[Rockstar]

Thats true it should also include the Darwinian theory of evolution which teaches everything was just random chance.


It was supposed to be a clear and relatively low humidity night. I had every intention to take the opportunity to photograph Mars tonight as its that time of year again when its in opposition and closest to Earth. Even without a focal extender I can pick up some really nice surfaces detail. But once again the science of meteorology lied too me AGAIN Instead of a breezy clear sky's, I was met with low clouds, stagnant air, bugs and high humidity. With Mars being so close to the horizon there was too much atmospheric interference for me to bother. So here I am.


I want to clarify a few words when I use the word religion I do not in anyway shape or form mean the historically and embarrassing moral influences of religion. I use the word strictly in matters concerning the possible cause of our existence. Also, when I speak of evolution it is not always in regards to Darwinian or neo-Darwinian ideas of evolution which is too say we are just a random selection on the dart board of life. The universe proves we have evolved. From the energy of the big bang into a physical sentient being shows that but I believe by design not by random chance.


In my opinion the greatest self revelation of a Creator is the creation It brought into being.


Big Bang creation of energy ---> matter ---> life ---> brain ---> mind and sentience.


There are two aspects in nature's march toward life that call out for commentary: the creation of the universe perfect for life, and the formation of sentient life able to experience the wonders of love, joy, and compassion, but built of combinations of protons, neutrons, and electrons that have not the vaguest hint of sentience within their structures. Life and consciousness emerged from non living matter. But how?


The Bible of course gives God the credit for that event. “God created the heavens and earth” That is the very first sentence of my Bible, Genesis 1:1. But the Bible being God oriented, has a vested interest in listing God as the Creator. Secular science even as it embraces the concept of creation, does not necessarily turn to God for the beginning. But there are aspects of quantum physics that allow the creation of something from nothing. Science posits that the big bang was the beginning of time and space. But what about matter? That is considerably more enlightening (literally). The big bang did not produce matter as we know it, not any of the ninety two elements. The primary material product of big bang was exquisitely intense energy or light. The wonder or argument is not whether this genesis took six days or as NASA has computed 13.75 billion years looking back from our position in space and time. The wonder is that it happened. And today's science agrees with those desert sheep herders who wrote in a book 4,000 years ago that it did “In the beginning...”



It also speaks of man being created. Admittedly neither Darwinism nor Intelligent Design have proved how that happened or by whom. Darwinism and neo-Darwinism espouse that we evolved by random selection. But is it really possible we are here by chance? The late Dr. Robley D. Evans urged, always repeat in summary what you have just espoused. Consider the string of assumptions for which supporting data, if any, are vanishingly scant in an unguided random chance world.

1. A prebiotic atmosphere and hydrosphere existed that could support the reactions among methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, a few amino acids, and water leading to the complex substrates of RNA. Current understanding of prebiotic atmosphere make it hostile to such reactions.
2. The assumed substrates, though diverse in properties and chemically unstable, assembled locally so that they could interact.
3. These substrates combined to form chains of polynucleotides.
4. These polynucleotides became self replicating molecules able to cull from an adjacent medium the necessary components to rebuild themselves, though with slight variations – mutations – that allowed evolution to progress from prebiotic to life.
5. FINALLY a cell appeared complete with gated membrane to regulate entrance and egress, housing DNA that codes via its four nucleotides for RNA found much earlier in this process.

Each of those stages presents chemical and physical hurdles for which there are no logical solutions. And yet we have life.


But lets take a look closer look accepting that somehow life started and now we need that early life form to mutate and climb step by step the fabled mountain of improbability. Mutations that are to be passed on to the next generation must occur in the genetic material, that is, in the DNA of the reproductive line. Such a mutation might result in a variant (mutated) protein that might produce a new effective organ, say, a system leading to a kidney or the precursor of a pump that might develop into a heart. The neo-Darwinian concept of evolution claims the development of life resulted from random mutation in the DNA that yielded these varied organic structures. Some of variations were beneficial, some not. The rigors of the environment selected for the beneficial changes and eliminated those that were detrimental.


Its a persuasively devised theory, but lets look at that process a bit closer with the insights of molecular biology. The building blocks of all life are proteins. And proteins are precisely organized strings of amino acids. Information held in DNA determines which and in what order the amino acids are formed and yield the end product, the protein. If the DNA mutates, we get a different amino acid and hence a different protein. And now comes the problem of random mutations in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. The genetic system of all life is totally coded.


Assume the the entire hydrosphere, all of the approximately 1.4 x 1033 liters of water in all the oceans and icebergs and lakes on earth, was imbibed in biological cells each weighing a billionth of a gram. We would have had 1033 cells reproducing, mutating, actively moving this grand process of evolution. If each cell divided each and every second since the appearance of liquid water on earth some four billion years ago, the total number of mutations, or stated in another way, the number of evolutionary trials, would be 1050. Although vast, this number pales when compared to the 10260 potential failing options for a single protein. Hitting upon the useful combinations did not, and could not, and will not happen by chance.


All biologists enamored with neo-Darwinian evolution know this truth. Their hopeful reply goes something along the line that, although we now have a DNA world, other worlds may have been possible, and DNA, being the first to form and survive, merely took over. Other systems might have used other types of proteins that we see as lethal or useless in today's DNA world. There is no evidence that this is true; however, let us assume its truth. Now we have the DNA dominated world we know. And so we are back to the above calculations as the first form of life, a microbe, mutates, and either advances or perishes as it starts to climb the mountain of improbability by random mutations on the DNA that will in time lead to kidneys, bones, liver, heart, eyes, brains, mind, sentience. It has to choose randomly from the vast hyperspace of possible biological combinations the tiny fraction that are beneficial or at least neutral. Clearly there must be other factors that limit the types of mutations that can occur. There are, but not as random as some biologists would have it.
One of the most widely used biology textbooks, Biochemistry, by Voet states, though in subtle wording 'Keep in mind that only a small fraction of the myriads of possible peptide sequences are likely to have stable conformation. Evolution has, of course, selected such sequences for use in biological systems'. Just how did “evolution' become so clever that it could “of course select” from the “myriads” of failures the few that function?


Darwinism simply ignores the statistical unrealistic possibility that the fabrication of viable proteins could have occurred by unguided random mutation. That life developed from the simple to the complex is, in opinion, a certainty. What drove that development is the central debate.


There is a proverb that is actually true and worthy of repeating which states: the song a sparrow learns in its youth is its song for life. And we humans, at our deepest emotional level, are not so different. What we learn in our youth is with us for life. And we all learned in school that Darwin got it right didn't we? Not withstanding the article “Did Darwin Get It Right?” in the peer reviewed science journal, Science, maintains he didn't. Some here may or may not agree but I think we can thank lawyers and judges not science to continue the argument that only Darwin's version of evolution can be taught in our schools. As witnessed here at Subsim they attack ones personal beliefs and character rather than look at the data. The game is rigged in such a way that you are fed from your earliest days the saga that unguided random mutations produced life, then arguing from the major to the minor, certainly, you believe Hawking's untruth that monkeys banging away on typewriters could with time produce sonnets!


It is the DNA research and the data it produces not ones religion or a religion which appears to have persuaded Anthony Flew to change his mind or for people like Dawkins to squirm in their seats and admit to the possibility of design but assure us that it must be aliens from another world. Look at the scientific data, consider the probabilities and possibilities. Instead of the straw man argument that because a scientist is religious or has personal beliefs his research, mathematics, micro biology and DNA research isn't science.


Whats the verdict? Neither Darwin nor Intelligent design knows I can dismiss either one as neither can prove their theory. As for me I just have my personal beliefs which isn't even enough to get a free cup of coffee around here.