through the collision of black holes.  Incredible amounts of energy  would be released.  For example, if two black holes, each with a  mass of 100,000 suns, collided, there would be an annihilation of 5% of their mass.   The equivalent of 10,000 suns would give up all of their mass energy in a span of about an hour.  Imagine the sun giving up 100% of its mass energy for its entire existence in that short of a time: one hour.  Multiply that by 10,000.  According to Dr. Tom Prince of Cal Tech in Pasadena, California,  black hole collision like that, following the formula  e=mc2, would give off more than 1,000  times more energy than is given off by the entire universe for that hour.  It’s an astounding thought, and possible in theory.  Has this event ever occurred? No one knows, but it’s mathematically and theoretically a possibility.

The most important reaction that e=mc2 describes is the fusion of hydrogen atoms which forms helium atoms.  The proton and the electron of a hydrogen atom actually combines with another proton and electron of another hydrogen atom to form helium.  The two combined protons actually have less mass than the single protons alone.  This lost mass is converted into energy; tremendous amounts of energy.  About .73% of the matter from two separate protons is lost when they combine.  Scientists can cause the fusion of protons here on earth by accelerating and colliding them at super high speeds.  Stars like our sun are constantly in the process of fusing hydrogen atoms, which constitutes their source of energy.  Without the fusion characteristic of the hydrogen atom, stars would not exist.  They wouldn’t be able to form the heat and electromagnetic waves (light) that warms planets, and allows for the formation of life.

So here we have more Dumb Luck scenarios.  One is certainly the strange perfection of e=mc2.  Why such a perfect equation?  The speed of light squared?  Why not 3.900832 times the speed of sound? Or some other odd number.  The fact that we live in a universe where matter can be converted into energy, and that energy “energizes” life is astounding.  Is the fact the hydrogen fuses to helium another Dumb Luck scenario?  If that didn’t occur, humans would not have occurred.  We would have a cold universe not amenable to life at all. Evolutionauts will admit natural selection cannot have anything to do with the characteristics of hydrogen.  They will also say the hydrogen atom doesn’t display design.  So we again are down to giving Dumb Luck the credit for the configuration, and, I gotta say it, the design and characteristics of the hydrogen atom.

3. The universe: Why is it here instead of nothing?

One person answered this question by saying the universe is here so we can ask why the universe is here.  Which is the best answer I have seen.  There simply is no answer to this question.   The existence of nothing would certainly make much more sense than having this immense mysterious mass of matter.  So, Dumb Luck wins this one again.  It’s here, there is no known reason, it’s the greatest Puzzle along with the Puzzle of why life exists, and that’s about all we can say.

4. Combination of two light gasses, oxygen and hydrogen, to form a heavy liquid that is absolutely necessary for life as we know it.

The formation of water from two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom is another Dumb Luck event that is nothing short of astounding.  Water is a hyper-unique liquid that makes it alone the only liquid in existence capable of supporting life and living tissues.  Water alone is the only liquid whose solid version floats in its liquid version. One consequence of this is that lakes and rivers freeze from top to bottom, allowing fish to survive even when the surface of a lake has frozen over. If ice sank, the water would be displaced to the top and exposed to the colder temperature, forcing rivers and lakes to fill with ice and freeze solid.  If ice didn’t float, it’s unlikely that life could be supported by water. Is the “floating solid” characteristic of water just another in a long line of Dumb Luck miracles?  Water freezes at zero degrees centigrade, and boils and vaporizes at one hundred, again making water ideal for the support of life.  Water is a liquid in just the perfect ranges for living tissues to thrive.  Of course hydrogen (-252 deg. C and pressurized) and oxygen (-118 deg. C) do exist a liquids, but at such low temperatures that they would be useless as liquids that support life.

Enormous amounts of water existed as vapor in the atmosphere of the early earth.  As the earth itself cooled from the incredibly hot stages of its birth, the water vapor condensed, immense rains came, and cooled the earth more.  The when the rains hit the earth, they again vaporized, according to computer models, and again were trapped in the atmosphere.  But this cooling, liquefying of water, and re-vaporizing cycle repeated several times until the earth cooled enough to hold the water as vast oceans.  It was these vast oceans that provided an idyllic environment for the birth of the earth’s first living organisms.  Water’s neutral ph, (not acidic or basic) it’s ability to hold so many chemicals in solution, and its other qualities makes it the perfect liquid to support life.  It is hard to imagine any other liquid so perfectly suited for the job.  There isn’t any liquid that could be considered a valid substitute.  Of course evolution’s powerhouse, natural selection, couldn’t have played a part in the invention and existence of water.  Again, all the credit for the existence of water, the immense amounts that exist only on the planet earth, but not on the other seven planets or their moons, goes to Dumb Luck again.  Of course tiny amounts have been found on other planets and moons, but nothing like the oceans found on earth.  It’s astounding to think that water existed on the planet earth, but not much did/does on the other planets.  What if water was plentiful on Jupiter only, but not earth?  What would that have done to the formation of life in the solar system?  Would there have been life?  Would we be some sort of unique type of life, floating in the atmosphere of Jupiter?

5. The configuration and qualities of the carbon atom that allows for the formation of biochemicals.

Organic compounds are defined as molecules that have a carbon-hydrogen bond. Organic compounds have characteristics that make them critical to sustaining life as we know it. Carbon atoms have certain characteristics, the formation of “ring and string’ molecules, that allow them to bond to hydrogen and other atoms in a variety of ways, allowing for a huge variety of molecular combinations that produce vital biochemicals such as sugars, fats, and proteins, which are all essential for biological functions…….and life.

A molecule of a single carbon atom with a single hydrogen atom is known as a “hydrocarbon.” Hydrocarbons are the building blocks of all biochemical molecules. Carbon’s outer electron shell has certain atomic characteristics that make it a perfect structure base for all living tissues.  Because of these characteristics, the  hydrocarbon molecule is able to arrange itself in different structures, such as  a ring formation, a chain, or a branched chain, which can produce the types of molecules necessary for life. Biochemicals are formed by biological activity of an organism.  A human cell produces 2,000 biochemicals per second!  The same number is also destroyed by that single cell.  A human, and all living cells, are incredibly busy locations.  Far busier than one could imagine by looking at a slide or picture of a cell.  And, the characteristics of the carbon atom make every one of these rapid formations possible.

Biochemical molecules can form more complex compounds by having “functional groups” attach themselves to the carbon spine of the molecule. Functional groups are molecules such as oxygen and hydrogen.  When these different atoms attach to carbon based molecules, very different characteristics result,which make the carbon-based biochemicals capable of performing an incredible number of varying biochemical tasks. Without the “rings and strings” characteristics of the carbon atom, life as we know it would not be possible. So are these characteristics of the carbon atom another dumb luck story?  The design and traits of the carbon atom is an absolute necessity for life and humans to exist. Evolutonauts would have us think that the carbon atom shows no design.  To be scientific, I will use the term ‘Dumb Luck Configuration and Characteristics’ to describe evolution’s thoughts and opinions on the carbon atom.  Human cells contain tens of thousands of biochemicals, and over five hundred protein enzymes that are all made up of carbon based molecules. And just think, they were all brought into being by DLC&C!

6. The relationship between the strengths of the strong force and the electromagnetic force  which allows for the nuclei of atoms to be held together. All protons carry a positive charge.  Positive charges repel, much like placing like charged ends (+ with +, or – with -)  of a magnet together.  Protons in the nucleus of atoms “want” to fly away from each other because of this  + and – force known as the electromagnetic force.  Humans can see the electromagnetic force in action in lightening, magnets, and electricity. Dumb luck comes through again, by giving us the “strong nuclear  force”. Why does the strong force even exist?  Without it the universe would remain a fog of subatomic particles.   The strong force which attracts  protons to each other in the nucleus  of atoms is 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force pushing them apart.  Lucky for us.  And thank you Dumb Luck for coming through again a not only producing the strong force, but for making it far stronger than the electromagnetic force.

7.  Fusion  of hydrogen and helium to form heavy atoms. For this to happen , stars must go through their life cycles, and then explode into what are called super novas.  The incredible heat and pressure formed when these immense explosions occur make the very heavy elements on the periodic table.  Lighter elements are formed the core of stars as they burn their nuclear fuel.  The ability of hydrogen and helium to fuse into heavier elements is what makes rocky planets possible.  If this fusion didn’t occur, there would be nothing but gassy planets and stars, and there would be no place, no solid surface, for life to form. The universe is actually made up of 74% hydrogen, and almost 24% helium.  The rest is just impurities. This chart shows the elements in the Milky Way Galaxy, which closely represents  the proportion of the elements in the universe.  It’s interesting to note that the earth is just an impurity, thanks to all of the Dumb Luck in this example.  And nearly all of the hydrogen in the universe exists now just as it did 13 billion years ago.

Z Element Mass fraction
in parts per million
1 Hydrogen 739,000
2 Helium 240,000
8 Oxygen 10,400
6 Carbon 4,600
10 Neon 1,340
26 Iron 1,090
7 Nitrogen 960
14 Silicon 650
12 Magnesium 580
16 Sulfur 440

8. Strength of gravity

There are four distinct forces in nature.  Two are experienced by humans on an everyday basis, and we are very familiar with them.  One is electromagnetism, which displays itself in the form of light, lightening, electricity, magnets, and touching the surface of a hard object and being repelled.  If you touch a hard surface with you finger, the negatively charged electrons of your finger repel the negatively charged electrons of the surface.  This is why you cannot push your finger into hard matter, which in reality, is 99.999999% space.*** Another of the four forces is the strong nuclear force which which we never knowingly experience.   It keeps positively charged protons together in the nucleus of an atom.  The third force is the weak force which has to do with radioactive decay, and is the other of the two that we never experience.  The fourth is gravity, which we are all, of course, very familiar with, and very thankful for it’s existence.  What is astounding about the relationships of these forces is that they are proportioned so perfectly so that atoms and life are possible. The strongest of the four forces is the strong nuclear force (#6 above).  The relationship between the strong force and gravity is nothing short of astounding.  The strong force is one trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity!  If you can imagine a measuring tape that was stretched all the way across the universe representing the strong force, gravity would represent one inch of that measuring tape. If gravity represented three or four inches of that tape, life would not be possible.  Or multicelled organisms would exist looking like fried eggs, squashed into the surface of the planet that they exist on.  The planets themselves would have a very different look.  Earth would be squashed down into a much smaller ball, the sun would as well.  Which would make the sun a far hotter, and a shorter lived star.  The proportions and size of every thing in the universe, galaxies, stars, gas clouds, moons, would have a very different look.  So, here is another Dumb Luck scenario.  Or, is gravity designed the way it is so that life can exist?  Evolutionauts proudly and adamantly claim Dumb Luck as the winner here. They are sure they are right.  Absolutely sure. Me?  Not so sure.

9. Subatomic particles that are capable of combining to form hydrogen atoms. The early stages of the Big Bang produced nothing but a mass of incredibly tiny sub-atomic particles.  Until the forces that keep atoms together came into play, atoms that make up all of matter and humans were nonexistent.  Why would the universe not simply continue on as a fog of these sub-atomic particles?  Why did four separate and unique forces form that were capable of combining these particles together to make protons and neutrons?  Why were the forces just right and so perfectly balanced so that electrons would begin buzzing around protons  which resulted in the forming of hydrogen atoms?  There are six “flavors” or types of quarks, the immensely tiny particles that make up protons and neutrons.  They are labeled “up”, “down”, “bottom”, “top”, “strange” and “charm”.  These particles had to have just to right characteristics so that they would form into the heavier particles that make up the nucleus of atoms.  Why?  Why wouldn’t they simply remain as a fog of particles?  Were protons an invention of these quarks? Wouldn’t continuing their existence as  quarks simply have been the default?  The easy way to remain?  Why the next stage?  There are also six types of leptons , another type of sub-atomic particle, that makes up all of matter.   Electrons are the best know of the leptons.  For atoms to exist, electrons had to have just the right characteristics and charge so they could buzz around protons, and later neutrons, and eventually form all of that atoms that make up matter.  Imagine what an incredible invention atoms really are.  From a fog of incredibly tiny particles that combined in just the right proportions, and with just the right charges and forces to glue atoms together when there was no notion of what an atom was.  This is an unimaginable scenario.  Except when you are talking to evolutionauts.  They, of course, have to remain stoic about this universe-shaking event, and pretend like there is no invention or design in the formation of the first atom.   There had to be a first atom, of course. Possibly the most historic invention and assembly of any entity in the history of the universe.  There are so many more incredible inventions that had to form, entities that came into being from a universe that had no notion whatsoever of these inventions, so that the end result would be life and us.  Are subatomic particles just another example of the Dumb Luck Scenario touted by evolution?  Do atoms display design?  Or are they a piggledy wiggledy mess.  Ask and evolutionaut, and they will tell you dumb luck and a piggledy wiggledy mess ruled the day at the moment of the invention and assembly of the first atom. Me? I see nothing but design.

10. The invention and existence of DNA:

DNA carries an immense digital code that is a blueprint for every living cell.  The entire plan for the human body is carried in each and every cell in the human body by this DNA stored digital code.  On wonders how living cells could first form if a digital code didn’t exist before the  formation of that first cell.  Did Dumb Luck form some sort of code that was then acted on by mutations that were then “selected for” by natural selection?  Is this another in a  long string of Dumb Luck events in the pathway to the formation of life and man?  If this is the case, DNA had to exist before evolution began, because mutations had to have something to do it’s brilliant  selected works on.  If there was no DNA, there would be no life. Since evolution is composed mainly of random mutations being naturally selected, DNA had to precede life.  Also, there could be no natural selection that worked on the chemicals that existed in the universe, or in whatever location DNA originated.  DNA had to be born of that recurrently brilliant Dumb Luck scenario.  Then Dumb Luck had to act on the earliest DNA molecules so that a first code could be established.   THEN mutations could occur and be “selected for”.

DNA is remarkable beyond imagination. To give you an idea of how amazing this genetically coded molecule is, let’s put into perspective the size of the cells that house our genetic code. Our cells are so small that 10,000 cells would fit on the head of a pin. DNA is coiled and encapsulated inside the nucleus of each cell. DNA is made up of a “coiled ladder” type of molecule, again through the incredible Dumb Luck characteristics of the completely non-designed carbon atom . The ladder rungs are composed of four different organic bases, two on each rung: adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. Adenine always links to thymine, cytocine to guanine, and these links are called “base pairs”. The code is written AT, GC by biologists.  Human DNA is composed of over three billion base pairs. The order of these links acts like a digital code that are the blueprint for cells to construct proteins which are the building blocks of life.

When the bases have certain types of sugars and phosphates added, they then are molecules called nucleotides, which are the building blocks of the coiled side rails of the “ladder”. Each  nucleotide side rail has it’s molecules in opposite order from the opposing side rail, (ABCD faces DCBA) making the molecules “anti-parallel”, which of course requires an incredible feat of assembly.

To give you an idea of how long and thin our DNA is, five million strings of DNA would fit inside the eye of a sewing needle. If the DNA from one cell was unraveled, it would be six feet long.  If DNA were 2″ wide, the molecule would be over ten miles long! If DNA were movie film, and each individual “picture” represented a single rung, and twenty-four rungs went by the lens per second, it would take 1447 days, almost four years, to watch the entire film.

What is really amazing about DNA is that is doesn’t key what each cell becomes, or start the differentiation of cells in the embryo. It doesn’t tell an undifferentiated cell in the embryo to become a lung cell, heart cell, blood cell, or any other type of cell. That job is done by the cell’s cytoplasm. fluid-like material that fills most of the cell. The enzyme system of the cytoplasm tells the cell what it will become. DNA in every cell’s nucleus holds all of the plans, much like a computer’s hard drive holds all of the information for the computer. The cytoplasm must access the information in the DNA, but it ultimately is the decider of what the cell will become, and to where it will migrate so it is in proper position and can act as a building block for whatever organ the DNA plans require.

To try to combat the challenges DNA has for evolution, evolutionauts have come up with the notion that RNA a shorter string type of molecule that carries the genetic code from DNA to protein-making entities in the cell, acted initially as DNA  in early proto-cells.  They call very early life on earth an “RNA World”.  Any close biochemical analysis would toss this theory quickly, and it is pure imagination.  There is no reason to think this did take place, and no evidence can be located.  Evolution is stuck with Dumb Luck forming DNA for the time being at least. Where and how did Dumb Luck invent and assemble the first DNA molecules?  Why did that event occur? Was there a plan?  Was DNA needed for some reason? Oops.  No.  Of course not.  It was formed, and it had a perfect future role in nature and life.  Dumb Luck again in action.

Stevebee’s Law of Continuums:

Natural pressures and entities that are capable of shaping nature, if they are truly natural and objective, would display a continuum and presence from the birth of the universe through the appearance of modern life. They would not just pop in and out of existence at the whim of “nothing” or Dumb Luck.   The notion of evolution fails badly because there is no continuum.  There is no constant presence of natural selection and random mutations throughout the existence of the universe and nature.  Evolution began as invention derived from another invention, the appearance of life on earth.  Evolution’s existence is dependent on that life.  And, of course, life on earth is an invention of nature.  Life began on a sterile planet where there was no notion whatsoever of what life was.  What an incredible and astounding  shock to this planet. Why life when sterility would have been easier?  For that matter, why a universe when none would have been the easy rout?

According to evolution, the history of life in the universe is divided into three distinct sections.  The beginning of the universe through the formation of the planet Earth and up to the formation of life is pure happenstance; unguided Dumb Luck, nothing more.  Then came life.  The cause and/or source for the formation of life on earth is a complete and, admitted by evolutionauts, unknown, a mystery, even though it represents the birth of evolution. Evolutionauts separate the formation of life  (abiogenesis) away from evolution because there is no plausible source or reason for life to exist.   Since they have no notion about the birth of life, they turn their back on this subject, their best strategy.  Evolution says after the beginning of life came natural selection and random mutations, et al, which did not exist in the universe before the beginning of life on earth; as far as we know.  Maybe it took place, and will take place, on other planets with life, but that is something we will never know. NS and RM was an entirely new entity that  didn’t exist for the first 10 billion years of the existence of the universe.  When life began, evolution was triggered and came into play.  If evolution did what evolutionatus claim it did, it arguably represents natures most incredible invention.  Evolution supposedly brought into existence the formation of millions of different species, and all bio-systems that go with them, and humanity with its intelligence and consciousness .  So, according to evolution,  there is (1) incredible Dumb Luck, the formation of the universe and its matter, (2) the  introduction of life from an unknown source, and (3) the completely new entity, evolution, that shapes and forms all of life and us. Evolution provides no continuum.  Each stage represents it’s own immense but completely different type of invention brought into existence in a space where it did not exist before. Dumb Luck to life to evolution.

It would seem that nature, if it was truly “natural”,  should present itself as a constant. The entities and pressures that form nature must have existed at the point of the birth of the universe, one billion years later, and 14 billion years later. These entities and pressures should  show a continuum and consistency.  An intelligent universe is that consistency.  If you view the universe as if it has an intelligent quality, there is a continuum.  Quarks that have the ability and are designed to join up and form  protons. Electrons that have the ability and design to connect to the protons in a unique and  incredibly intelligent manner to form hydrogen atoms.  Hydrogen atoms and their ability and to bunch into stars due to gravitational forces which have just the perfect design characteristics so they can do so.   Hydrogen atoms that are designed and able to fuse to form helium and give off tremendous amounts of energy; energy necessary for the future advent of life.  Stars that are designed and have the ability to form heavy elements that didn’t exist before, and to form planets that didn’t either.  Hydrogen and oxygen, two thin gasses, with their unique design which gives them the ability to form a heavy liquid, water,  the only liquid that exists capable of supporting life.  The carbon atom that, because of its design and characteristics, is able to construct the framework for life’s biochemicals.  Then life itself and its division into millions of species and bio-systems.  Then humans, consciousness and intelligence.  A continuum from the fist sub-subatomic particles to intelligence and consciousness;  from the first quark to humanity.  A continuum.

*** In true evolutionaut fashion, an evolutonaut at rationalskepticism.org criticized me for this simple bullet point.  Of course if I went into deep detail on each bullet point, this blog would be immense. So, if you are interested in more detail here is a more throough description of what makes solids solid even though they are 99.9999% space.  From:

Yahoo Ask,

UK and Ireland:

In the ‘classical’ view, atoms are mostly empty space and the reason they feel solid is that if you try and push them, the electrons around your atoms bump into the electrons around the other atoms and because they’re both negative they repel each other and push away. You feel this force as ‘solid’. It’s like pushing a really, really stiff spring or trying to force 2 magnets together, except it’s electronic in origin.  In quantum physics, each particle has a wave function. Wave functions can only exist in certain forms, and when electrons are bound in an atom their waves spread up over a big volume (it’s the only way mathematically to get a stable wave, ie an electron that exists. Since it exists, its wave function spreads out much further than the thing you classically think of as an electron).  Electrons have something called antisymmetric wave functions, which means they obey the Pauli exclusion principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclu…You can’t have 2 electrons in the same state (and ‘state’ includes ‘space’. You can have 2 oppositely spinning electrons, but no more in the same place). So atoms spread out because you can’t squeeze the wave functions in. The rest of it is electrostatic repulsion just like in the classical model.

Advertisements

63 Comments

  1. LucidFlight said,

    “Reality is we are light years from figuring out how life first formed on earth.”

    Does that mean all we have to do is travel that distance and we’ll find our manufacturers? Is that where the designers live — light-years away? Wait, don’t tell me… it’s Alpha Centauri, isn’t it! I knew it.

    “Witty”, disparaging response from Steve in 5… 4… 3… 2…

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hey Lucid, where you been? I was genuinely worried about you. I hope all is well. I missed the great demeaning that you are so talented at doling out. Actually “light years from” means a “long way from”. You see, a light year is about six trillion miles. A VERY long way away. Which is where we are in figuring out the origin of life and nature. Unfortunately I like that analogy, so I use it often. And you are light years from being the first evolutionaut that has picked it out as a “surely successful attack point”. So unfortunately, you will have to find others if you really want to be successful and not trite. I’m rooting for you!

  2. Derek said,

    Steve, you are a new breed of idiot. Hope you don’t teach this bullshit to your kids.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks for the intelligent reply! Good intelligent discourse is always so challenging.

  3. Shrunk said,

    Steve writes:

    “You see, a light year is about six trillion miles. A VERY long way away. Which is where we are in figuring out the origin of life and nature. ”

    Ah, so we are unable to say that they were “designed”, then, correct?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Take a course in reading comp shrunk.

  4. cadman2300 said,

    I know you hate CDK007’s guts and that you hate it when plausible scenarios are laid out that prove everything you say to be flat-out wrong but you might want to watch this. It’s a summary of the work of Dr. Szostak, a man you’ve been pointed to but dismissed without actually reading anything he wrote.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I have seen this vid long ago. You mean Dr. Szostak’s fantasy? And yours, because you believe his absolute bullshit. Are you really that easy? I guess so. This guy has no notion about how life formed. No person on the planet earth does. This guy is fooling you in such an easy way. Why? That is the question you might want to ask yourself. You sure have a lot of perseverance. I don’t get why you keep coming back. You have eaten it so many times here and at RS trying to get me. And you keep on truckin’. What’s the attraction? You must not believe your own stevebee demeaning that you have spent so much energy on. If you did, you would have been gone long ago.

      • Dane said,

        Is that why you kept coming back to RS for as long as you did? You can stop calling the kettle black, pot.

        “This guy has no notion about how life formed. No person on the planet earth does. ” Those are your words…and yet you are incapable of living by them. If no one on this planet truly has any notion about how life formed, why do you keep insisting that life is the the product of some unknown designer?

        And I see you still have yet to answer my question. What’s wrong Steve? Is it too “philosophical” for you?

      • NeroNuke said,

        Hold on, let’s see if I have this straight.

        Dr. Szostak was able to replicate the formation of fatty acid vesicles in the primordial oceans as well as demonstrate how monomers are able to penetrate them and polymerize once inside, encounter convection currents and heat from hydrothermal vents that energize monomers and enable polymer division and replication within the vesicle, and thus kick-start the formation of the first possible life, all in a controlled lab environment to eliminate as many variables as possible, and your best response is to dismiss a scientifically sound experiment as “fantasy” and “bullshit” as if somehow you have the authority to turn a blind eye to reality.

        Come on, if you’re not going to take the subject matter seriously then what hope do you have in disproving anything?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I missed your comment, so this is late. Matters not what Szostak did. He should take an empty cell wall, stuff it with all the pre-mixed goodies he wants, throw in some RNA/DNA, and wave his magic wand over the proto-cell. MAKE IT COME ALIVE. Because if he can’t, all his lab bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Bullshit that is fooling you. These pseudo-abiogenesis-ists are just wasting time and probably taxpayer money, and all they are making is muck. Living cells have tens of thousands of proteins, and over 500 protein enzymes. Plus DNA that is six feet long if unwound, and nearly infinitely thin. Plus organelles (mitochondria, ribosomes…..). Keep on wishing and believing. Even if they could make everything in a test tube, what they would have is a dead cell.

    • Challagar said,

      I watched that video too and it fails to explain much of how RNA produced DNA

      STOP codons and START codons always show up in just the right places, otherwise the protein or anatomical characteristic that the chain represents will be unfit for survival. It will be sickly and malformed or even fail to produce anything at all.

      There is nothing to prevent two STOP codons from following each other consecutively; the same for a START codon immediately followed by a STOP codon, or for two START codons together.

      Also, there are no mechanisms in the RNA chain to determine the order of the molecules in the chain. It would have to be completely random. A complete chain would have to be formed that had a successfully coded arrangement to form a useful protein. It would have to repeat this completely random process for each and every protein necessary for the later assembly of the DNA structure.

      These proteins that it somehow forms through many sheer accidents of statistical improbability must have some purpose. If you study microbiology at all, even just a little bit, you will find that many of these proteins are dependent on each other to perform their respective tasks. In other words, the right combination of proteins must be present for the vast majority of proteins to do their jobs. If one protein is missing then the whole cycle fails. Considering that these types of proteins exist in, not the dozens or even scores, but in the hundreds, this whole idea of forming them randomly is just a sheer fantasy or wishful thinking.

  5. Dane said,

    So now you’ve progressed to the whole of the Earth and indeed the universe being intelligently designed.

    So explain to me how your belief is any different than that of a Creationist?

  6. gene said,

    I don’t know why are some people complaining. This is a nice compilation of scientific facts and a refresher.

    Now take your time to think about those facts.

    • Dane said,

      If you will please point out exactly those scientific facts are, I’m sure there would be people willing to take a look.

      About the only “facts” that are stated here is that hydrogen, helium, carbon and water are things that exist. Fusion is a process that exists. Gravity is a force that exists.

      This is just one, long diatribe that is attempting to convince you that because this process happens when these two elements/forces meet that means it was DESIGNED to happen that way. You could stretch that logic to include any physical reaction in the universe. How ‘scientific’ does that sound?

  7. gene said,

    Let me see….

    1- fact
    2-fact
    3-good question
    4-fact
    5-fact
    6-fact
    7-fact
    8-?
    9-fact
    10-fact

    It’s obviously presented in this way to make some point and make readers think little deeper. Can you think little deeper?

    • Dane said,

      Think a little deeper about what, Gene? That these physical forces exist and these reactions occur?

      As I pointed out in my previous post, Steve is obviously trying to create a false premise. He is taking processes that occur in nature and trying to make it appear as if it’s all done by design. Essentially, he’s trying to “astound and amaze” you with physical processes, some of which are necessary to life. He’s then making an artificial association between those processes and his philosophical belief that is all been designed by some intelligent designer.

      So two hydrogen atoms bonding to one atom of oxygen to make water must have been designed! Hey methane is naturally occurring…and it’s highly toxic to life! What a great design idea! Hydrogen cyanide…another great design idea, right?

      This is akin to side show magic…dazzle you a little, make you imagine a lot. If you want to think a little deeper, think on the whole premise Steve advances…that the whole of universe is intelligently designed. Can you think past your incredulity?

  8. gene said,

    Hi Dane

    Even a lowly electron is “magic”.

    Sure we (humans) know a lot about electron, all the properties like spin,charge,mass… We know very well how to use it, too but we really do not know what electron is.

    Maybe that’s the source of magic and dazzle.

    • Dane said,

      So having a complete understanding of a thing’s properties, functions and uses to the point where one can make of it a useful tool is not the same as knowing what it is?

      What you’re really saying is you don’t where they all came from and for some reason that makes them ‘magical’ to you. Now I understand why primitive humanity was so obsessed with magic.

  9. Challagar said,

    To try to answer number 3 above:

    There are only two possible ways to answer the question “Why.”

    If I go into the kitchen and ask, “Why is the kettle boiling?” I might get a scientific answer, “Well, heat is being applied to the kettle and the water molecules are being stimulated to bounce around and become hotter and they have reached the boiling point for water.”

    Or, I could get a personal answer, “Because I wanted to heat up some water for mac and cheese.”

    You can logically prove that there can not be an infinite series of causes and effects. And since science deals only with causes and effects, it cannot explain an uncaused cause, therefore the only possible answer remaining must be a personal answer, not a scientific answer.

    • Dane said,

      Ummm….no. Science deals with what is demonstrable and what is not. What can be investigated and what cannot. What is observable, verifiable and testable and what is not.

      You are assuming there is an uncaused cause for the existence of the universe. If you intend to advance this as answer, then, logically, you need to demonstrate the the existence of this ‘uncaused cause’. Simply promoting it as thought construct does little good as that is nothing more internal perception of an external article…and that does not a reality make.

      Don’t forget is also going to ask how an uncaused cause can even be. How does a thing be without having a cause?

      • Challagar said,

        You really think you have successfully undermined my whole argument don’t you? You just confirmed it.

        How do you observe something? Through hypothesizing about the cause and setting up experiments to determine if the effect is consistent with your hypothesis.

        How do you verify something? By performing experiments to determine causes and effects.

        How do you know something is testable? When you are able to set up experiments to observe and verify it.

        Also, Steve is so right! Evolutionauts only use the tenets of science that you just used to berate me with when it suits their purpose. He has repeatedly shown examples of speculative evolutionary hypotheses that can neither be observed nor verified nor tested. But Evonauts just totally ignore anything he says and push “peer-reviewed” papers in his face and think they have won the battle. The funny thing is when he uses those same peer reviewed papers to prove his own point LOL It’s like throwing a spear at someone who catches it and throws it right back at you.

        “Don’t forget [one] is also going to ask how an uncaused cause can even be. How does a thing be without having a cause?”

        How do you have an infinite set of causes?

        “Simply promoting it as thought construct does little good as that is nothing more internal perception of an external article…and that does not a reality make.”

        It’s called thinking. Someone had to have an idea before the first machine of the industrial revolution was invented. Someone has to have an idea before doing any experiment. Ideas are realities unrealized.

        Einstein was a mathematician. He came up with the Theory Of General Relativity through thinking about the processes involved. Are you going to say his ideas are “nothing more [than an] internal perception of an external article?”

        Stop relying on scientists to do the thinking for you and do some thinking of your own.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        A+ comment. I couldn’t have said it better myself. This one makes it to my favorites page.

  10. Challagar said,

    To clarify my post above:

    I should state that it does not answer the question “Why?”, but logically proves the nature of the question.

  11. gene said,

    Dane

    Quick Google search on “what is electron made of” didn’t turn up much, right?

    No wonder. My dozen books on physics don’t say much either. Scientist actually know an electron is made of a pure, dense energy “bundle” and so is everything else. They don’t know what is keeping the energy bundled (condensed).

    …but it gets little worse..

    quote by Feynman

    It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives “28” – always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.

    “..I understand why primitive humanity was so obsessed with magic..”

    What primitive humanity? Roman politicians and poets? Greek philosophers and mathematicians? Egyptian and Babylonian builders? All the astronomers, philosophers and wise men of the past?

    • Challagar said,

      gene

      Check out TheDutchDatabase Youtube channel and find the play list named “Dead Men’s Secrets” It has evidence that prehistoric civilization was far more sophisticated and technologically advanced than the few examples that you listed.

      It reviews a book with a ton of archeological finds all over the world pointing to an advanced civilization that had accurate global maps, including maps of Antarctica, and medical, industrial, and scientific technology rivaling or surpassing our own.

      I was so amazed that I ordered the book for myself.

    • Dane said,

      So because there is a particular facet of electrons that is entirely understood, that means we should chalk it up some supernatural force that’s keeping it ‘bundled’?

      Feynman’s quote is equally useless. Contemporary physics has a pretty clear understanding of what energy and what energy isn’t. It may not have an absolute understanding today, but who knows what we’ll know tomorrow? As for 28-and the other so-called ‘magic numbers in physics-this only establishes that certain processes produce consistent results. It is not something identifies design.

      And yes…all those poets, philosophers, builders, mathematicians and philosophers who figured some things out…and invariably chalked up the reason those things work the way they do to some metaphysical source.

      The Egyptians were obsessed with ritual magic, as were the Celts, the Norse, Native Americans and the various African tribes. The early Chinese were consumed with harnessing ‘chi’ and employing Taoist alchemy. All of this was done in the attempt to interact with a world that all saw as ‘magical’.

  12. gene said,

    Challagar

    Thanks, I’ll check the channel. Sounds interesting.

  13. gene said,

    Dane

    Never mind electron. Recent research and calculations on basic framework of reality are beyond any materialistic comprehension. I will not spend time on it because you’ll think it’s just more magic.

    • Dane said,

      Umm….no. You’ve got it backwards.

      If there is something science is investigating and it does not have a complete understanding of it, but is continuing to advance it’s efforts, I call that scientific inquiry.

      If you see something you don’t grasp and say ‘Wow! Amazing! Some supernatural entity/intelligent designer must have made that!’, THEN I’ll call it ‘magic’.

      • Challagar said,

        “If you see something you don’t grasp and say ‘Wow! Amazing! Some supernatural entity/intelligent designer must have made that!’, THEN I’ll call it ‘magic’.”

        What I call magic is order coming out of randomness with no intelligence directing it. Now THAT is magic!

      • Dane said,

        And yet the most orderly thing in all of existence-this intelligent designer, god, deity, whatever-gets a pass because it’s the prime cause, right? Alpha and Omega, beginning and end…doesn’t have to obey any rules!

        Of course, I suppose it would blow your wheels completely to imagine existence was NOT the work of some supernatural being. If the process of life began as consequence of certain elements and environmental factors merging to produce it rather than life being the special project of some supernatural entity who is actually concerned with you…well…I guess you’d find that tough to bear, huh?

      • Challagar said,

        I wasn’t going to answer your post since this thread seems to be degenerating from being science based into personal attacks.

        “And yet the most orderly thing in all of existence-this intelligent designer, god, deity, whatever-gets a pass because it’s the prime cause, right? Alpha and Omega, beginning and end…doesn’t have to obey any rules!”

        No, he doesn’t get a free pass like you seem to think. He can not be anything other than what He is. And if you ask me what that is, I will only tell you to look it up for yourself.

        Not only that, the one thing you fail to consider is that what, to you, might appear to be a sure and firm foundation is really a product of a higher reality. In other words, this reality, what we can see and touch, is not the ultimate reality, but a lesser reality. The probability that we will find out that higher reality is 100%, not 20% or 50%. This is a scientifically observed phenomenon, indisputably.

        Besides, if you owned a company you could get all the free passes that you could afford. You would have no one (within the company) to answer to. I think the real issue you have with Him is that you don’t want to follow His rules and you resent Him for placing restrictions on you, such as love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and mother, etc. You would rather be your own god, not subject to anyone else.

        “If the process of life began as consequence of certain elements and environmental factors merging to produce it rather than life being the special project of some supernatural entity who is actually concerned with you…well…I guess you’d find that tough to bear, huh?”

        Sure, I might, but it would be only temporary, whereas what follows life will be far longer and unchangeable than these few short years we have on this planet. That is alot of time to be wagering on such a weak position.

        You have no real evidence that God does not exist, beyond your own “personal incredulity” of the logical existence of an uncaused cause. Far less evidence than believers have that He does exist. If you choose not to search out that evidence for yourself and weigh it against your evidence, that is your choice. I could give you tons of links to said evidence, in addition to the few arguments I have presented here, but that wouldn’t do any good if you don’t look at it and give serious thought to it.

        If I were you, I would downgrade (or upgrade, perhaps?) to being an agnostic, rather than a dogmatic atheist. You might actually learn something.

        The only reason I haven’t argued from the numerous evidences that I refer to is that I am respecting Steve’s wishes that this remain a science forum. I have tried to do just that except for the times I stray off into the philosophical, without which science wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

      • Dane said,

        First off, telling me to ‘look it up for yourself’ is about a a good as answer as I expected. Since you cannot argue beyond the supernatural, I rather expected this.

        Second, the existence of a ‘higher reality’ is not 100%…as a matter of fact, you cannot even compute the probability because there is no basis from which to do it. When you have rationally objective, observable, verifiable evidence that there is a ‘higher reality’, let me know. Here’s a hint: discovering something that exists outside the normal powers of human senses does NOT make for a higher reality. None of our senses can perceive a virus…you cannot see, hear, smell, taste or feel one…until you employ some form of technological intermediary.

        Third, humans do not need any deity or god in order for them to value anything ‘good’, nor is there any resentment towards the ‘restrictions’ of physical reality. Why do fundamentalists always have to resort to the ‘you’re just angry’ fallacy?

        Fourth, since there is no ‘serious evidence’ that is not built upon either: A. Inference and supposition or B. Personal anecdotes, epiphanies and ‘spiritual experiences’, your evidence is moot. You believe your evidence is absolute because your belief is absolute…there is no consideration you might be wrong.

        Fifth, there is no dogma attached to atheism. It is not a belief, a philosophy, a religion or belief system. It is a statement of lacking belief in something, said belief predicated by the lack of a basis or rationale from which to have that belief. If you earnestly have no belief in something and find ‘evidence’ for it in sufficient, than that is simple honesty. You cannot force yourself to believe in something that you really don’t have a belief in.

        And finally….whoever said I was an atheist? It amuses me to no end that when someone points out the logical inconsistencies and flaws of theistic belief-and ID-that the one is automatically branded as an atheist. So much for thinking!

      • Challagar said,

        “First off, telling me to ‘look it up for yourself’ is about a a good as answer as I expected. Since you cannot argue beyond the supernatural, I rather expected this.”

        And that is about the answer I expected.

        “Second, the existence of a ‘higher reality’ is not 100%…as a matter of fact, you cannot even compute the probability because there is no basis from which to do it. When you have rationally objective, observable, verifiable evidence that there is a ‘higher reality’, let me know. Here’s a hint: discovering something that exists outside the normal powers of human senses does NOT make for a higher reality. None of our senses can perceive a virus…you cannot see, hear, smell, taste or feel one…until you employ some form of technological intermediary.”

        You seriously missed my implication on this one. When I said, “This is a scientifically observed phenomenon, indisputably,” I was talking about death. We all die. It is 100 percent guaranteed. We will find out the truth of the existence or lack of existence of this higher reality. Unless you find a way to live forever, then you can expect to verify or falsify the existence of this reality for yourself.

        “Third, humans do not need any deity or god in order for them to value anything ‘good’, nor is there any resentment towards the ‘restrictions’ of physical reality. Why do fundamentalists always have to resort to the ‘you’re just angry’ fallacy?”

        You keep on telling yourself that.

        “Fourth, since there is no ‘serious evidence’ that is not built upon either: A. Inference and supposition or B. Personal anecdotes, epiphanies and ‘spiritual experiences’, your evidence is moot. You believe your evidence is absolute because your belief is absolute…there is no consideration you might be wrong.”

        In a few years when you have to have an RFID electronic ink tattoo on your hand to buy or sell, then come back and tell me that. Also, when you do, you can tell me that the area out in the middle of nowhere in Saudi Arabia that is surrounded by a chain linked fence is only supposition. Then you can tell me that all the UFOs, ghosts, and other lying signs and wonders that are happening are only supposition, each and everyone of them (even the fraudulent cases are lying signs and wonders since they falsely represent themselves).

        Also tell me how it is merely inference and supposition that the Bible not only prophesied the scattering of Israel throughout the earth, but it also prophesied its return to its original homeland. That is a pretty big coincidence to be chalked up to inference and supposition, especially considering that these fulfilled prophecies are not alone. They are accompanied by many more similar “coincidences.”

        Try calling the so-called coincidence (among many) of where God talks about the Pleiades being bound and Orion being loosed mere inference and supposition. Scientists have discovered that Pleiades is bound by gravity and that Orion is loose, meaning it does not have the gravitational pull to hold itself together.

        Coincidences are one thing, but when they start stacking up on each other, one after another after another, you should at least do a bit of your own investigating instead of just tossing them aside as inference and supposition.

        But, wait a second, I forget, your whole Theory of Evolution is based on inference and supposition since when you see something similar to another you jump to the conclusion that one is the precursor of the other. Peer reviewed papers are chock full of inferences and suppositions with a generous portion of Might Haves and a sprinkling of Maybes.

        While you are at it, try answering Steve’s questions on this site without pointing to peer reviewed papers or sluffing it off to you just don’t understand evolution or trying to discredit his intelligence and veracity or some such excuse.

        “Fifth, there is no dogma attached to atheism. It is not a belief, a philosophy, a religion or belief system. It is a statement of lacking belief in something, said belief predicated by the lack of a basis or rationale from which to have that belief. If you earnestly have no belief in something and find ‘evidence’ for it in sufficient, than that is simple honesty. You cannot force yourself to believe in something that you really don’t have a belief in.”

        Seriously? It has no dogma? Then you tell me why that, instead of investigating all the multitudes of fulfilled prophecy and other evidences, you want to argue against it as though you already know there is nothing to them? You tell me that I don’t even consider that I might be wrong, but who is it that is lumping all the evidence for God into a pile of inference and supposition before even studying the matter adequately?

        Also, lack of belief does not have the need to be defended. I don’t defend my lack of a belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or aliens, I just don’t have the interest in such matters. I have met real atheists, by your definition, and they couldn’t care less about the whole subject of the existence or relevance of God, nor do they try to discredit His existence or those who believe in Him, they just shrug the whole thing off as not worth their time.

        Steve believes in an intelligent designer, but he tends to avoid any debate on the matter in our correspondence. He may not be an atheist in terms of believing in a designer, but he is more atheist than most who claim this distinction are when it comes to the God of the Bible.

        “And finally….whoever said I was an atheist? It amuses me to no end that when someone points out the logical inconsistencies and flaws of theistic belief-and ID-that the one is automatically branded as an atheist. So much for thinking!”

        If I didn’t believe you were an atheist before, I do now, after the post I just replied to. If you were not an atheist, or at least an agnostic, you would not be trying to find fault with your fellow believers, but trying to encourage them and direct them into closer examination of the evidence and to guide them into better discernment of truth and error. And you would not be tossing everything together into a pile of inference and supposition instead of analyzing the evidence as Steve does very thoroughly on this site.

      • Dane said,

        Well said, Challagar. A long diatribe that so perfectly captures the rhetoric of a fanatical, fundamentalist, theist. Illogical, paranoid and thinks that ‘prophecies’ that people have made come true is the same thing as them happening all of their own accord.

        YOU seriously miss MY point. I’m not here arguing about a lack of or possession of any kind of belief…I’m arguing against the so-called rational and intelligent argument in favor of some god/deity/designer. Every one of Steve’s points breaks down to three things: he infers, he supposes and then finds areas where the ToE isn’t entirely certain about a particular mechanic and screams “Aha! see?? My designer is real!”…which is about as scientific as the act of a sideshow magician.

        And I hate to break the news to you, but evolution is based upon empirical, observable, rationally objective evidence. It is an observed process. While some of the mechanics remain are still being hypothesized, the theory as a whole was quite well developed.

        As I said before on this site, this is why dialogue is impossible with a true fanatic. Ah yes…if anyone questions your methods or methodology, then that person could not possibly be a believer. Pfft.

        See, I’m doing believers a favor by getting through their thick skulls and telling them to stop presenting evidence that isn’t evidence at all. Understand that your faith comes from an internal process of perception. It is not a thing that has ANY proof in external reality, so stop trying to drum it up. Accept where it comes from and accept that this truth is not a bad thing.

        Let me explain something to you. Every time one of your ilk opens his mouth, all you do is make it hard on the rest of us. Until believers-whether theist, deist, pantheist, whatever-step forward and state that they honestly have no rationally objective, observable, testable, verifiable evidence and all their beliefs stem from internal perceptions of external constructs, personal introspection, personal epiphanies and ‘spiritual’ experiences, then conflict with non-believer will continue to rage.

        Now rage on. My dialogue with you is over, but I expect you will continue to rage on.

      • Challagar said,

        No, I will stop my raging. But not before asking you: Are you a Christian?

        I am thinking you are a theist. It is the only reason I can think of to explain why you continue to call God’s word a lie.

        If you call yourself Christian, then your faith is an indefensible faith since all you have left are “internal perceptions of external constructs.”

        You completely undermined, if only in your own mind, all the evidence I presented, saying that man made them come to pass. Did all the people who claim to have seen UFOs, or the ones who perpetrated the hoaxes, read the Bible and decide to make these prophecies come to pass? Did people read the Bible and say they want to make the prophecies come to pass concerning a restriction on trade to only those who accept the technology for cashless transactions?

        And you never even bothered to ask me what was behind that chain link fence either. Well, I guess you will never know since you’re sense of curiosity is so overwhelmed by your need to be right.

    • Dane said,

      No, I will stop my raging. But not before asking you: Are you a Christian?

      No. I’m a deistic Cha’n Buddhist.

      I am thinking you are a theist. It is the only reason I can think of to explain why you continue to call God’s word a lie.

      What would being a theist have to do with calling “God’s word” a lie? That makes no sense.

      If you call yourself Christian, then your faith is an indefensible faith since all you have left are “internal perceptions of external constructs

      EVERY religious person’s faith is indefensible when it comes to what is objectively provable.

      You completely undermined, if only in your own mind, all the evidence I presented, saying that man made them come to pass. Did all the people who claim to have seen UFOs, or the ones who perpetrated the hoaxes, read the Bible and decide to make these prophecies come to pass? Did people read the Bible and say they want to make the prophecies come to pass concerning a restriction on trade to only those who accept the technology for cashless transactions?

      Since all religious prophecies are purposely vague and ambiguous, you can tie just about any event you want to a supposed ‘prophecy’. Hell, Christ’s prophecies were so ambiguous that you can read them to mean that his “Second Coming” would occur during the lives of the Apostles! They apparently thought so as well. Why do you think Christians have been arguing for centuries now about what has come to pass and what hasn’t? And it’s not just the Bible…pretty much every religious text uses ambiguity concerning prophecies.

      And you never even bothered to ask me what was behind that chain link fence either. Well, I guess you will never know since you’re sense of curiosity is so overwhelmed by your need to be right.

      You really want to tell me about this conspiracy, don’t you? Dazzle me.

      • Challagar said,

        That pretty much answers my question.

        kthanxbyebye

      • Dane said,

        Good idea for you to get out before you got in over your head.

        Thanks for playing.

      • Challagar said,

        HAHA, you just had to get the last word in didn’t ya?

        I dare you to leave this alone.

  14. gene said,

    Challagar

    Good point, but watch – answer you may get is a snowflake or tornado.

    I wonder what would be materialistic explanation for instantaneous action at the distance observed in quantum entanglement experiments.

    • Dane said,

      That it’s the result of a quantum reaction and not the result of some supernatural being watching over it?

      I suppose now you’ll say quantum reactions are a ‘magical’ effect as well.

  15. gene said,

    Dane

    I was going to say “now go and make those atheist videos on youtube” but than you said you are budhist.
    How about ” go and make budhist videos on youtube”…

    • Dane said,

      Buddhist. Geez, at least spell it right. It’s right above you.

      And why would I make videos about Buddhism and post them on YouTube? There are others already doing that. I’m flattered you want to see me personally, but I’m not really very photogenic.

  16. gene said,

    OK, Dane

    All the best

  17. NeroNuke said,

    “I missed your comment, so this is late.”
    Better late than never.

    “Matters not what Szostak did. He should take an empty cell wall, stuff it with all the pre-mixed goodies he wants, throw in some RNA/DNA, and wave his magic wand over the proto-cell. MAKE IT COME ALIVE.”
    I should expect this kind of strawman since it’s already known that you didn’t actually read up on any of his work.

    “Because if he can’t, all his lab bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Bullshit that is fooling you. These pseudo-abiogenesis-ists are just wasting time and probably taxpayer money, and all they are making is muck.”
    BCC (Baseless Conspiracy Conjecture)
    At least the doctor is doing something to advance human knowledge. When was the last time that trolling ever advanced our understanding of anything?

    “Living cells have tens of thousands of proteins,”
    Mammal cells have about 7000 and the number varies depending on the cell’s function. You were close but not close enough to be right.

    “and over 500 protein enzymes.”
    DNAunion has already pointed out that the 500 protein enzymes your talking about are found in EXTANT cells; cells that are alive TODAY. It’s already common knowledge that the first proto-cells from over 3 billion years ago didn’t have complex protein machinery or enzymes and that was pointed out in the Szostak video that you dismissed as “bullshit”.

    “Plus DNA that is six feet long if unwound, and nearly infinitely thin.”
    3.4 centimeters is shorter than six feet, and 2 nanometers or 0.0000002 cm is not infinitely thin.

    “Plus organelles (mitochondria, ribosomes…..).”
    Which, through our knowledge of genomic sequencing, don’t appear in living cells until long after the first life is established.

    “Keep on wishing and believing.”
    I’ll keep on researching and learning which are both more useful than fantasizing.

    “Even if they could make everything in a test tube, what they would have is a dead cell.”
    Try telling that to J. Craig Venter when he unveiled his synthetic cell last year.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Ah, “strawman”. My favorite evo-retort! Good job. The doctor is doing “something”? Right, wasting his time. Sorry, but I did “read up”on his stuff. I know “nothing” when I see it, and his “work” is just that. 7,000 proteins? That makes a big difference. Did the imaginary proto-cells have five proteins? Six? And maybe one or two protein enzymes? What a laugh. Proto-cells are made up fantasy by a person and believed by the gullible; like you.
      Ask DNAunion. He’ll know how many proteins and enzymes for sure since he knows everything! No organelles in proto-cells either? WOW! Isn’t fantasy great? When your “researchers” come up with synthetic life, report back. Otherwise you are a believer in a strawman that will never come to life.
      Obviously you don’t know what Ventner did. His cell wasn’t synthetic. Better do a little research. On this one too: Mitchel, Campbell Reece. Biology Concept and Connections. California, 1997. “At actual size, a human cell’s DNA totals about 3 meters in length.”

      • Petra P. said,

        ““Living cells have tens of thousands of proteins,”
        Mammal cells have about 7000 and the number varies depending on the cell’s function. You were close but not close enough to be right.”

        -According to answers.com “There are about 7,000 DIFFERENT TYPES of protein in the eukaryotic cell” (Emphasis added)

        stevebee92653: +1
        NeroNuke: 0

  18. Petra P. said,

    One thought to the J. Craig Venter synthetic cell issue:

    How can the “Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome.”*
    counted as evidence for the anti-creationistic process of evolution?

    *http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20488990?dopt=Abstract

    • Dane said,

      Maybe it’s because he didn’t actually create a living cell from scratch and bring it to life.

      He synthesized a genome, injected into an already living cell and simply reprogrammed the cell. That’s all. He did not actually create an artificial lifeform.

      In addition, he did not invent or design the process. The genome he synthesized was based on the accumulation of observed data. In other words, he replicated a natural process.

      Using Venter’s “synthetic” cell as proof of ID is like using a light bulb to prove ID.

      • Challagar said,

        Who said it proved anything? If it proved anything at all it proved that scientists have learned to reverse engineer the genome, nothing more. It neither proves or disproves evolution or ID. All Steve is saying is that evolutionists who try using it as evidence for evolution are severely mistaken. It is evidence of nothing.

      • Dane said,

        I wasn’t responding to Steve, thank you very much. I was addressing the fact that Petra seems to think it somehow proves ID; in fact, the ID community jumped on this as evidence of ID. I’m pointing out that it just isn’t so.

  19. Salvatore Puri said,

    Would you upload your second video without/other music again since it has no permission in Europe?
    Thank you so much in advance, I’d really like to watch it.

    Best regards

    Salva

    • stevebee92653 said,

      What is the title of the vid? Do you mean second on this page? I will when I know which “second”.

  20. Salvatore Puri said,

    Hey Steve, I meant Part 2 of “Atoms, Forces, and Stars Pt. 1” (this page).

    • stevebee92653 said,

      That vid isn’t blocked anywhere that I know of. YT lets me know when there are copyright problems, and there are none on that one. So???

  21. Salvatore Puri said,

    Hey Steve,

    it reads there when starting:

    Unfortunately this video isn’t available in Germany since it contains music from SME of which the GEMA has exclusive copyright.

    You see, it’s a German problem and there’s no chance for a German to watch it.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I have re-uploaded the vid. Please let me know if you can view it. Thanks……..

  22. Salvatore Puri said,

    Unfortunately no. SME-check is an automatic process regarding all uploaded videos. It automatically detects, if a video contains such music content. But thanks for your effort

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I have a 150 year old classical composition. How could they have a copyright on that? I will change the music to one given by YouTube. Could you give it one more check and see if it plays?

  23. Salvatore Puri said,

    German version works. Thank you!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Roger that. Thanks for checking.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: