What is aboigenesis? It is the formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such as from a 'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). The current models of abiogenesis are still being scientifically tested.
What I would like to do now is bring in an article I found. The guy is a lot brighter than I am and the guys he references are brighter than both of us. I guess you could say, What are the odds?
The book, Origins Creation Or Evolution has calculated the odds this way Let¹s consider some factors that are involved in probability. If you recall, we said that all proteins (remember enzymes are proteins) require left handed amino acids. Now, using this fact of life science, lets try using probability theory. (Calculations submitted by Dr. Monty Kester) (doing the calculations)
1. What is the probability of forming one left handed (L), 400-amino-acid protein, from a normal 50% mixture of right handed (D) and left handed (L) forms?
(A) The probability of each linking is 1/2
(B) If we deduct a fair share of glycine, say 20, then the probability would be 1/2 X 1/2 X ...380 times (400 - 20) = ...1/ 10^114 (incidentally, you must convert to logarithms)
2. What is the probability of 124 such proteins , the number needed for the simplest possible self-replicating system forming? 1/10^114 (probability of one protein forming) 1/10^114 X 1/10^114...124 times = 1/(10^114)^124 = 1/10^14,136
3. What is the probability of 124 all (L), 400-amino-acids protein forming, if there is a 99% surety that (L) will preferentially link to a (L)?
(A) The probability of each (L) left handed amino acid linking is ...99/100
(B) The probability of 380 (400-20 glycine) L - amino acids linking in succession is: .99 X .99 X .99 X ...380 times + >99^380 = 1/10^1.7
(C) The probability of 124 proteins forming is: 1/10^1.7 X 1/10^1.7 .....124 times = 1/(10^1.7)^124 = ...1/10^210 When we consider the facts related to these numbers we can easily see that the random chance of evolutonary theory will not likely be useful. Consider what those numbers mean in general comparisons:
(1) Age of universe (evolutionary assumption) in seconds = 10^18
(2) Diameter of the universe in nches = 10^28
(3) Diameter of the universe in A (angstroms) = 4 X 10^37
(4) Mass of milkey way in grams = 3 X 10^44
( 5) Number of atoms in the unuverse = 5 X 10^78 Physicists conclude that events whose probabilities are extremely small *never occur* ( 1 chance in 10^15).
Think about this: A scientist can sequence (put together) 124 proteins in a matter of hours, This shows the need for intelligence behind design.
ref 4 Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of 2000 different enzymes which are needed- and each one tailored made to do a particular chemical as 1in 10^40,000
ref 5 In the book It couldnt just happen you¹ll read that, A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has estimated that all the protein molecules that have ever existed on earth is only 10 followed by 52 zeros. This means there is no real chance at all that even one protein with all left handed amino acids could ever have *just Happened* to come into existance. The book also notes, What is the probability of an amino acid chain 400 units long happening by chance? The answer is on chance in ten followed by 240 zeros!
So now that we have the math, what about what evolutionists have to say. I've taken quotes from several.
1. "The 'RNA world' hypothesis proposes that early life developed by making use of RNA molecules, rather than proteins, to catalyse the synthesis of important biological molecules. It is thought, however, that the nucleotides constituting RNA were scarce on early Earth - From Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and Department of Biology, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
2. From Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 92186-5800, USA.
It is difficult if not impossible to synthesize long polymers of amino acids, nucleotides, etc., in homogeneous aqueous solution. We suggest that long polymers were synthesized on the surface of minerals in a prebiotic process analogous to solid-phase synthesis.
3. From the Department of Applied Biological Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Science University of Tokyo, Noda 278, Japan.
The recent discovery of polymerase activity in a ribosomal RNA intervening sequence as well as other studies of RNA-replicating systems suggest that the first living molecules were RNAs called replicases.
4. A genetic annealing model for the universal ancestor of all extant life is presented.
Whats interesting that in all these statements the words hypothesis, thought, we suggest, are used. The last one is even more interesting for in that statement they use model. Now what is a model?
I think the best model we can look at is the models used to predict the weather. In book 5 of my series I look at it from the view point of global warming. In book 5 we are having problems with the earths climate. Listen as the this character in the book explains this model for weather and after you read this we'll look at what evolutionists would have you believe.
If we Look back at earth’s history we see there have been wild fluctuations in climate ... but over the last eight to ten thousand years the climate has been very stable almost to the point of being predictable, and many believe these ocean current systems are the cause.
Now first let me say with all due respect for Dr. La Baugh’s analyses, there are some who disagree with his theory. It sounds good and it even makes sense, but the models he used and the models of… Drs. Harvey and Jacobs who are two very renowned climatologists differ greatly.”
“How do you mean, differ greatly?”
Well, the behavior of the atmosphere is governed by physical laws which can be expressed as mathematical equations. These equations represent how atmospheric quantities such as temperature, wind speed, direction, humidity, and what ever else you want to use will change from their initial current values to what they might be given a certain data. If we can solve these equations, we will have a forecast. We can do this by sub-dividing the atmosphere into a 3-D grid of points and solving these equations at each point. However these models have three main sources of error:
The first is initialization. We have an imperfect description of what the atmosphere is doing right now due to the lack of data. When the model starts it has an incorrect picture of the initial state of the atmosphere so it will always generate a forecast that is imperfect.
The second is resolution. Models are run on 3-D grids that cover the entire globe. Each grid point represents a piece of atmosphere as large as 35 miles on a side. Anything smaller such as thunderstorms are not handled as well, and must be parameterized, or in laymen’s terms, we create a fudge factors that do a good job giving the right forecast most of the time. Obviously, the fudge factors aren't going to work for all situations.
And third is our basic understanding. Our basic understanding of the physics governing the atmosphere is not perfect, so the equations we're using aren't quite right.
If scientists can say this about something we know a whole lot about and is in the here and now, what are the basic understandings, the equations, the fudge factors, and the physics of a milion years ago going to be like? How accurate are their models?
With all that we know about the weather, and all the data we have, and as complex as the models are, we still have issues in forcating weather. We still make mistakes in forcasting because the data is constantly changing, and some of our data is not correct. How can a model be made for what happened a million years ago using information that is most likly flawed or generated in a laboratory experiment be considered correct?
Lets say just for a moment that what they say is correct, than the next question that needs to be asked is, where did theses substances come from. At some point if you go back in time something was created from nothing. Do you really believe that God took a pool of goo and said let there be life and a one cell animal crawled out to later become man? If that is the case than man is no better than the animals and that is what evolution is all about. One last thing, consider the following statement.
If you wish to question evolution, by all means do so. Debate is healthy. However a useful debate requires that you make a good-faith effort to study and understand the breadth of accumulated evidence. Finally, evolution theory (and science itself) is fundamentally neutral with respect to the existence of a creator. A supernatural force or being could well have created our universe based on a set of mathematical principles, predicting every outcome, including the emergence of humans. Evolutionary theory cannot speak to the truth of the existence of such a creator. It simply deals with how species emerge, adapt, survive or disappear when faced with a changing environment. • Rajesh C. Miranda is an associate professor in the department of neuroscience and experimental therapeutics at the Texas A&M University System Health Science Center.
Do you think this man represents main line evolution? Here is how one entitled his arguments - Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. It is from his references I took the quotes. The bottom line, evolution can't come up with proof, all they have is supposition, theory, and mis-information. Their theories and math look good, but its built on a house of sand. Look at their arguments through the lens of scripture and real science and it falls apart like a house of cards.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Theistic evolution
I have spent some time in reading a lot of the articles written about theistic evolution, and basicly theistic evolution states that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis. Frankly I have a problem with that statement. God is in charge of the biological process, in fact God is in charge of the whole process. There is the age old question many have asked, what came first, the chicken or the egg. I think when that question is asked, its like saying he put the horse before the cart. What I'm trying to say is this, in my view theistic evolution is nothiong more than a compromise with Darwinian evolution, compromising with the world view brings about failure and I believe is also degrades who we believe God is. So lets start at the beginning. , "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" In the first sentence that Moses penned he used the Hebrew word "(beginning - re'shiyth" meaning the first in place, time, order of rank (specificly first fruit) The second word he used was God or the Hebrew word elohiym. Now here we get into multiple meanings. Elohiym is the plurl of el-o'-ah which comes from el, or almighty. Under the meanings of elohiym we see "the supreme God and occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates. The next word that is used is heavens, or the Hebrew word shaw-meh. This word comes from an unused root meaning to be lofty. Alluding to the visible sky as well as where the celestial bodies revolve. The Next word is created. Moses used the Hebrew word bara which means to create, to cut down a piece of wood or to select, to choose, to do or to make. The last word Moses used was earth or the hebrew word eh'-rets which is from an unused root meaning to be firm. Translation - The first place, the first time, the first fruits of The might one, the supreme God and magistrate choose to create the sky, all the celestial bodies that revolve, and a place that is firm. Along with all that is in the universe God created earth.
You probabaly are asking why go to all this trouble to translate, we already know what it says. And that is where the problem lies. We have read it so much we've lost sight of the real meaning. question, what did God say when he had finished creating? In Genesis 1:31 He says
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now let me ask you a question, How is it stated. Moses made a statement and ended it with a period. Meaning the creation was complete.
Now let me ask you another question, when God creates does he leave anything unfinished. God said that everything he created was good. But look how Moses starts out in the second sentence.
"And the earth was without form, and void"
Moses uses the word "tohuw" its from an unused root meaning meaning to lie in waste. What happend between verse one and two? It sounds to me like total destruction. Now, let me ask you this question. If God created the heavens and the earth, did he create something that was worthless or a desolate place? I think the answer is no, what God creates is perfect. When we look out at the universe what do we see? We see order, but we also see destruction. We see lifeless worlds, we see asteroid belts. Here on earth we have evidence of massive destruction in Arizona and South America where giant asteroids hit. Jesus said I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Think on this for a moment. How old is God? He is timeless. What has he been doing the whole while he has been around? I believe he has always been in the mode of creating. So in that sense the earth may be timeless, and yes the dinosaurs they did exist, but not through theistic evolution or evolution as preached by Godless men. Satan wanted to be like God and when he tried to take over the thrown in heaven - because it does state that in Isaiah - Satan was cast out, however he did not go without a fight. Answer this question, what did he do in the garden? He destroyed God's most exalted creation - man - because in all of creation the created was spoke into existence, with man he was created by the hand of God and then God breathed into man the breath of HIS life. All of who God is was breathed into man, that is why woman was taken from man and not created seperately. Satan's revenge on God... he destroyed what God loved. Think about this - The universe has been around since the beginning. When Satan fell he destroyed all that God made. Verse two in Genesis tells us that. In verse two God Re-created JUST earth. Why - I don't know, but I believe it has something to do with proving to Satan just how wrong he was. There's no such thing as theistic evolution. God recreated the earth in SIX days. So now that we've covered the theological part, we'll cover scientific facts.
Darwin stated that complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is relatively young, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy called natural selection. Yet in the last 50 or so years we now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
We're dealing with more than biology and the decent of man. We have the appearance of the cosmos with the "Big Bang" Something from nothing came into existence. From that big bang came life and it supposedly over time became more complex, yet when we explore the miniature we find the smaller we go the more complex it becomes. I could believe in evolution if man or animal were self procreating. But just the fact that male and female was created to bring forth life. What are the odds that everything came into existence through chance and fit so perfectly?
I believe that the premise in which evolutionists base their beliefs on are flawed, and here is why I say that H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester wrote,
"evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" If, and I say if that is the case doesn't that put those that believe in evolution on the same plane as those that believe in a divine creation?
Every machine (life form) must have a certain number of parts to function. Take away one of those parts and it ceases to be. Even most bacteria require several thousand genes to carry out the function necessary for life. The E.coli has about 4,639,221 nucleotide base pairs which code for 4,288 genes. Chlamydia and Rickettsia are the smallest living things known. Even so these two forms of life still require millions of atomic parts. If I have a good mathematician here I'd have him figure the odds of just these two coming together in just the right sequence.
I think one thing that proves my point is this, when Einstein was working on his theroy of relativity he put in an extra equation because he thought the universe was stable and not expanding, later he found he was wrong. Kind of makes me wonder if all the evidence the evolutionary biologists have put forth may be flawed because somewhere down the line someone miscalculated. The problem for evolution as I see it is caused by the enormous complexity required for life and none of the proposals to overcome it are even remotely satisfactory. If you are not familiar with Dr. Lee M. Spetner, he is a biophysicist, author, and critic of Neo-Darwinism but not against evolution in a more general sense. He received his PhD in physics from MIT in 1950. You need to read his book "Not By Chance! It blows evolution out of the water. Another problem I have is this, that even if all the parts that were needed to create life, these many parts could not just sit around and wait for the other parts to evolve because the existing ones would most likely deteriorate from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and the action of bacteria or other pathogens. The only way it could have happened is through instanteous creation. In all of my reading I have yet to find any compelling evidence presented to disprove creation, where on the other hand there's a whole lot of evidence to prove creation such as the discovery that most nucleotides degrade fast at the temperatures scientists conclude existed on the earth when it was young. which brings me to the conclusion that the half lives of many of the basic building blocks of life are too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds. To quote Levy and Miller - Therefore unless the origin of life took place extremely fast, less than a 100 years...a high temperature origin of life cannot involve adenine,
(Adenine is one of the most important organic molecules for life as we know it today is an integral part of DNA, RNA, and ATP. DNA, as you might know, is the genetic code used for cellular life on earth. It is through the precise inheritance of on organism's DNA from its parent that the traits of an organism are passed on.)
Uracil, (a colourless, crystalline organic compound of the pyrimidine family that occurs as a component of ribonucleic acid RNA a molecule involved in the transmission of hereditary characteristics. The RNA molecule consists of a sequence of nucleotides, each containing a five-carbon sugar (ribose), a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base.)
Guanine, (is one of the five main nucleobases found in the nucleic acids DNA and RNA; the others being adenine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil. With the formula C5H5N5O, guanine is a derivative of purine, consisting of a fused pyrimidine-imidazole ring system with conjugated double bonds. Being unsaturated, the bicyclic molecule is planar. The guanine nucleoside is called guanosine.)
I think this finding is a setback for abiogenesis, because high temperature origin of life is the only feasible model. Enough said, your response.
You probabaly are asking why go to all this trouble to translate, we already know what it says. And that is where the problem lies. We have read it so much we've lost sight of the real meaning. question, what did God say when he had finished creating? In Genesis 1:31 He says
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now let me ask you a question, How is it stated. Moses made a statement and ended it with a period. Meaning the creation was complete.
Now let me ask you another question, when God creates does he leave anything unfinished. God said that everything he created was good. But look how Moses starts out in the second sentence.
"And the earth was without form, and void"
Moses uses the word "tohuw" its from an unused root meaning meaning to lie in waste. What happend between verse one and two? It sounds to me like total destruction. Now, let me ask you this question. If God created the heavens and the earth, did he create something that was worthless or a desolate place? I think the answer is no, what God creates is perfect. When we look out at the universe what do we see? We see order, but we also see destruction. We see lifeless worlds, we see asteroid belts. Here on earth we have evidence of massive destruction in Arizona and South America where giant asteroids hit. Jesus said I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Think on this for a moment. How old is God? He is timeless. What has he been doing the whole while he has been around? I believe he has always been in the mode of creating. So in that sense the earth may be timeless, and yes the dinosaurs they did exist, but not through theistic evolution or evolution as preached by Godless men. Satan wanted to be like God and when he tried to take over the thrown in heaven - because it does state that in Isaiah - Satan was cast out, however he did not go without a fight. Answer this question, what did he do in the garden? He destroyed God's most exalted creation - man - because in all of creation the created was spoke into existence, with man he was created by the hand of God and then God breathed into man the breath of HIS life. All of who God is was breathed into man, that is why woman was taken from man and not created seperately. Satan's revenge on God... he destroyed what God loved. Think about this - The universe has been around since the beginning. When Satan fell he destroyed all that God made. Verse two in Genesis tells us that. In verse two God Re-created JUST earth. Why - I don't know, but I believe it has something to do with proving to Satan just how wrong he was. There's no such thing as theistic evolution. God recreated the earth in SIX days. So now that we've covered the theological part, we'll cover scientific facts.
Darwin stated that complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is relatively young, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy called natural selection. Yet in the last 50 or so years we now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
We're dealing with more than biology and the decent of man. We have the appearance of the cosmos with the "Big Bang" Something from nothing came into existence. From that big bang came life and it supposedly over time became more complex, yet when we explore the miniature we find the smaller we go the more complex it becomes. I could believe in evolution if man or animal were self procreating. But just the fact that male and female was created to bring forth life. What are the odds that everything came into existence through chance and fit so perfectly?
I believe that the premise in which evolutionists base their beliefs on are flawed, and here is why I say that H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester wrote,
"evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" If, and I say if that is the case doesn't that put those that believe in evolution on the same plane as those that believe in a divine creation?
Every machine (life form) must have a certain number of parts to function. Take away one of those parts and it ceases to be. Even most bacteria require several thousand genes to carry out the function necessary for life. The E.coli has about 4,639,221 nucleotide base pairs which code for 4,288 genes. Chlamydia and Rickettsia are the smallest living things known. Even so these two forms of life still require millions of atomic parts. If I have a good mathematician here I'd have him figure the odds of just these two coming together in just the right sequence.
I think one thing that proves my point is this, when Einstein was working on his theroy of relativity he put in an extra equation because he thought the universe was stable and not expanding, later he found he was wrong. Kind of makes me wonder if all the evidence the evolutionary biologists have put forth may be flawed because somewhere down the line someone miscalculated. The problem for evolution as I see it is caused by the enormous complexity required for life and none of the proposals to overcome it are even remotely satisfactory. If you are not familiar with Dr. Lee M. Spetner, he is a biophysicist, author, and critic of Neo-Darwinism but not against evolution in a more general sense. He received his PhD in physics from MIT in 1950. You need to read his book "Not By Chance! It blows evolution out of the water. Another problem I have is this, that even if all the parts that were needed to create life, these many parts could not just sit around and wait for the other parts to evolve because the existing ones would most likely deteriorate from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and the action of bacteria or other pathogens. The only way it could have happened is through instanteous creation. In all of my reading I have yet to find any compelling evidence presented to disprove creation, where on the other hand there's a whole lot of evidence to prove creation such as the discovery that most nucleotides degrade fast at the temperatures scientists conclude existed on the earth when it was young. which brings me to the conclusion that the half lives of many of the basic building blocks of life are too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds. To quote Levy and Miller - Therefore unless the origin of life took place extremely fast, less than a 100 years...a high temperature origin of life cannot involve adenine,
(Adenine is one of the most important organic molecules for life as we know it today is an integral part of DNA, RNA, and ATP. DNA, as you might know, is the genetic code used for cellular life on earth. It is through the precise inheritance of on organism's DNA from its parent that the traits of an organism are passed on.)
Uracil, (a colourless, crystalline organic compound of the pyrimidine family that occurs as a component of ribonucleic acid RNA a molecule involved in the transmission of hereditary characteristics. The RNA molecule consists of a sequence of nucleotides, each containing a five-carbon sugar (ribose), a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base.)
Guanine, (is one of the five main nucleobases found in the nucleic acids DNA and RNA; the others being adenine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil. With the formula C5H5N5O, guanine is a derivative of purine, consisting of a fused pyrimidine-imidazole ring system with conjugated double bonds. Being unsaturated, the bicyclic molecule is planar. The guanine nucleoside is called guanosine.)
I think this finding is a setback for abiogenesis, because high temperature origin of life is the only feasible model. Enough said, your response.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Did We Evolve
Darwin stated that complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is relatively young, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy called natural selection. Yet in the last 50 or so years we now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world.Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." This is the problem I have with evolution and maybe you can help me with this question. We're dealing with more than biology and the decent of man. We have the appearance of the cosmos with the "Big Bang" Something from nothing came into existance. From that big bang came life and it supposedly over time became nore complex, yet when we explore the miniture we find the smaller we go the more complex it becomes. I could believe in evolution if man or animal were self procreating. But just the fact that male and female were created to bring forth life. What are the odds that everything came into existance through chance and fit so perfectly. Perhaps those of you in the scientific community can help with with this, I don't believe that you or any from the scientific community are stupid, I believe that the premise in which you base your beliefs are flawed, and here is why I say that H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester wrote, "evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" If, and I say if that is the case doesn't that put those that believe in evolution on the same plane as those that believe in a divine creation? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Part 3: The Premise For Evolution
I was sitting in my shop the other day. We had just finished relocating my office and my daughters bedroom. The child is in her second year of college and we moved into the house when she was in the first grade, and like me nothing had been thrown away. Anyway, everything that was not put in the back of my truck or in the dumpster including what we brought back from the lake, guess where all the extras had landed? You would be right. Not only had we brought in everything from the house and lake but I also had built some extra shelves for storage space in the utility room and in my shop to store the extras. To give you an idea of what size my shop is, it's dimensions are 12x24 and you would think it could hold a lot. Originally the shop had been built to not only hold all my tools that were in the garage but all the parts and paraphernalia that went along with my job. Now that I'm retired all the parts are gone and you would think there would be plenty of room. Well, as you enter the shop and to the right where the parts used to be there are now 3 large coolers, spare parts boxes (like what fishing tackle or screws and nails go into) extra water for the possibility of a hurricane, a couple of window units (in the event we loose power) extra fishing tackle I don't have room for at the lake, extra tile from a remodel 5 years ago, paint both old and new...anyway you get the picture. On the back wall are two twelve foot wire shelves that now hold all the stuff that comes from Sam's (supplies bought in bulk) and under all those shelves, boxes of Southern Living products. At the end of the shelves is a small alcove where all my lawn equipment is stored and on the far wall and the other long wall are a series of work benches. Under the benches are generators and power cables in case we loose power, extra wood from a previous project, and several tools chests. On top the benches everything I couldn't make room for, at least for the time being. Above the benches are more wire shelves and on those - you guessed it, more tools and things that don't fit under or on the bench. Oh, and I almost forgot the table saw, shop vac, the stool I was sitting on, and of course a wooden love seat with vinal covered cushions.
Something I forgot to mention, a while back one of my drawers from one of several tool chests came loose, and in that drawer were boat loads of sockets, you know the kind you use to work on anything that has a bolt or a nut in it. Now I don't have just a quarter inch set, I have everything up to and including a five eights and half inch set. Well being the organized guy that I am I put the drawer back and dumped all the sockets back in. To make matters worse they were both standard and metric. In the rest of those cabinets are pliers, screwdrivers, wrenches, etc. You name it I probably have it and over the years the collection has grown. What I'm trying to say is this, I need about a week to go in and re-organize and throw some stuff away. Now I'm sure there is another pack rat out there reading this and having a stoke over the fact I would throw away a tool, but lets face it, a pair of pliers that's rusted shut don't work to well, and a screw diver that's been used as a chisel doesn't work to well either. Then there's the drawers of nails, screws and an assortment of, (I can't throw that away because I might be able to use it some day). Now you can see why I was just sitting there.
Now I know you all are wondering, where in the world is he going with this? Its very simple really, I was hoping for an event much like the big bang theory to take place, you known blow the whole place up and then hope when all the pieces of my shop came down they fall back into place including all my tools and everything else that I had stacked in there, then I wouldn't have to mess with it. Bad grammer, yes, but you get my point.
Sounds a little ridiculous doesn't it, but it makes about as much sense as the other example used and that would be blowing up a print shop and have the complete unabridged Webster's dictionary appear after all the dust settles. But if you look at evolution you'll see these examples fit perfectly and you'll see why as we continue.
One theory states...Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
The other theory states... There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence: and they go on with what they think may have happened.
Now I haven't proven anything, all I have done is put forth two theories. But in the next article we're going to take a closer look at what both sides have to say, and I think you will find the results very interesting. Before we close this article out we need to look at the word "premise" to see what it actually means. Here are all the words the thesaurus brought up. Premise is the basis, principle, idea, foundation, argument, hypothesis, assertion, ground, thesis, or presupposition. To some up this article we could say that we are looking for an argument that supports our theories.
Darwin's premise was - complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time
Creation's premise is - In the beginning God created.
In the next article we'll look at the two premises, but in the mean time I'd like to get back to my examples. Both of them either demonstrate chance or the lack of organization. Are we a product of chance, of a disorganised random set of circumstances, or were we part of a well organized plan? Follow along with me as we continue to examine the question, Where did we come from?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Part 2: Who to believe
In our first article we talked about theory, fact, and evidence. The next word we need to explore is perception. The dictionary describes perception as an attitude or understanding based on what is observed or thought. This week I sat in on an eighth grade science class for the purpose of observing prior to becoming a substitute teacher. Interestingly enough they were discussing sight and the ability to observe. The teacher had them do an experiment. She placed in front of each student and myself a stack of cards. On the first card was a green square. The experiment was based around the ability of the eye to detect color. Now, what is color?
If we use the color green as the teacher did we will see a wavelength of light roughly in the 520-570 nm wave length. Green is considered to be one of the additive primary colors. On the HSV Color Wheel, the complement of green is magenta; that is a color corresponding to an equal mixture of red and blue light which is one of the purples. On a color wheel based on traditional color theory, the complementary color to green is considered to be red.
Try this. Take a green magic marker and make a rectangle about one inch by three inches and color it. Then stare intently at the green square for sixty seconds. As you stare at it you’ll see a pink glow around the edges. When you see the glow, take a white sheet of paper and stare at it. What you will see is not a green square but a pink one. Now you ask the question, what does that have to do with what we’ve been discussing?”
In this experiment the teacher used different color cards. As the experiment progressed and the students wrote down what they saw it became evident that some saw different shades than others. One student’s perception of color was different than some of the other students, and according to Doctor Jeremy Walter science is the human enterprise of seeking to describe accurately and quantitatively the nature and process of our universe through observation, hypothesis, and experimental validation.
How many times have you been with a group of people and all of you observed the same event but came away with different conclusions?
Science says that the earth is billions of years old. How did they come to that conclusion? The essence of this so called scientific evidence is based on what we would call feasibility studies. Simply put, its evidence compiled to support one particular model of earths history. Now, how do I back that statement up?
There is a law called, the law of causality, or cause and effect. This law states that one cause can have many effects, but no effect can be quantitatively greater or qualitatively superior to its cause. So what does that mean? The definition of cause states,
A person or thing that makes something happen or exist or is responsible for something that happens.
The effect means, a change or changed state occurring as a direct result of action by somebody or something else.
Now, according to Wikipedia the law is stated as such.
Causality or causation denotes the relationship between one event called cause and another event called effect which is the consequence or result of the first.
This informal understanding suffices in everyday usage, however the philosophical analysis of causality or causation has proved exceedingly difficult. The work of philosophers to understand causality and how best to characterize it extends over a millennia of time. In the western philosophical tradition explicit discussion stretches back at least as far as Aristotle, and the topic remains a staple in contemporary philosophy journals. Though cause and effect are most often held to relate events, other candidates include processes, properties, variables, facts, and states of afairs; which of these comprise the correct causal relationship, and how best to characterize the nature of the relationship between them, has as yet no universally accepted answer, and remains under discussion.
According to Sowa (2000), up until the twentieth century, three assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality:
The first being that, "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.
The second, "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect. (which in my mind eliminates theistic evolution)
And three, "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000) (This in my mind eliminates evolution in general)
However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience."
So another words these laws apply to us as humans but not at the level of creation, after all relativity and quantum mechanics are the sciences used to determine the basic building blocks of creation and the big bang theory. With this statement a question arises in my mind and here again its my belief that evolutionists have had to change their line of thinking.
But I think what is more important for the common person is not so much this law but the word observation. Observation always relates to the present. As much as science would like to observe the past though technology there’s a flaw which takes us back to the experiment done in an eighth grade classroom. Just as different students saw different shades of color, observation made in a controlled environment can be flawed because of a misinterpretation by the brain because of preconception. If that can happen in a controlled environment, think about observations made where we don’t know what the outcome will be. Now, if we can observe a situation in a controlled environment and make mistakes in the here and now, what kind of mistakes will be made the further removed from the time the event took place.
So where did science come up with the age of the earth since we have no human records available. Here again its through observation. The problem with observation when there is no documented evidence we sometimes ignore evidence that is contradictory to the theory or hypothesis we’re attempting to prove because of preconceived ideas. Lets take for example the light from stars. Light travels at 186,000 mps. Using that fact which is real they calculate the time it took for the light from the star to reach earth. The math is ok, unless we figure in what it says in Genesis 1:14
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
However, with a preconceived idea that Genesis is a myth and God doesn’t exist you have to establish a great age to develop your theory. Evolutionists theorize that places like the Grand Canyon and other geologic formations took millions of years to form and the great flood of Genesis was only a myth. After looking at all the data surrounding the eruption of Mount St. Helens it was demonstrated that a cataclysmic event could produce the same effect in a much shorter time period and the dating processes used by evolutionist require us to re-examine science as it is being taught.
So is the earth millions of years old as Darwinian evolution would have you believe, or is it about ten thousand years as the creationist believe? The only answer I can come up with is, nobody really knows. But I would ask you this. If God is who he said he is, then He is timeless. If God is who He said is and was and is to be, then he has always been in the mode of creating, and in my opinion our universe may just be a small part of an endless creation in the making.
If we use the color green as the teacher did we will see a wavelength of light roughly in the 520-570 nm wave length. Green is considered to be one of the additive primary colors. On the HSV Color Wheel, the complement of green is magenta; that is a color corresponding to an equal mixture of red and blue light which is one of the purples. On a color wheel based on traditional color theory, the complementary color to green is considered to be red.
Try this. Take a green magic marker and make a rectangle about one inch by three inches and color it. Then stare intently at the green square for sixty seconds. As you stare at it you’ll see a pink glow around the edges. When you see the glow, take a white sheet of paper and stare at it. What you will see is not a green square but a pink one. Now you ask the question, what does that have to do with what we’ve been discussing?”
In this experiment the teacher used different color cards. As the experiment progressed and the students wrote down what they saw it became evident that some saw different shades than others. One student’s perception of color was different than some of the other students, and according to Doctor Jeremy Walter science is the human enterprise of seeking to describe accurately and quantitatively the nature and process of our universe through observation, hypothesis, and experimental validation.
How many times have you been with a group of people and all of you observed the same event but came away with different conclusions?
Science says that the earth is billions of years old. How did they come to that conclusion? The essence of this so called scientific evidence is based on what we would call feasibility studies. Simply put, its evidence compiled to support one particular model of earths history. Now, how do I back that statement up?
There is a law called, the law of causality, or cause and effect. This law states that one cause can have many effects, but no effect can be quantitatively greater or qualitatively superior to its cause. So what does that mean? The definition of cause states,
A person or thing that makes something happen or exist or is responsible for something that happens.
The effect means, a change or changed state occurring as a direct result of action by somebody or something else.
Now, according to Wikipedia the law is stated as such.
Causality or causation denotes the relationship between one event called cause and another event called effect which is the consequence or result of the first.
This informal understanding suffices in everyday usage, however the philosophical analysis of causality or causation has proved exceedingly difficult. The work of philosophers to understand causality and how best to characterize it extends over a millennia of time. In the western philosophical tradition explicit discussion stretches back at least as far as Aristotle, and the topic remains a staple in contemporary philosophy journals. Though cause and effect are most often held to relate events, other candidates include processes, properties, variables, facts, and states of afairs; which of these comprise the correct causal relationship, and how best to characterize the nature of the relationship between them, has as yet no universally accepted answer, and remains under discussion.
According to Sowa (2000), up until the twentieth century, three assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality:
The first being that, "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.
The second, "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect. (which in my mind eliminates theistic evolution)
And three, "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000) (This in my mind eliminates evolution in general)
However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience."
So another words these laws apply to us as humans but not at the level of creation, after all relativity and quantum mechanics are the sciences used to determine the basic building blocks of creation and the big bang theory. With this statement a question arises in my mind and here again its my belief that evolutionists have had to change their line of thinking.
But I think what is more important for the common person is not so much this law but the word observation. Observation always relates to the present. As much as science would like to observe the past though technology there’s a flaw which takes us back to the experiment done in an eighth grade classroom. Just as different students saw different shades of color, observation made in a controlled environment can be flawed because of a misinterpretation by the brain because of preconception. If that can happen in a controlled environment, think about observations made where we don’t know what the outcome will be. Now, if we can observe a situation in a controlled environment and make mistakes in the here and now, what kind of mistakes will be made the further removed from the time the event took place.
So where did science come up with the age of the earth since we have no human records available. Here again its through observation. The problem with observation when there is no documented evidence we sometimes ignore evidence that is contradictory to the theory or hypothesis we’re attempting to prove because of preconceived ideas. Lets take for example the light from stars. Light travels at 186,000 mps. Using that fact which is real they calculate the time it took for the light from the star to reach earth. The math is ok, unless we figure in what it says in Genesis 1:14
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
However, with a preconceived idea that Genesis is a myth and God doesn’t exist you have to establish a great age to develop your theory. Evolutionists theorize that places like the Grand Canyon and other geologic formations took millions of years to form and the great flood of Genesis was only a myth. After looking at all the data surrounding the eruption of Mount St. Helens it was demonstrated that a cataclysmic event could produce the same effect in a much shorter time period and the dating processes used by evolutionist require us to re-examine science as it is being taught.
So is the earth millions of years old as Darwinian evolution would have you believe, or is it about ten thousand years as the creationist believe? The only answer I can come up with is, nobody really knows. But I would ask you this. If God is who he said he is, then He is timeless. If God is who He said is and was and is to be, then he has always been in the mode of creating, and in my opinion our universe may just be a small part of an endless creation in the making.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Part 1: What to believe
As of this writing it’s been almost fifteen years now, but an idea for a Christian line of science fiction books began to form. As a science fiction fan it has always bothered me that of all the books, movies and television series, evolution was written about as fact rather than what it really is, a theory. But hold on, the story of creation is also a theory. Now before I get those of you who believe in creation upset at me and those who believe in Darwinian evolution or even theistic evolution believing I'm on your side lets look at what Webster says a theory is. From the Encarta Dictionary it says,”
“A theory is a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena.”
Now let’s look at the definition of “Fact”. Here again the Encarta Dictionary states,”
It’s the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something. Or it’s a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth such as a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth.”
“A theory is a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena.”
Now let’s look at the definition of “Fact”. Here again the Encarta Dictionary states,”
It’s the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something. Or it’s a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth such as a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth.”
There is one more definition we need to look at, and that word is evidence. Here again the dictionary states,”
“It’s something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion.”
"But you say, "What about the Bible, it says..." and I agree, but just as it takes faith to believe in a theory, it takes faith to believe in the scriptures. Faith in the scriptures is not proof that God created, it's something you must take by faith."
I’m not a theologian nor am I a scientist, but a man who has spent more than half his life searching for answers. I know what I was taught, but there are times when we have to take what we've been taught and verify what we've learned both at home and in school to see if it meets a certain standard. Such is the case with creation. To prove either evolution or creationism we would have to produce or reference something that would substantiate with out a doubt what we believe to be the truth, and neither evolution of creation can do that.
Depending on what side of the argument you happen to be on you can bring to the table a lot of what a court might call circumstantial evidence. The Encarta Dictionary says this about circumstantial evidence.”
Its evidence containing or based on facts that allow a court to deduce that somebody is guilty without conclusive proof.”
In this case neither side can produce the evidence needed to prove the other one wrong. By this time I’m sure you’re wondering just which side am I really on? If you haven’t figured that one out go back to the beginning of this article or you can continue on because you’ll soon find out. Over the course of time I plan on giving what I believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that disproves the theory of both Darwinian and theistic evolution. When we’re through I hope that many will believe as I do, in a creation that took six days. In my first book, "The Oxbow Report", which I hope you will not only read to enjoy, but will read it with the idea that you just might change your mind, you'll find our characters like us are in search of what happened at creation and where did we come from. First of all I hope it’s a fun read. I hope you enjoy reading the books and getting into the characters and the plots as much as I’ve had in creating them. But throughout the series there is an underlining message and a plot I hope to share, and that will be for you the reader to figure out. In the coming months this blog will deal with a lot of subjects, all relating to who is right. Join me won’t you as we explore the mystery of, “Where did we come from!”
Its evidence containing or based on facts that allow a court to deduce that somebody is guilty without conclusive proof.”
In this case neither side can produce the evidence needed to prove the other one wrong. By this time I’m sure you’re wondering just which side am I really on? If you haven’t figured that one out go back to the beginning of this article or you can continue on because you’ll soon find out. Over the course of time I plan on giving what I believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that disproves the theory of both Darwinian and theistic evolution. When we’re through I hope that many will believe as I do, in a creation that took six days. In my first book, "The Oxbow Report", which I hope you will not only read to enjoy, but will read it with the idea that you just might change your mind, you'll find our characters like us are in search of what happened at creation and where did we come from. First of all I hope it’s a fun read. I hope you enjoy reading the books and getting into the characters and the plots as much as I’ve had in creating them. But throughout the series there is an underlining message and a plot I hope to share, and that will be for you the reader to figure out. In the coming months this blog will deal with a lot of subjects, all relating to who is right. Join me won’t you as we explore the mystery of, “Where did we come from!”
One last note, I can only write, but it is you the reader that will make this blog and the books successful
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
