The idiot beanhead now justifies slavery

'About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.' 

'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).

Answer: The Bible makes it clear that the universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning, and that the beginning was its creation by God (Genesis 1:1). This truth has been denied by philosophers and pseudo-scientists who have come up with a variety of different theories in an effort to “prove” the eternality of the universe. Further, atheists will say that matter and energy are eternal, following the first law of thermodynamics—“Energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but it can neither be created nor destroyed.”

Philosophically, why do we have something rather than nothing at all? If the universe had a beginning, then it must have a cause, and therefore cannot be eternal. And every drop of evidence we have points to the universe having a beginning, but this truth is not something welcomed by naturalists and atheists. Numerous scientifically minded atheists have expressed a desire to find a loophole to the scientific fact that the present order of nature had a beginning. Unfortunately for them, such a loophole does not exist. Here are five proofs that the universe is not eternal:

(1) The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else).

(2) The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding.

(3) The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded.

(4) Galaxy Seeds. Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. So critical and spectacular was this finding that the NASA lead for COBE, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”

(5) Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.”

Further, it should be understood that every effect must resemble its cause. This is because, simply put, you cannot give what you do not have, so it is impossible for an effect to possess something its originating cause did not have. That being the case, how can one believe that an impersonal, amoral, purposeless, and meaningless universe accidentally created beings that are full of personality, morals, meaning, and purpose? Only mind can create mind. In the end it is either matter before mind or mind before matter, and all scientific, philosophical, and reasonable evidence points to the latter.

In conclusion, we find that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning, just as the Bible states, and that a Cause must exist that resembles all we know today. As Lord Kelvin, a British scientist once said, "If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God."

Admittedly, the most comfortable position for the evolutionist is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending and thus the need for any “first cause” such as a Creator. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Sir Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light which indicated that the Universe was expanding. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the best way to try to explain both an expanding and eternal Universe was to suggest that at points in space called “irtrons” hydrogen was coming into existence from nothing. As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to “go” somewhere, and as they did, they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to expand. Hoyle believed that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually condensed into clouds of virgin matter. He then suggested that within these clouds new stars and galaxies formed. And so on. (Hialrious stuff!!)

In his book, Until the Sun Dies, astronomer Jastrow noted: “The proposal for the creation of matter out of nothing possesses a strong appeal to the scientist, since it permits him to contemplate a Universe without beginning and without end” (1977, p. 32). Even after evidence began to appear that showed the Steady State theory to be incorrect, Jastrow suggested that “some astronomers still favored it because the notion of a world with a beginning and an end made them feel so uncomfortable” (p. 33). In God and the Astronomers, Dr. Jastrow explained why attempts to prove an eternal Universe failed. “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (1978, p. 111). Jastrow—who is considered by many to be one of the greatest science writers of our time—certainly is no creationist. But as a scientist who is an astrophysicist, he has written often on the inescapable conclusion that the Universe had a beginning. Consider, for example, these statements from his pen:

Now both theory and observation pointed to an expanding Universe and a beginning in time.... About thirty years ago science solved the mystery of the birth and death of stars, and acquired new evidence that the Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 47,105).

Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished British astronomer of his day, wrote, “If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe.” When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s (1978, pp. 48-49).

Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the World begins with an act of creation. That view has not always been held by scientists. Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed forever; that it began abruptly, without apparent cause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation (1977, p. 19).

The conclusion to be drawn from the scientific data was inescapable, as Dr. Jastrow himself admitted when he wrote: “The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future” (1977, p. 30, emp. added). In her book, The Fire in the Equations, award-winning science writer Kitty Ferguson wrote in agreement.

Our late twentieth-century picture of the universe is dramatically different from the picture our forebears had at the beginning of the century. Today it’s common knowledge that all the individual stars we see with the naked eye are only the stars of our home galaxy, the Milky Way, and that the Milky Way is only one among many billions of galaxies. It’s also common knowledge that the universe isn’t eternal but had a beginning ten to twenty billion years ago, and that it is expanding (1994, p. 89, emp. added).

The evidence clearly indicates that the Universe had a beginning. The Second Law of thermodynamics, as Dr. Jastrow has indicated, shows this to be true. Henry Morris correctly commented: “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (1974, p. 26). Indeed, it does. The Universe is not eternal.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

As far as this thread - given my new found forgiveness toward my at times aggressive and highly partial kiwi antagonists - my final thought:

The matter comes down to probability - 

if you choose to do thorough research and be convinced that all has just occurred by chance and that life fundamentally is futile - (ie humanity has NO real purpose in the scheme of the universe) then so be it - from nitrogen cycle you came from nitrogen cycle you will return...

However, if you crunch the probability and can find evidence to convince yourself of a higher power, the Creator - you can live a life of purpose with the hope of better things to come... it does require Faith -

Paul defines 'faith' in Hebrews 11:1

"Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen."

Either way blind faith is just as dangerous / if not more so than blind ignorance...

*FTR Wardad - my uncle and his wife and sons have all suffered from his PTS disorder/s for the last ~45yrs... he is regarded as a locally as a  hero but few understand the effect it has had on his family...

Genome Research Is Demolishing the 'First Cell That Formed by Chance' Deception

The theory of evolution maintains, on the basis of no scientific foundation whatsoever, that at a time when there was still no life on Earth, inanimate substances came together to give rise to the first living organism. (Hahahahahahahahahaha) According to this evolutionist claim, the first living organism must have had a sufficiently simple structure to have been able to form by chance.

The fact is, however, that Darwinists ARE UNABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR HOW EVEN A SINGLE PROTEIN EMERGED.

The fact that a single protein cannot form spontaneously is one that in any case totally demolishes the theory of evolution. But even if we assume for a moment that this impossibility did actually come about, we still see that the “primitive cell” (How ignorant were these oaks!) claimed by Darwinists eliminates with absolutely certain proofs the possibility of life coming into being spontaneously. Data provided by science in the 21st century shows that even the life form with the very simplest structure is in fact highly complex, and that it is practically impossible for it to emerge spontaneously and by chance.

Genome research supplies this information. Based on the idea that living things with the smallest genome (extremophiles and eubacteria) have the least complexity, scientists have calculated the probabilities of these organisms appearing by chance and spontaneously. Another point needing clarification here is this: scientists also regard these organisms as the oldest life forms on Earth.

Genome research revealed that the lowest number of proteins required for life was between 250 and 450.[1]In other words, the minimum number of different proteins that would have to combine together at the same time in order to give rise to the structural features of the cell and performs its basic functions is between 250 and 450.

It also needs to be made clear that this minimum number of 250-450 protein is the number of proteins obtained from microbes living parasitically. The minimum number of proteins needed in order for an organism to live independently of another is around 1500. In other words, Darwinists have to account for the separate existence of 1500 different proteins needed to give rise to a single functioning cell. But, to reiterate, Darwinists are unable to account for the emergence of even a single protein.

It is totally impossible for between 250 and 1500 different proteins required for an organism to be considered as living to form spontaneously and at the same time. Probability calculations on the subject are given in the following table: 
 

Minimum Protein Number[2]

Probability of Emerging Simultaneously

250

1018,750

350

1026,250

500

1037,500

1,500

10112,500

1,900

10142,500

As the above table shows, the probability of a living organism with the least protein forming by chance is 1 in 1018,750. (In order to grasp the vast size of this number, it will be useful to remember that the total number of atoms in the universe is 1078.) In other words, there is no chance at all. Despite all these calculations and scientific data, evolutionists still insist on believing in the impossible. The sole reason for that insistence is their determination to deny the existence of Almighty GoD, Who created all things out of nothing. 

Morowitz’s probability calculation

The probability calculations cited above are in agreement with a calculation by the biophysicist Harold Morowitz. He assumed he had broken all the chemical bonds in the E. coli bacterium and released all the atoms comprising it, and then calculated the probability of these atoms spontaneously recombining to give rise to the E. coli once again. In this theoretical experiment, all the atoms required are present in all the appropriate quantities, and it is assumed that no other atom can become involved from the outside. Nonetheless, he calculated that the chances of all the atoms coming together spontaneously in a specific order, despite their being in the appropriate numbers and in an appropriate environment, in such a way as to produce an E. coli bacterium was 1 in 10100,000,000,000.[3]This goes far beyond being merely impossible. Such a number reveals the impossibility of even the least complex organism in the universe forming by chance, even if all the conditions and materials are brought together.

A sufficient number of proteins combining together is not sufficient for life to emerge

Let us imagine we have all the proteins necessary for life ready to hand. The existence of these proteins, which cannot come about in this way, IS NOT ENOUGH FOR EVEN A SINGLE CELL TO FORM. Microbiologists and biochemists explicitly say that the organization of these proteins within the cell is also highly important, otherwise the proteins will serve no purpose. Moreover, as Darwinist scientists know full well, the cell possesses organelles that manufacture proteins and a glorious DNA data bank far more complex than proteins. A living cell is made possible by all these structures possessing the same function and organization at the same time, and acting with the same consciousness. This is a fact that demolishes Darwinism.

The fact that bacteria possess an extraordinary internal organization was unknown until the 1990s. The fact is, however, that the complex cells (eukaryotic) comprising single-cell protozoans are known to be made up of a nucleus, organelles, membrane systems, a cytoskeleton, several internal sections and other contents organizing the content of the cell on the molecular level.[4]All these systems are extraordinarily complex. One cannot function independently of the others.

Conclusion

As the information provided here shows, microbiology, biochemistry and genome research, all the main scientific advances in the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century in short, have eradicated all the claims of the theory of evolution. These scientific conclusions have revealed that Darwinism is totally unscientific and consists of claims that are far removed from science. Science has refuted evolutionist claims regarding “a very simple fist living organism.” Aside from the minimum number of proteins and minimum complexity needed for it to be alive, an organism is too complex to be explained by evolutionist claims of chance and possesses a perfect organization. In addition to all this complexity, the existence of a single cell brings the theory of evolution to a complete halt.

The Glorious Irreducible Complexity In The Synthesis Of A Single Protein

• Sixty special proteins acting as enzymes are needed to make a single protein inside the cell.
• If just one of these enzymes needed for protein synthesis is missing, the cell cannot produce proteins.
• The proteins that serve in protein synthesis are therefore indispensible, they all have to be present in order to manufacture a single protein and they all constitute an irreducibly complex system.  
• In addition, it is not enough for these 60 enzymes to exist at the same time, they all also have to be present in the same small region within the cell.  
• They all have to be co-ordinated and directed in the right location.
• Furthermore, all the organelles inside the cell have to be in the right place and have to fully discharge their functions for this. Because all the organelles in the cell are involved in all the stages of protein synthesis. If the other organelles do not perform all their functions, then protein synthesis cannot happen since important functions will not take place.
• The formation of a single protein in an single, exhibits a glorious irreducible complexity. And Darwinists are unable to account for the events that take place for a single protein.   

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

 Rooinek has pretty much summed this thread up. Wardad I have to agree with you. well in many of your posts that is.