Best Makeup Products

Rational is atheism? Part1

Rational is atheism? The problems of meaning and purpose.

Copyright © Howard Robinson April 24, 2010.

Introduction

Since time immemorial, humanity discussed, searched, pondered, questioned, and more anxious on hot topics of meaning and purpose.

Humanity found a number of options to address these issues:

World Religions, Revelations – Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, philosophical doubts or uncertainty – agnosticism and atheism.

Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and Christianity are different in that they claim to have been initiated by divine revelation, not by man.

For starters look at atheism, then other options and go from there.

Atheism

An atheist is someone who do not believe or deny the existence of God or gods. It is a philosophical choice. This is a set of beliefs. Atheists believe that the scientific method and rational thought can not provide answers to the questions of existence and purpose. Many Atheists believe in the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory. ] [My emphasis.

If we see that atheism is something that we believe and it is a philosophical choice based on these beliefs.

The alternatives:

• Hinduism

Most Hindus worship one or more deities, believe in reincarnation, the value of the practice of meditation and to celebrate holidays such as Diwali and Holi festival.

Hindus believe in the law of Karma: a good life now leads to a better life in the next reincarnation.

For the Hindu, the purpose of life is to attain freedom from reincarnation, but it is not guaranteed.

• Buddhism

Buddhists believe in the Buddha attained enlightenment thought of thousands of reincarnations.

They do not believe that this world is created and governed by a God or a god.

Essential beliefs:

1.The Buddha is our only master.

2.We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma (Dhamma) and the Buddhist monks or ordained nuns (the Sangha).

 

• Sikhism

Basic Sikh beliefs are summarized in the words of the Mool Mantra, the first hymn written by Guru Nanak:

There is only one God. The truth is his name. He is the Creator. He is without fear. He is without hate. It is timeless and without form. It is beyond the death, the Enlightened One. It can be known by the grace of the Guru (God, the great master.).

It is believed that God created everything so that all life is good, but the attachment to material things leads to reincarnation and suffering of birth and death. The goal of Sikhism is to end the cycle of rebirth and to be united with God.

 

• Mormonism

Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon, which was given by Jesus Christ to their founder, Joseph Smith. They believe in a lost tribe of Israel, who settled in America.

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is the prophet through whom the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth, in recent times, the dispensation of the fullness of time, and said predicted by the prophets in earlier dispensations.

 

• Jehovah's Witnesses

Witnesses believe that Jesus was the first creation of Jehovah, that Jehovah then created everything else through it.

Leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be the only visible channel Jehovah and the Bible says that can not be understood without joining the organization the Watch Tower.

They estimate that 144,000 of them will be rewarded by life in the New Earth.

 

• Islam

Muslims believe in the first 5 books of the Bible and that Muhammad is the prophet of his God, Allah. Many believe also that Jesus was a prophet.

All that is necessary is to believe and recite the Shahada: "There is no god but God and Mohammed is his prophet. "

For a Muslim, the object of life is to live in a way that is pleasing to Allah so that we can win paradise. It is estimated that during puberty, a securities account of each person is open and it will be used in the Day of Judgement to determine his eternal destiny.

Like Christianity, Islam teaches the existence of the soul and a life transformed after physical death. They believe in a Judgement Day when mankind will be divided between the eternal destinations of Paradise and Hell.

 

• Judaism

The Jews believe they are the heirs of the promise made to their ancestor Abraham called by God "I am who I am." This is the same God worshiped by Christians.

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism has no official religion or universal doctrinal requirements for membership. Good deeds and mitzvot (commandments contained in 613 the Torah or Five Books of Moses), not on beliefs, are the most important aspect of Jewish religious life. In addition, the term "Jew" can be used to describe a race and culture rather than religion.

Nevertheless, the Torah and Talmud have much to say about God, humanity, and the meaning of life.

 

• Theism

This is the belief in the existence a god or gods, especially the belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. Theism in the broadest sense is belief in at least deity. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a specific doctrine concerning the nature of God and its relationship to the universe.

 

• Pantheism

Pantheism literally means "God is everything. " He believes that everything is part of a comprehensive immanent God. In pantheism, the universe and nature are equivalent to God.

It is the belief that the universe is divine and must be respected. Pantheism identifies God with the Universe, but denies any personality or the transcendence of a God

• Agnosticism

Belief that it is impossible whether there is a god.

Skepticism about the existence of God, but do profess true atheism. An agnostic does not deny the existence God and heaven, but believes that we can not know with certainty whether or not they exist.

 

• The Christianity

This is not a religion. It was a revelation and a relationship with God through faith in Jesus. God has revealed to Abraham, Moses, the prophets and finally through His Son, Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus is fully man and fully God, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that faith in Him is the only way to God. Christians believe that Jesus lived a perfect life without sin and was crucified for the sins of the world and has risen from the dead. Faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord gives forgiveness and His perfect life for the believer.

 

What about religion?

Religion is a belief and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

Religion may be a personal or institutionalized system based on this belief and worship.

Religion, by definition, is the man in search of God, God or gods.

It could be argued that the same reasons for rejecting other religions should be applied to your own as a test of authenticity and truth. Religion is an example of the truth that man is naturally inclined to believe and worship. Although atheism is a system belief, the belief that God does not exist. A form of religion "Worship" can be loosely extended to sports goods and people to do name a few.

We thus see that there is a good amount of faiths in opposition to atheism. Most them are very well developed and seems quite rational and reasonable. They did not, however, help us with the question, "atheism is rational. For this we have to look more on the origins of the universe and life etc.

First, some quotes:

According to Seneca the Younger (4 BC-65 AD). "Religion is regarded by the people as true, by the false good, and by the leaders as "useful.

There is undeniable truth in this statement. People do not respect religions, Eastern religions, especially true, but in our contemporary society skeptics present, there are many who regard religion as false and irrelevant. The sages are right to see religion as false because it is an attempt to reach God or God (s) with the man made ideas and efforts. If there is a God, or God, by definition, which could be only be known to the extent they wish to reveal themself.

Blaise Pascal said: "Men do not commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions". This has been true in many cases, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition of Oliver Cromwell. Jesus made a simple test: "By their fruits ye shall know them" and "a good tree does not bear bad fruit." The result in-chief for a true believer is love and it is impossible that these and similar hate (ie, love-less) acts might be called love. People have used religion as leverage for their own evil agendas.

Epicurus (341-270 BC) was a classic and very difficult argument for the nonexistence of God: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but can not? So he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but do not want? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then the evil from which comes? Is he neither can nor wants? Then why call him God? "

This reasoning is very convincing Epicurus. His logic is impeccable. He obviously believes unequivocally that no God and sets to prove his faith. Is this reasonable? It is not rational if there a reasonable doubt. We need only look around the world with an open mind to have a reasonable doubt. Romans 1 verse 20 says: "Since Inception qualities in the invisible world of God – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been done to that men are without excuse. "

Epicurus clearly believes in evil. It is indeed say that God does not exist because evil exists. This is not rational. If evil exists, it is probable that God exists. Evil exists, but it is limited, so there must be a good deal.

"God Is he willing to prevent evil, but can not?

This is another way of saying because there is evil God is too low to prevent or is not. God certainly limits hurt or it would surpass the world.

Is he able, but do not want? Then it malicious.

To his eternal purposes of God has stayed proceedings on the evil and, in the meantime, he allowed as an alternative.

Is both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?

If it is then why is there evil? Once again God has an alternative but has set a deadline to stop evil.

Is he neither can nor wants? Then why call him God? "

He is willing and able, but as I said, he has time for that.

raising two very words of Epicurus difficult questions:

1) Why does not God destroy evil when it happened? My answer, I said, is that God has delayed sentencing, but has appointed a time in the future to confront evil. Jesus gave the parable of the tares to explain that the fight against evil had to be postponed or it would harm the children of God who are in the world. Meanwhile, God has an alternative – the world (global system, the mundane), the flesh and the devil.

2) Why did he not stop the fall?

It was his goal bring a large number of son (children) in the glory (presence) Hebrews 10 vs. two. God has the fall because he did not rigid robots, but gave the first free nation. He warned against what would happen if they tasted good and evil, they would die. First they died spiritually and later died physically. Their children inherited these two deaths. This is why Jesus had to die in our place.

George Bernard Shaw said, the fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober.

Rather like "religion is the opium of the people" Karl Marx. It seems that religious faith is as intoxicating a lot of alcohol. There is truth in. Someone will be influenced profoundly religious and comforted by their religion. This may be a false peace or a false hope that by definition religion comes from the ideas man and not divine revelation.

A stranger said "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. "Religion should be able to be interviewed. There can not hurt because of a religion is true.

According to Gene Roddenberry: We must question the story logic of having an omniscient, omnipotent God, who creates faulty humans and then blames them for his own errors.

This statement contains errors. First, humans were not created defective. After creating first, we read: "God saw everything he had done, and it was very good" (Genesis 1 verse 31). God does not give them free will and the ability to obey Him or disobey Him. This was not the evidence to be defective, but it resulted in failure. God warned they would die if they disregarded his warning. They disobeyed him anyway.

An unknown author wrote: Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

There is truth here, and Jesus warned us not to be too heavenly spirit or you would be useless. Conversely, there are things that can not be done by the physical work, but prayer as the only salvation, healing, delivery, support and advice and much more. The Bible teaches the value of property titles, or action that comes from faith "What is good, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them: 'Go, I wish you good luck and keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, why bother? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. "(Jacques 2 verse 14-17)

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied not to understand the world – Richard Dawkins.

I agree that religion can cause this problem. On the other hand, Christianity is a revelation and not a religion, we gave the first scientists, some exceptional as Mendel (genetics) and Newton (Physics) as exceptional men like William Wilberforce who campaigned to abolish slavery in fact.

Aldous Huxley said: "The facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

I Agree! The problem is that some evidence is interpreted by the ideology or philosophy to "facts" to support the ideology or philosophy.

Said William Drummond, who will not reason is a bigot, who can not reason is a fool, he who dares not reason is a slave.

Okay.

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason, Franklin said.

This may be true of religion, but this is not true of the revelation. Before I was a Christian, my feelings were mainly that guided my decisions and behavior. Now, it is faith that guides most me. This faith can not be exercised without a reason. If I do not use my reason and I will be subject to all sorts of errors or a possible danger.

In 1988, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama said, "We must conduct research and then accept the results. If they do not stand up to experimentation, Buddha's own words must be rejected. "

The easy confidence with I know the man other's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that mine is too, "said Mark Twain.

In fact, it is difficult to control his own beliefs with the intensity, depth and reluctance with which we examine other faiths. This statement is accurate and informative. Religion is insanity if it is, as I have defined it, the man in search of God, using human means.

I believe in my love – is enough. I think that in this life, beautiful and unique! I believe in science! I faith in reason. I do not need to show that I do not think! I believe in human race! I'm sure it begins to see the true light, the light knowledge! Richard said Phillip.

The first statement is similar to the first fault where the people first wanted to be "like God. Belief in science is not serious, as it is limited to do and not why. This statement is not rational because he talks to say, faith and belief, which, unless there is a solid, defies reason and rational thought. Knowledge may cause pride and arrogant superiority thoughts. Knowledge does not mean an improvement in behavior. The caricature of the evil genius is widely used credible as a character in many books and movies for good reasons. Instinctively, we see knowledge as amoral, but also as a powerful tool in the hands of a bad person. The Bible warns that knowledge can make them proud and teaches that love can accumulate. The last statement is a Blind faith in humanity, which is incorrect. Around the world there is still corruption, extortion, abuse of power, hatred, violence and greed. Yes, it is also good, but the human race has not improved and shows no sign of improvement. Technology, learning and improvement of life for some we were not changed for the better.

The origin of everything.

Atheism believes that the Universe was created accidentally by a series of random events. It is expressed very elegantly in the Big Bang theory. Another theory which has already been proposed, is the equilibrium theory of the state.

If the universe really found by accident is it rational to expect the laws of physics, the complex structures of atoms, molecules, solar systems and galaxies in all accidents random? The alternative to chance is an intelligent design. We will examine these three, starting with the theory of steady state.

Stable state theory

It basically says that the universe has always existed, just as it is now, with the material during training. This does not explain where this question is coming from or, more importantly, where all matter in the universe came first. It is irrational to say: "The universe is here, so it has always been here." Unfortunately, the theory of steady state does not meet the most basic principles of a scientific theory, namely that there must be evidence of facts and basic theory. Basically the second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe has a beginning (when the disorder is zero) so that refutes the theory of the state equilibrium.

 

The Big Bang Theory

First, theory

The theory of Big Bang is the current scientific explanation for how the universe was created. According theory extremely dense and hot ball of matter, very small diameter, exploded, creating hydrogen and helium and providing the basis for further development of the field. This should be enough material to make billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars. In theory, that the new business expanded, it created space. It is believed that the Big Bang occurred about 10 to 20 billion years and that the universe has since expanded and cooled.

The most popular scientific view is that there was a singularity First – an area where the laws of physics break down. At the beginning of the universe available with a singularity of the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would be infinite. Because all the known laws of physics break down in these conditions, it is a serious problem for science. Thus science is incapable of describing or predicting the initial conditions and how the universe began. It is fair to say at the outset The Big Bang Theory that does not exclude God because nobody has been able to say what happened in the first fraction of a second child.

The testimony of the Big Bang – an expanding universe

For Big Bang is correct, the universe must be expanding outwards from the center of the explosion.

Evidence of this expansion is given in the form of redshifts galaxies and quasars.

When a celestial object is traveling away from us the light emitted must accelerate. But the speed of light remains constant in the universe, he can not change, therefore, changes in wavelength toward the red. Because the spectra of elements such as hydrogen this change are known "red" can be measured. (For example, when excited, hydrogen emits light in four different colors in the visible spectrum, and a number of lines in the infra-red and ultra-violet.)

The shift to the red light of galaxies has been found to be proportional to their brightness and luminosity has been considered as a measure of their distance. It seems that the galaxies are from us the faster they move away from us. Of course, this makes the assumption that the brightness is a measure of the distance and also that the speed away from us is the only cause of redshifts.

Lets examine the evidence.

Stephen Hawking To Quote, "I am interested in the question of whether there was a Big Bang singularity, because it is essential to understanding the origin of the universe. Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques to deal with this and similar problems. We have shown that if general relativity is correct, a reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could not predict that the universe must have been a beginning, but he could not predict how the universe should begin: that we must appeal to God. "

The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. The facts that have been used to verify that it can be in error. For example, quasars and galaxies with redshifts are thought to show that the universe is expanding, and thus there was an explosion. Have you ever seen the results explosion? To achieve the universe as we know from a Big Bang explosion is like an explosion in a brick house resulting stacked in an orderly manner, glass and mortar with the rest of the content well organized and cataloged.

Stars of certain mass explode and produce a supernova. " The problem with a larger mass that exceeds a threshold level (and the mass of the universe is really above this level) is that we know he will become a black hole that will certainly not explode. Thus, the Big Bang Theory is a problem from the beginning of the universe – not "Bang!"

The second law of thermodynamics states that disorder or "entropy" of the universe increases with time. This means that space, time and matter have always existed, but has emerged where the entropy is zero. As we have already said, the universe has a beginning. It also means that for an explosively in galaxies and solar systems should be ordered to go against the fundamental law of the second law of thermodynamics physics.The also shows that the universe may have existed for a finite time. Otherwise, the universe would today have degenerated into a state of complete disorder, in which all is at the same temperature.

Galaxies collide, which goes against the theory of a expanding universe. Our own galaxy is on a collision course with our closest neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy. Even if it's the same age that the Milky Way, Hubble observations show that stars in a halo of Andromeda are much younger than the Milky Way. From this and other evidence, astronomers infer that Andromeda has already collided with at least one other galaxy.

We should expect that galaxies are scattered randomly throughout the universe. Rather, they are often in clusters, which are in turn parts of very large structures called "Superclusters. If Big Bang actually happened there would be a much more even distribution of matter. And if the galaxies, though unlikely, is no, they would recede each other, not collide. In addition, if the universe is expanding for several billion years, why not see a large "hole" where the center of the explosion was?

We can transform matter into energy in exceptional circumstances such as production of a critical mass of a radioactive substance, which has an unstable nucleus, but we can not create matter. We need more intelligence and more technology that we have to do business. Should the intelligence and capabilities of a "God" to provide the energy necessary to convert the subject, ignore the law of entropy and organize in galaxies.

The "Quantum" theory suggests that depression has become pairs of particles and anti-particles and energy needed for the vast amount of matter in the universe been "borrowed" from the gravitational energy. It seems just a proposal circular robbing Peter to pay Peter. By a lot issue of an equal amount of antimatter would be made. Where is everything?

If whence all material to come? The theory does not answer this question or adapt to the condition that the matter of our universe came from somewhere. It is easier and more rational to believe that God put him there and at the same time, gave the laws of physics.

 

Red-quarters of galaxies and quasars.

In center of our spiral galaxy much energy is generated with occasional eruptions vivid. Based on the immense gravity that would be needed to explain the motion of stars and the energy expelled, the astronomers conclude that the center of our galaxy is a supermassive black hole.

In the 1960 objects were observed which radio waves and were treated like stars. They have very unusual spectra. He finally realized that the spectra are so unusual because Red lines have been shifted by a very large amount, corresponding to speeds away from us that were significant fractions of the speed of light.

The reason it took some time to reach this conclusion because these objects were considered relatively nearby stars, we had no reason to believe they be receding from us at these speeds.

 

The current model of a quasar has a super-massive spinning Black Hole at the center. This action produces a spinning vortex "space" by drawing gas stream in a spiral motion toward the hole. The gas flow entering collide due to the enormous gravitational energy and create heat. This is what gives a quasar's light levels. They can emit as much energy as an entire galaxy. Current research suggests that the implosion of a massive star, the order 100 million times the mass of the sun, could form a black hole massive enough to power a Quasar.

 

Quasars are considered among the most distant objects, which can be observed. They are thought to be far away because of their large redshift. As the redshift of quasars is considered the average speed, then what is the distance. In an explosion of dispersion components move with different speeds. At any given time the fastest components to be far from the center of explosion. Thus we think Quasar red shifts are evidence of the big bang bang. But gravity is also a red shift. A supermassive black hole is super massive "gravity and will certainly produce a super massive" redshift. So, quasars are not traveling as fast as their shifts toward the red, suggesting they may not be as distant as we thought. As mentioned previously, they were first thought to be close, maybe they are.

As we have said, there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. If other galaxies have black holes at the center, then each black hole will certainly contribute significantly to the galaxy of Red Shift. Add this to the fact there are also galaxies that comes to us casts doubt on the theory of Big Bang. For example There are hundreds of galaxies, including Andromeda, which come towards us (blue with changes).

Suppose that the blue shift galaxies have a central black hole, causing a shift towards the red – and it is very likely. This means that galaxies blue shift Blue Shift real reason the movement is larger than that observed and they come toward us faster than we thought. In addition, if the redshift galaxies and quasars are significantly due to the gravitational pull of the black hole then the universe is probably not the expansion. Of course, all this is very hypothetical, but does cast doubt on the Big Bang. I am not an astrophysicist, but to me it seems to be some flaws in the Big Bang. In addition, the theory of support can get too theoretical, involving the matter and antimatter, can get too theoretical to be a realistic solution to the problem of where the universe comes from.

 

For the Big Bang is correct, the huge explosion to organize atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, planets and beings live, unlike the second law of thermodynamics. It takes a huge leap of "faith". Atoms Take, for example – each atom has an orbit discrete or a discrete set of orbitals for electrons. Up to two electrons occupy the first shell (1S). Up to 2 electrons occupy the next orbit (2S) with six others (2P) which make up the second shell. Up to 18 electrons occupy the next layer (3S, 3P, 3D) to 8 occupy the next layer (4S and 4P) and so on. It is interesting to note that the 3D orbit is filled after the 4s orbital, which has an energy slightly lower. It always happens that electrons fill orbitals along the periodic table of elements. Sometimes, the orbital "hybridization" but it is always the same way with the same numbers of electrons to fill the orbitals. Electrons are not both in the ring, like orbits, but clouds of probability. If a gamma ray strikes an electron, it gains energy and can move to a higher orbital before giving the equivalent "light" between his state of the orbital energy and it comes. What makes electrons behave like this? As far as we can tell, there is the attraction of the core work. It is amazing if you think they do. There is more likelihood of conception right here!

What about the spin of quasars and galaxies? Quasars spin so fast that the revolution takes only a few hours. Where did this come from angular momentum? Where did the rotation of the sun and the earth and the rotation of our solar system come from? An explosion is not response. It takes a lot of "faith" to believe that the universe was created by random processes from scratch and from the evidence we have seen, this belief is not rational.

 

Finally, Intelligent Design

We briefly discussed the "design" of atoms. It is designed in the air we breathe. Nitrogen is good for our lungs and it is interesting to note that despite the loss of our planet, our atmosphere, including inert gases, remains a constant 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen gas inert, about 1% and traces of water vapor and carbon dioxide. The composition of air is unchanged up to an altitude of about 10,000. This is not an accident.

The current theory is that the earth was formed from a nebula dark – a gas or a dust cloud, without a star. Genesis 1 verses 1 and 2 says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Now earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the abyss, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. "In Instead of being "fairy tales for simple people" is a fair description of a dark nebula.

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. "Richard Dawkins.

This is an assessment rather dark. It is (I think! And I hope we have seen) is strong evidence for design. There are laws of physics, there is gravity, a constant speed of light and red shifts. There are galaxies of our sun with planets. The moon is just the right size and distance at once because of eclipse. It is the boiling and freezing water. Water is densest at 4 ° C. If this was not the case, fish from freezing. The situation of the land and weather conditions allow water to exist as gases, liquids and solids ..

Do you know that the earth is just the right distance from the sun? (Approximately 91 to 94,500,000 miles), Closer is too hot, further and we die of cold.

In atoms, or if the strong nuclear force or weak nuclear force were slightly different value, life would not exist.

Quote: "The strong nuclear force determines the extent to which the protons and neutrons (some components of atoms) stick together.

- If the strong nuclear force was slightly higher (0.3% higher) life would be impossible because all the protons and neutrons connect. There are only heavy elements in the universe.

- If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker (2%) would be life

impossible because the protons and neutrons do not stick together.

Only one element, hydrogen might exist in the universe. "Copyright 1994 by returning to God, PO Box 159, Carnation, WA 98014.

Then if the ratio of the strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force varied slightly in the wrong direction or only hydrogen elements Heavy would be formed. So, no carbon, no life. But no sun! I would say that the evidence of design. At least there is a high probability! It is as thin – support life on Earth and provide an environment for us to know our Creator.

By all means let us be open-minded, but not so open minded that our brains are leaving – Richard Dawkins.

I totally agree with her openness, provided that does not mean, "you must believe what I believe" because it would be irrational. I totally agree that we should use our brains, They are, after all, a gift from God.

 

The origin of life

There are two main theories of origin life.

1. The organic life came into being dead, inorganic components. There were no design or purpose. We are all descended from that first single-celled ancestor. Where the fish. Fish came amphibians. In reptiles from amphibians. Reptiles from mammals.

2. God created life with the design and purpose.

Consider the evidence.

Atheism and science has no satisfactory explanation for the origin of life. Scientists have made soup of amino acids but it is a million miles of single-celled organisms.

Oparin proposed a theory that life on Earth developed through evolution progressive chemical-based carbon molecules in a primordial soup that could be created in an oxygen atmosphere free by the action of sunlight. He suggested that the "spontaneous generation of life" does happen once, but was now impossible because the conditions found in the earth to the top had changed and the presence of organisms immediately consume any body spontaneously. He suggested that organic molecules combine in the way more and more complex until they form coacervate droplets.

According to Wikipedia: coacervates were famous by Alexander Oparin proposed as crucial in the first theory of Abiogenesis (Origin of life). This theory assumes that the replication of information metabolism earlier, contrary to the theory of modern understanding, and for decades has been the approach Oparin leading to the origin of life issue. coacervates measure 1-100 micrometers in diameter, have osmotic properties and form spontaneously from certain dilute organic solutions. Their name derives from the Latin coacervare, which means "to meet or cluster. "Although they were once suggested to have played an important role in the evolution of cells and, therefore, life itself, today, this approach is mostly abandoned.

 

In experiment Miller-Urey experiment a mixture of highly reducing gases, methane, ammonia and hydrogen was used. organic molecules basis, such as amino acids, were formed. Less reducing gases produce a lower yield and variety. One may wonder whether or mixture notthe gas used in their experiment is really the atmosphere of early Earth. The question is where did the 21% oxygen today come from if it was not always there? It was once thought that a reasonable amount of oxygen was present in the early atmosphere, before the "life" began, but that would have prevented the formation of organic molecules. As we have said, something about the earth maintains the mixture of gases in the air. It is therefore likely that this composition has always been.

Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in discussions as to the origin of life as a reality already established, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence of its existence. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler, 1985, p. 261.

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid and is found in all living beings. The formation of long-chain molecules such as DNA complex of "soup of amino acids" is not simple. Besides amino acids in the Miller-Urey experiment, there were high concentrations of chemicals that could have prevented the transformation of the short chain (Monomers) to long-chain molecules (polymers). An equally important challenge for the theory is how the relatively simple Amino acids are complex molecules with long chain in water. This is because in an environment of water molecules with long chain would favor the reaction with water (hydrolysis) to break into their constituent small molecules (monomers) instead of water loss (Condensation) for turning individual monomers into polymers. Thus, the natural production of DNA from amino acids in water is chemically impossible.

 

Another blow to spontaneous generation is in the field of chirality.

A chiral molecule lacks an internal symmetry and its mirror image can not be superimposed on it. The most common cause of chirality in molecules is the presence of a carbon atom when the neighboring atoms are not symmetric. A chiral molecule can exist in two different forms, distinguished by the direction they rotate polarized light – either clockwise or counterclockwise. These optical "isomers ', Were called for left and right handers.

Two optical isomers of amino generic acid, the Wikipedia

To take a familiar example, let's look on glucose and fructose. They have an identical makeup of atoms in each molecule, but they are in front of isomers optics.

Fructose is a sugar sweet, which is found in many fruits. It takes the body time to break down fructose, resulting in a release slow sugar, rather than a sudden influx. For this reason, it is used for diabetics.

In total contrast, glucose quickly gives the body energy, the body using the sugar to cells.

Although their chemical formula is the same, they are so different. So, clearly, where optical isomers are concerned, fairness is extremely important for their biological function.

To be correct, the theory of spontaneous generation of inorganic chemicals must explain the fact that all the building blocks in living organisms have the same "impartiality." Are left-handed amino acids and sugars of nucleic acids, ribose and deoxyribose, are right-handed.

 

Single optical isomers may be produced, but there must be a source or a chiral isomer chiral catalyst, if not a 50/50 mixture of both isomers is produced. This is called a racemic mixture.

Recognizing the impossibility in nature, It has been suggested that such a chiral source may have come from space or the polarized light has the power to destroy an isomer. It has been shown that beta particles (electrons) has caused the breakdown of D-leucine in a racemic mixture. Significant amounts of carbon 14 currently have been proposed for this purpose.

 

This is all highly speculative, IFS too many buts. What is clear is that correct isomers for life, if they were produced naturally, we have seen is very unlikely, would be produced in equal quantities with the wrong isomer. This could not lead to "life".

There are five main nucleobases in nucleic acids DNA and RNA. These are adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine and uracil.

In the last nail in the coffin, it was found that, although adenine and guanine require freezing conditions to form, cytosine and uracil require boiling bottom – so four out of five components of DNA and RNA can not form together naturally.

DNA is a program extremely complex. There is enough information encoded in a single cell to fill a large library. Although the information involves working intelligence, atheism has to believe that DNA has occurred quite by chance and without design and without a designer. It takes orders over the faith magnitude than to believe that God is the programmer of the DNA.

To quote www.allaboutscience.org:

DNA is a double stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. The four bases that make up the staircase in the spiral staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These steps act as "letters" of the alphabet genetics, combining in complex sequences to form words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and operation of cell. The A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to "0" and "1" in binary code as the software to a computer and software as a computer DNA code communicates information to the cell. The sequencing and operation of the code is extremely complex, more complex than the space shuttle. However, it is important to realize that the physical basis of a message is totally independent information transmitted. In other words, the chemical elements have nothing to do with the origin of complex message. It is a very precise, a unique message for each unique organization. So where does the message come from?

In PM of www.bibliotecapleyades.net :

In the molecule of human DNA, they found something quite unexpected exquisite "language" consisting of some 3 billion genetic letters. DNA actually stores information Detailed instructions for assembling proteins. The information in human DNA is roughly the equivalent of 12 sets of Encyclopaedia Britannica, an incredible 384 volumes.

The only types of communication considered high-level languages are human artificial languages, such as computers and Morse code and the genetic code. No other system of communication has been found to contain features Basic language. These languages can be understood as rational intelligence products.

DNA holds a 4 Extremely complex dual character digital program. Anyone who has ever tried computer programming (which is much simpler) know how easy it is to make mistakes and have a program that does not work. How it would be difficult, even for a human programmer to obtain billions of variations acid amino right. As we have said, this type of high-level information was originally found as an intelligent source. It should also say that the source is incredibly accurate and precise.

The precision of this genetic language is such that the error average is not taken turns to be a mistake for 10 billion letters. If an error occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle cell anemia or even death. Yet even the best typist and smartest in the world could not come close to one error per 10 billion letters-far from it. Is it rational to believe it all happened by chance an accident?

The mechanism of DNA copying, in response to maximum effectiveness, requires that the number of letters in each "word" to be an even number. Among all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to four letters. This is exactly what was found in the genes of every living being on earth, a digital four-letter code. The probability of this happening by chance must be small enough to make it impossible.

One of the discoverers of the genetic code, Francis Crick, after decades of Working decipher, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge we have today, could only State in a sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that should have been convinced of it going "(Life itself, 1981 p. 88).

It does not take much thinking to see that many more natural processes would be needed to cover the vast difference in the chemistry and the complexity of the form of DNA containing billions of coding amino acids and DNA to form a living cell.

The origin of life from inorganic molecules, is so unlikely it was proposed extraterrestrial origins – Delivery by objects (eg carbonaceous chondrites) or by the gravitational attraction of organic molecules and primitive life forms of space, but it still does not answer the question of where life comes.

 

Each cell is a very efficient factory, not a single spot of protoplasm that one believes in Darwin's time. Instructions on how to create, run, and repair living cells takes a huge 12 billion bits of information (about). Information like this can never result a natural process. It is always the result of intelligence.

Bubbles formed entirely of protein molecules, called microspheres, are formed spontaneously under the right conditions. But they are not likely a precursor of the modern cell membrane, such as Cell membranes are composed primarily of lipid compounds rather than amino acid compounds

Even if the right products chemicals in good condition will be "spontaneously" produce life does not mean it happened that way. But, as we have seen, nobody has been able to generate life in a test tube, even with our vast knowledge of chemistry. The evolution of life natural elements occur is impossible and improbable. Not only that, even using the basic components readymade one has yet synthesized cell "prototype" that would require properties of life.

 

The Theory of Evolution

Definition: A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small variations in hereditary and mutations that increase the body's ability to compete, survive and reproduce. In theory, this is a gradual process in which something changes in a different and often more complex or more. Implicit in the theory is the principle of uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism states that everything on earth is remained the same as it is today. In other words, in uniformitarianism, there was no natural disaster reaching the earth.

Justin Brown – If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we come from, how can we trust him to tell us where we are going? If it is wrong absolutely right!

You can not be both healthy and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has learned to believe in evolution. Richard Dawkins -.

This is a sweeping statement! As we will see that there is no evidence to support this assertion. Also, it really talking about faith or "infidels" is not necessarily something to do with education.

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). By Richard Dawkins.

This statement is rational? Is it scientific? People who speak like that in essence, say "agree with me, mine is the only intelligent perspective." Do not misunderstand the tone and content of this passion shows. Yet it is a surprisingly confident assertion. The word "believe" in the context of the development is good because it is any belief not to facts.

Let the rational theory with honesty as much and as little bias as we can muster. Evolution claims to be a scientific theory. Let us apply the scientific method to this?

The steps of the scientific method are follows:

1. Observe.

2. Construct a hypothesis that is consistent with observation.

3. Use hypothesis make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there is no difference between theory and experiment and / or observation. (A hypothesis becomes a theory when there is a consistency).

Darwin observed variation within species. He also noted that some species are interdependent. For example, clover needs bees. He also noted that the fossils were found in different layers with simple animals and plants below.

He concluded that all animals and plants exists now came from a common ancestor less developed and developed in their current state by mutation and natural selection (evolution). It did not know about genetics and DNA and, as we shall see, the impossibility evolution by mutation has been.

If he was using the scientific method, he would have to step 4 above and made other comments. He made a great comment and the caliber of its raw data is excellent. This is not the problem. His conclusions are beyond comment.

He concluded that evolution had happened if he had no comments to support. He had not seen a gradual evolution of a species to another in the fossil record. The absence of fossil evidence for transitions and consequently the missing links and embarrassed he said.

However, he contented himself with the consolation of not having been found again and everything would be fine if more fossils have been discovered. Very optimistic, but this is not science! It is thus clear that the language and reasoning of evolution is all in the vein of a faith or a belief system.

Evolution does not help the way the first single-celled creatures began either. As we have seen, "spontaneous generation" is impossible. Without a cause or a viable means of first life into being by accident or by random events, evolution falls at the first hurdle.

As we have seen a very high quality of the information exists in the cells of all living organisms. Instructions are given with elegance and precision in a language that has an "alphabet", "grammar and meaning.

Evolution says that random mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. This means that organizations must undergo gradual changes until they become a other species. This can be done by modifying the code of DNA. As we have already seen, an error of 10 billion (1 in 10 billion euros) can cause serious health problems or even kill an organism.

Trouble in the DNA of an individual is a disease known the name of a genetic disorder. Abnormalities can range from a small mutation in a single gene to the addition or subtraction of a whole chromosome or a set of chromosomes.

single gene disorder is the result of a single gene. It is estimated that more 4000 human diseases caused by single gene defects. monogenic diseases can be transmitted to subsequent generations. The opposite adoption of proposed benefits mutation.

A mutation known is hemophilia, which is a group of inherited disorders Genetic altering the body's ability to control blood clotting or bleeding when a blood vessel is broken.

Mutations cause of disability, illness or death. Look spinabifida and thalidomide. Just think for a minute. If the mutation causes the evolution why not see the changes when people are exposed to gamma rays or radioactive substances? The answer is that the mutations caused either cause illness and death. They do not cause improvement. The development has assumed that the majority of mutations are successful. In fact, the vast majority are very successful.

Damage to DNA can lead to cellular dysfunction, cancer, aging, cell death and other diseases. There cystic fibrosis, hypothyroidism, colon cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, Alzheimer's disease sickle cell disease, one of the most common genetic diseases in the United States.

Fortunately, most of us have functioning repair pathways of DNA that the investigation of DNA and correct errors. Not bad for a happy accident it?

Mutation by ultraviolet radiation causes skin aging and excess can cause burns or cancer. In an extreme case, there is a whole family whose repair gene has been disabled by mutation. They blister and burn in the sunlight and there is a high incidence of cancer in the family.

Then, mutation is not a viable means of evolution.

DNA is like a large program that is possible is adaptation within a species. In fact the evidence of adaptation concludes that this facility has been programmed in. That is what Darwin observed finches with her – adaptation – they remained finches about the same size but have different beaks, which been adapted to different food sources.

Another player in the evolution of nature. Darwin is amazing faith in the omnipotence and wisdom of nature. He really believed in him. He believed that nature could anticipate and guide the needs of an organization and interaction between different agencies.

It is irrational to deny the existence of God while giving nature "God" as qualities.

I have a question: If the earth is hundreds of millions of years, why is the oldest tree thousands of years only?

The oldest trees in the world has registered one year old spruce in 9550 the province of Dalarna in Sweden.

The oldest tree living "Methuselah" is 4768 years old and grew up in California, USA.

Prometheus was the nickname given to the oldest Great Basin Bristlecone Pine, who had pushed on Wheeler Peak in eastern Nevada, USA. The tree was probably at or more than 5000 years when they Cup 1964

King Clone is considered the oldest ring of creosote bush in the Mojave Desert. It has an average diameter of 45 feet and reached up to 67 feet in diameter. At an estimated 11,700 years, it is perhaps the oldest living organism on Earth.

The fact is that the age of these plants suggests that the age of the earth is tens of thousands rather than hundreds of millions of years.

Another question: If evolution happened, why does aging occur, as if pre-programmed in every living cell? We should expect the organization "to want a life as long as possible to pass on his genes as much as possible. (It the kind of statement made by Darwin giving organizations not only intelligence and amazing insight, but also the power to change for the better. Since humans, the most advanced so-called "agencies" are incapable of this, the rest of the less advanced "organisms" have no chance.) and aging, why all the animals and plants subject to the death and decay? This is explained by evolution. He explained by the fall (Genesis, Chapter 3).

Another question. If humans are "more evolved" organizations Is it not strange that our babies are so helpless, needing to maintain some intensive cons "less evolved" organisms can fend for themselves, shortly after being born or hatched? Why do we need clothes? Why do we need to sterilize our food and purify our drinking water? All other raw foods, some can drink stagnant water with no ill effects.

Let's examine the evidence for evolution:

 

The necessary conditions for fossils.

All animals are readily eaten by other animals. Even bones can be eaten by carnivores and bacteria. Not surprisingly, the formation of fossils are very rare intact under normal conditions. This is particularly so as we are told that the forms sediment at a rate of only one inch per year. At this rate it would take centuries to bury a Dinosaur (if there was nothing left to bury!)

Instead of finding eaten and altered fossils, fossils are mostly complete. Some dinosaur fossils are impressions of the skin – not the kind of thing should, if only 1 inch of sediment per year is deposited on them. They were manifestly covered quickly. Because of decay and scavengers and the need for burial to coincide with when they are dead there is a very high probability they were not dead but alive when buried. The fossil remains of shells support this, having been found in the closed position, indicating that they have been buried alive. sedimentary layers and fossils appear to be a witness to a catastrophe maritime past.

Also, instead of finding the fossils are very rare, we find that they are very abundant. There are a hundred million fossils, all cataloged and identified, in museums worldwide. All fossils are found in sedimentary rocks ie rock formed from a suspension in water. Conditions conducive to the formation of fossils include rapid burial in the wet sediments or other material to prevent soft parts are eaten by scavengers, prevent spoilage and exclude oxygen and bacteria, preventing decay. In other Under something like a world, a cataclysmic flooding is necessary to fossils found in numbers in the archives fossils. We find creatures of the sea bottom layers, logically, with terrestrial animals in the upper layers.

Rather that millions of years, we now know that the formation of fossils can occur rapidly under the right circumstances. It was found that the fossils formed within 50 years to a River Delta.

In Siberia some 50 woolly mammoths and rhinoceros long horns have been found preserved in ice, even with the skin and flesh intact. We're supposed to believe they lived from 10,000 to 1.6 million years (the Pleistocene period). Would they have been retained during this period of time? Maybe not. What is even more important is that something different from today's conditions has occurred, which contradicts uniformitarianism. A large quantity of water overwhelmed and quickly frozen mammoths. mammoths preserved in ice is evidence of flooding, such as coal Pole North (which suggests a worldwide mild climate that has been changed by the loss of a canopy of water vapor). Evolution fails to explain these things.

There are nearly 300 flood survivors Legends transmitted by ancient civilizations. Some suggest the flood Noah.

The fossil

Evolution assumes that there is only one way that the fossil record may have formed. That in itself is not scientific because there is at least one other possibility. It assumes that the layers were laid down by geological time period most down with the oldest rocks down.

The formation of layers of rock over tens or hundreds of millions of years all sounds entirely rational until you look at what we should expect if evolution really happened. If evolution is the cause of life on earth, then there should be a large number of life forms have evolved in part fossils. The large gap between reptiles cold-blooded and warm-blooded mammals, there should be hundreds, even thousands of fossils link if evolution is true. Millions of years of evolution should show progressive in many transitional fossils.

The reverse is found! When fossil are examined, they are records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps.

Cambrian Pleistocene new species appear suddenly in large numbers without transitional forms leading to them. It was thought that some fossil horses showed signs of change. This has been demonstrated for a mistake. They are not a different species anyway. Many animals in the "fossil record" are alive today in much the same form as their fossils. So they are not part of evolution! The others have disappeared, but death does not prove evolution and the abundance of "living fossils" certainly not.

As we have said. very complex creatures suddenly appear in the "Cambrian" rocks. Paleontologists call this immense problem "the Cambrian explosion. There are trilobites, brachiopods, worms, sponges, jelly fish, all without ancestors. Trilobites for example, have a very complex system of lenses in their eyes, they are not only "simple" organisms. If there were changes there must predecessors were less complex, but there is no trace.

Charles Darwin noted the Cambrian explosion and thought it was an artifact of a poorly preserved fossil record. We now know that was a mistake. In addition, many of our animals and plants in this modern low, just above the Precambrian. How

About the Author

I am interested in science and also Christianity. I like science fiction and fantasy novels. Reading is one of my favourite hobbies.

 

How it’s made