Well that page is nothing but sillyness isnt it
I'll take the time to point out just a few of the many intellectual dishonesties in that "Scientific Proof of God's Existence" article:
Darwin's theory of evolution claims that the first living cell was accidentally created from just the right, random combination of ingredients over millions of years
Really? Oh, I'm afraid it doesnt. Origins of the life have nothing to do with Darwinian Evolution. Evolution only applies to life when it exists, chemogenesis is a whole 'nother ballfield. Furthermore, chemogenesis does NOT state random "ingredients" came together into the first cell, there are quite a few
inbetween steps.
This image will give you an example of those missing steps:
From
this thread:
As to the formation of life:
Living things as we know them are made of organic materials. In many instances, the organic materials are organized as chains of amino acids to form proteins. Proteins are "the building blocks of life," and amino acids are "the building blocks of proteins."
In a series of famous experiments by Miller and Urey (and others), organic materials (water, ammonia, hydrogen and methane) were put into a container and were subjected to electrical arcs (to simulate lightning). In a very short time (less than a week), amino acids and other organic compounds appeared in the container. There was no human creator, no designer... these things just formed under ordinary conditions.
If the same forces are at work for billions of years, the formation of life becomes probable. Not just possible, but highly probable.
Interesting, the author insists biologists believe this life came together by "chance" and "accident", however if the author would have taken 10 seconds of time to perform a bit of outside reading, he would have found more than enough mechanisms to account for the first formations of life outside of what he believes is chance.
- Panspermy, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still doesn't answer how the first life arose.
- Proteinoid microspheres [Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995]. This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
- Clay crystals [Cairn-Smith 1985]. This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they don't have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
- Emerging hypercycles. This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) A primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable. (2) Nucleo-proteins, somewhat like modern tRNA [de Duve 1995b] or PNA [Nelson et al. 2000], and semi-catalytic. (3) Hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways which include some approximate self-replication. (4) Cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane. (5) First simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
- The iron-sulfur world [Russell et al. 1997; Wachtershauser 2000]. It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents.
- Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces [Smith et al. 1999]. The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces, so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
- Something which nobody has thought of yet.
Good lordy, chance
and the Laws of Physics, who knew!
The author might have a valid point if his characterization of evolution wasnt so terribly inaccurate.
But the origins of life aren't the only mysterious phenomena in the universe. In 1973, an astrophysicist and cosmologist by the name of Brandon Carter developed a theory called the Anthropic Principle, which states that the physical constants in the universe have been formed in the only way possible for the creation of life.
If I remember correctly, a book written by Richard Dawkins titled "River Out of Eden", some "guy" who's name I have no idea might be used a nice supercomputer to test exactly how malleable our physical constants and conditions really are in allowing our universe to exist.
It appears the Physical Constants can theoretically be set to different wildly different values and still produce rather long-lived stars and lengthy chains of organic macromolecules. If I can find the specific information on this, I will post it.
Perhaps, if the universe were rewound, and the physical constants were something other than their current values, there could exist a group of religious apolegetic Aliens arguing that life could not exist with very weak gravitational force and very intense strong nuclear force.
The author appears to mistake Anthropic Principle as something which describes the permission of
human life.
The anthropic principle is an argument against an omnipotent creator. If God can do anything, He could create life in a universe whose conditions do
not allow for it.
Scientists' Big Bang theory states that the universe was created about fifteen to twenty billion years ago from a giant explosion in the Cosmic Energy Web.
The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion. Besides the fact that it got bigger over time, the Big Bang has almost nothing in common with an explosion.
Regardless of whether this theory is correct, the fact remains that the universe itself contains many physical relationships that have remained constant.
Well, I couldnt tell you why the Physical Constants are their current values and not others (I probably couldnt tell you why you are *you* rather than someone else either), but I've already described above that life and long-lived stars can form even with wildly varied values.
There is always the possibility that there have been numerous previous universes, each with their own set of Physical Constants which either allow or disallow life. Given that, if the universe's Physical Constants were randomized at the beginning of time (yes, literally the beginning of time), in that case, wondering about the Physical Constants is something which may seem like something worthy of framing into a question, but is ultimately meaningless.
Particle mass ratios. All the electrons and protons in the universe have an exact mass ratio--a proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. If this ratio were slightly bigger or smaller, molecules could not form and life would be impossible.
It appears the electron-proton mass ratio is in fact dependent on the mass of the proton. The electron mass will be idealized in relation to the mass of the proton (the mass of the proton itself idealizes itself according to yet other Physical Constants). Its much like scaling one side of an image, then the other side scales itself appropriately. While the hypothetical differenciation in particle-mass ratios is something to comtemplate, its something that is rather incoherent to propose in the first place.
Constant mass. If the total mass of the universe were slightly larger, too much deuterium would cause all stars to burn so fast that life wouldn't develop, and if this total mass were less, no helium would exist and stars couldn't produce the elements necessary for life.
The existence of
Deuterium in stars is one of the arguments in favour of the big bang theory over the steady state theory. Stellar fusion destroys deuterium and there are no known processes other than the big bang itself which produce deuterium.
It would be helpful if the author had a clue...
Star distance. If the distance between stars in the universe were slightly less, the gravitational pull of stars would be so great that planetary orbits would be upset, creating extreme temperature changes that would destroy life. If this distance were greater than it is, the heavy fragments thrown out by exploding stars would be so thinly dispersed that no planets could ever be formed.
Its a good thing the Earth is located about 2/3 out from the center of the galaxy isnt it. There arent a huge cluster of stars such as the ones located in the center of the galaxy, there isnt the absence of stars such as the ones further out. Again, the magnitude of this "coincidence" is on the same orders as why you are *you* and not another person.
Key elements. The three elements beryllium, carbon and oxygen have exact energy levels in their atomic nucleuses. Beryllium is so unstable that it slows down the fusion rate of stars. If it were just a bit more stable, these stars would explode and many of the elements necessary for life wouldn't be formed. If beryllium were even more unstable than it is now, star fusion would be slowed down to the point where element production beyond beryllium wouldn't occur at all.
Because Beryllium-8 is highly unstable, the Triple Alpha Process only works at temperatures
of a temperature 100 Million K or more, if it doesn't fuse with helium right away to form stable carbon-12, it falls apart again. It seems again like the author has heard something he thought sounded intelligent, but doesnt understand the actual meaning behind. Good work!
Well folks, you get the idea. The author has a bit of a issue with Intellectual Intergrity. His insane "Wow! Just look, this is like... wow..." argumentation and utterly inaccurate data might be able to fool children, but so far Yahweh remains ever unimpressed.
Oh, and where was that scientific proof of god's existence I was promised?
