Banning the sale of Motorhomes

[sticks]

WTF?

<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-ban-controversy/>

[bfh]

Post by sticks
WTF?
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-ban-controversy/>

You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.

[sticks]

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
WTF?
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-ban-
controversy/>

You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.

Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus". Just
start exposing this house of cards. The leftists simply won't hear.
But as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are open to
the truth.

<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>

[bfh]

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
WTF?
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-ban-
controversy/>

You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.

Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots.  I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus".
Just start exposing this house of cards.  The leftists simply won't
hear. But as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are
open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>

-------------------------------------------------------
Lately, the EPA redefined “emissions” to encompass carbon dioxide –
which was never previously considered a pollutant because the
“emissions”of this gas do not in any way cause or contribute to air
pollution or harm “the environment,” either. We need carbon dioxide
“emissions” – so that plants can produce the oxygen we must have to
breath and the food we must have to remain alive.
---------------------------------------------------

Ok, then. At the end of the day going forward, I'm going to start
doing my part to help the plants by breathing deeper and more often.

[sticks]

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
WTF?
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-
ban- controversy/>

You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.

Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots.  I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus".
Just start exposing this house of cards.  The leftists simply won't
hear. But as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are
open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>

-------------------------------------------------------
Lately, the EPA redefined “emissions” to encompass carbon dioxide –
which was never previously considered a pollutant because the
“emissions”of this gas do not in any way cause or contribute to air
pollution or harm “the environment,” either. We need carbon dioxide
“emissions” – so that plants can produce the oxygen we must have to
breath and the food we must have to remain alive.
---------------------------------------------------

This all goes back to the 2007 SCOTUS decision (5-4) that classified CO2
as a pollutant and gave the EPA the authority to regulate it in the auto
industry. There is so much more to CO2 than most people realize as far
as what it is and does, it's crazy. The left only thinks it raises
global temperatures, even though with enough of it temperatures will go
down. Wealth redistribution is all it is about.

Post by bfh
Ok, then. At the end of the day going forward, I'm going to start doing
my part to help the plants by breathing deeper and more often.

Me too, going green!

[bfh]

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
WTF?
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-
ban- controversy/>

You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.

Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots.  I would say most people have probably
never read a single book on this stuff and just believe the
"consensus". Just start exposing this house of cards.  The
leftists simply won't hear. But as was just shown in the election,
those in the middle are open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>

-------------------------------------------------------
Lately, the EPA redefined “emissions” to encompass carbon
dioxide – which was never previously considered a pollutant
because the “emissions”of this gas do not in any way cause or
contribute to air pollution or harm “the environment,” either.
We need carbon dioxide “emissions” – so that plants can
produce the oxygen we must have to breath and the food we must have
to remain alive.
---------------------------------------------------

This all goes back to the 2007 SCOTUS decision (5-4) that classified
CO2 as a pollutant and gave the EPA the authority to regulate it in
the auto industry.  There is so much more to CO2 than most people
realize as far as what it is and does, it's crazy.  The left only
thinks it raises global temperatures, even though with enough of it
temperatures will go down.  Wealth redistribution is all it is about.

Post by bfh
Ok, then. At the end of the day going forward, I'm going to start
doing my part to help the plants by breathing deeper and more often.

Me too, going green!

However comma I am Not going to release the CO2 that I have
sequestered in my fire extinguisher.................unless, like, you
know, my pants literally catch on fire from global warming?
And BTW comma let me be crystal clear. As you probably know, it's not
just global warming - the whole damuniverse is getting warmer.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The temperature has increased about 10-fold over the last 10 billion
years.
...
Using a newly developed method, scientists could estimate the
temperature of gas farther away from Earth. They then compared them to
gases closer to Earth and near the present time. The results showed
that the universe is getting hotter over time due to the gravitational
collapse of cosmic structure, and the heating will likely continue.
------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.techexplorist.com/universe-getting-hotter-study/46075/

What plan do the dumbasses have for that? Are they going to ban cosmic
structure collapsing and subsidize BigBuilders to build more cosmic
structures?

[sticks]

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
WTF?
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-
ban- controversy/>

You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.

Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots.  I would say most people have probably
never read a single book on this stuff and just believe the
"consensus". Just start exposing this house of cards.  The leftists
simply won't hear. But as was just shown in the election, those in
the middle are open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>

-------------------------------------------------------
Lately, the EPA redefined “emissions” to encompass carbon dioxide
– which was never previously considered a pollutant because the
“emissions”of this gas do not in any way cause or contribute to
air pollution or harm “the environment,” either. We need carbon
dioxide “emissions” – so that plants can produce the oxygen we
must have to breath and the food we must have to remain alive.
---------------------------------------------------

This all goes back to the 2007 SCOTUS decision (5-4) that classified
CO2 as a pollutant and gave the EPA the authority to regulate it in
the auto industry.  There is so much more to CO2 than most people
realize as far as what it is and does, it's crazy.  The left only
thinks it raises global temperatures, even though with enough of it
temperatures will go down.  Wealth redistribution is all it is about.

Post by bfh
Ok, then. At the end of the day going forward, I'm going to start
doing my part to help the plants by breathing deeper and more often.

Me too, going green!

However comma I am Not going to release the CO2 that I have sequestered
in my fire extinguisher.................unless, like, you know, my pants
literally catch on fire from global warming?
And BTW comma let me be crystal clear. As you probably know, it's not
just global warming - the whole damuniverse is getting warmer.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The temperature has increased about 10-fold over the last 10 billion years.
...
Using a newly developed method, scientists could estimate the
temperature of gas farther away from Earth. They then compared them to
gases closer to Earth and near the present time. The results showed that
the universe is getting hotter over time due to the gravitational
collapse of cosmic structure, and the heating will likely continue.
------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.techexplorist.com/universe-getting-hotter-study/46075/
What plan do the dumbasses have for that? Are they going to ban cosmic
structure collapsing and subsidize BigBuilders to build more cosmic
structures?

Interesting guy, this author, Amit Malewar. He is not afraid to venture
into theoretical areas others would refrain from voicing opinion on. He
is said to be "fascinated by the mysteries of the universe." That is
how science should work.

I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe highly
improbable, though. It goes against everything we know of physics and
even quantum physics. Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics
and the proven science of increased entropy in the universe as time
marches on. The chaos of a super massive black hole quasar can
certainly show more than imaginable light and heat as the process
occurs. Yet, it too will end and entropy will win. Until we show
evidence for some unknown law of physics, things lose energy. They
never gain it.

[bfh]

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
WTF?
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-
ban- controversy/>

You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.

Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of
these climate change zealots.  I would say most people have
probably never read a single book on this stuff and just believe
the "consensus". Just start exposing this house of cards.  The
leftists simply won't hear. But as was just shown in the
election, those in the middle are open to the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>

-------------------------------------------------------
Lately, the EPA redefined “emissions” to encompass
carbon dioxide – which was never previously considered a
pollutant because the “emissions”of this gas do not in
any way cause or contribute to air pollution or harm “the
environment,” either. We need carbon dioxide
“emissions” – so that plants can produce the
oxygen we must have to breath and the food we must have to remain
alive.
---------------------------------------------------

This all goes back to the 2007 SCOTUS decision (5-4) that
classified CO2 as a pollutant and gave the EPA the authority to
regulate it in the auto industry.  There is so much more to CO2
than most people realize as far as what it is and does, it's
crazy.  The left only thinks it raises global temperatures, even
though with enough of it temperatures will go down.  Wealth
redistribution is all it is about.

Post by bfh
Ok, then. At the end of the day going forward, I'm going to start
doing my part to help the plants by breathing deeper and more often.

Me too, going green!

However comma I am Not going to release the CO2 that I have
sequestered in my fire extinguisher.................unless, like,
you know, my pants literally catch on fire from global warming?
And BTW comma let me be crystal clear. As you probably know, it's
not just global warming - the whole damuniverse is getting warmer.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The temperature has increased about 10-fold over the last 10 billion years.
...
Using a newly developed method, scientists could estimate the
temperature of gas farther away from Earth. They then compared them
to gases closer to Earth and near the present time. The results
showed that the universe is getting hotter over time due to the
gravitational collapse of cosmic structure, and the heating will
likely continue.
------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.techexplorist.com/universe-getting-hotter-study/46075/
What plan do the dumbasses have for that? Are they going to ban
cosmic structure collapsing and subsidize BigBuilders to build more
cosmic structures?

Interesting guy, this author, Amit Malewar.  He is not afraid to
venture into theoretical areas others would refrain from voicing
opinion on.  He is said to be "fascinated by the mysteries of the
universe."  That is how science should work.
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe highly
improbable, though.  It goes against everything we know of physics and
even quantum physics.  Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics
and the proven science of increased entropy in the universe as time
marches on.  The chaos of a super massive black hole quasar can
certainly show more than imaginable light and heat as the process
occurs.  Yet, it too will end and entropy will win.  Until we show
evidence for some unknown law of physics, things lose energy.  They
never gain it.

Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that started a
universe that could then proceed to entropyize to conform to our
current hubristic and pathetically incomplete understanding of things?
I can't, of course, prove it - or even support it - but I believe that
there are uncountable unknown unknowns.

To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.

[sticks]

Post by sticks
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe highly
improbable, though.  It goes against everything we know of physics and
even quantum physics.  Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics
and the proven science of increased entropy in the universe as time
marches on.  The chaos of a super massive black hole quasar can
certainly show more than imaginable light and heat as the process
occurs.  Yet, it too will end and entropy will win.  Until we show
evidence for some unknown law of physics, things lose energy.  They
never gain it.

Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the fuck
the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that started a
universe that could then proceed to entropyize to conform to our current
hubristic and pathetically incomplete understanding of things? I can't,
of course, prove it - or even support it - but I believe that there are
uncountable unknown unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given enough
time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that bus, too.

I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen with
the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates had
to confront. I applaud you for being one who considers such questions.
Most people these days don't. That troubles me deeply.

For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type of
science and the ramifications of it We are lucky enough to live in a
time to witness incredible scientific discovery. Your question on what
was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show stopper for the
Naturalist. It is not only the energy, but the matter and the actual
space. I would also throw in time, though some would call it spacetime.

The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all this
here and what does it mean? The opposite of a naturalist would be
someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own, and thus
believes in something supernatural. Creationist is the known term for
those people. The Naturalist and the Creationist both have to answer
the biggest question of all time as posed above. The creationist would
say there is an intelligence and design involved in our universe. The
naturalist, unfortunately cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.

They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all time
in this case, and would answer that it just has always been. It had no
origin, it just has always existed. Accept this, and move on. This
answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot swallow it. I
would be more accepting if they would simply say that as of yet they
just don't know. That at least would be truthful. There are several
reasons they refuse to answer this way, but the effect is still the
same. To me, it is simply unacceptable to claim something has always
existed. Worse, I believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.

I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers. The
problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop. Yet,
unless you search, you would never know it is there. Your own view that
anything is possible given enough time is the theory that gives
Darwinian thought a lifeline. Yes, Darwin's evolution is not the same
as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism now, but the necessity
of time...lots and lots of time, is one of the reasons the brute fact on
the origins of the universe is used.

Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that even
more than the entire length of time the known universe has existed is
not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build even a single
cell. Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically
search for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it. It's called Scientism. If you even consider intelligence or design
in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted, shunned, and exiled.

Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown they
could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will never
concede that even though the evidence points toward design, there must
have been a designer. That is not really true science. It is simply
living with a biased paradigm that controls your thinking and
exploration. It is not open minded.

FWIW, my paper is being written not to convince anyone about a
particular religion. It is simply about "What is Truth", and is an
attempt to show evidence why what most people think science has reached
consensus on is not so. That what they believe to be truth is
scientifically impossible. The evidence IMO is abundant!

[bfh]

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though.  It goes against everything we know of
physics and even quantum physics.  Specifically, the second law of
thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy in the
universe as time marches on.  The chaos of a super massive black
hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable light and heat
as the process occurs.  Yet, it too will end and entropy will
win.  Until we show evidence for some unknown law of physics,
things lose energy.  They never gain it.

Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that started
a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to conform to our
current hubristic and pathetically incomplete understanding of
things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even support it - but I
believe that there are uncountable unknown unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.

I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen with
the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates had
to confront.  I applaud you for being one who considers such
questions. Most people these days don't.  That troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type of
science and the ramifications of it  We are lucky enough to live in a
time to witness incredible scientific discovery.  Your question on
what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show stopper for the
Naturalist.  It is not only the energy, but the matter and the actual
space.  I would also throw in time, though some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all this
here and what does it mean?  The opposite of a naturalist would be
someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own, and thus
believes in something supernatural.  Creationist is the known term for
those people.  The Naturalist and the Creationist both have to answer
the biggest question of all time as posed above.  The creationist
would say there is an intelligence and design involved in our
universe.  The naturalist, unfortunately cannot answer the question
satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been.  It
had no origin, it just has always existed.  Accept this, and move on.
This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot swallow it.
I would be more accepting if they would simply say that as of yet they
just don't know.  That at least would be truthful.  There are several
reasons they refuse to answer this way, but the effect is still the
same.  To me, it is simply unacceptable to claim something has always
existed.  Worse, I believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop.  Yet,
unless you search, you would never know it is there.  Your own view
that anything is possible given enough time is the theory that gives
Darwinian thought a lifeline.  Yes, Darwin's evolution is not the same
as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism now, but the
necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of the reasons the
brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that even
more than the entire length of time the known universe has existed is
not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build even a single
cell.

We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.

Post by sticks
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically
search for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it.  It's called Scientism.  If you even consider intelligence or
design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted, shunned,
and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown they
could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will never
concede that even though the evidence points toward design, there must
have been a designer.  That is not really true science.  It is simply
living with a biased paradigm that controls your thinking and
exploration.  It is not open minded.

I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious faith.

Post by sticks
FWIW, my paper is being written not to convince anyone about a
particular religion.  It is simply about "What is Truth", and is an
attempt to show evidence why what most people think science has
reached consensus on is not so.

Science reaches consensuses frequently, and frequently they turn out
to be temporary consensuses. Somebody once said that the only thing
permanent is change. I ride that bus, too.

Post by sticks
That what they believe to be truth is
scientifically impossible.  The evidence IMO is abundant!

So that I might have a chance of obtaining at least a shallow
understanding of what you're saying there, give me one example.

I've been in many discussions similar to this off and on during my
life, and they are fun, but in my infinitesimally short span of
spacetime, I've yet to see/hear anything even remotely approaching an
Answer to any of the BigQuestions. One thing that I'm currently fairly
certain of is that after I die, I'll get some Answers.........or I
won't get some Answers.
And in that vein, here's one I like:
Life after death is pretty much the same as life before life.
But that's not an Answer either. It's just fun. To me, anyway.

Lots of unjustifiable hubris in humans - IMO - particularly in the
science and religion areas.

At ease. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[sticks]

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe highly
improbable, though.  It goes against everything we know of physics
and even quantum physics.  Specifically, the second law of
thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy in the
universe as time marches on.  The chaos of a super massive black
hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable light and heat
as the process occurs.  Yet, it too will end and entropy will
win.  Until we show evidence for some unknown law of physics,
things lose energy.  They never gain it.

Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that started
a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to conform to our
current hubristic and pathetically incomplete understanding of
things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even support it - but I
believe that there are uncountable unknown unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.

I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen with
the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates had
to confront.  I applaud you for being one who considers such
questions. Most people these days don't.  That troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type of
science and the ramifications of it  We are lucky enough to live in a
time to witness incredible scientific discovery.  Your question on
what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show stopper for the
Naturalist.  It is not only the energy, but the matter and the actual
space.  I would also throw in time, though some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all this
here and what does it mean?  The opposite of a naturalist would be
someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own, and thus
believes in something supernatural.  Creationist is the known term for
those people.  The Naturalist and the Creationist both have to answer
the biggest question of all time as posed above.  The creationist
would say there is an intelligence and design involved in our
universe.  The naturalist, unfortunately cannot answer the question
satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been.  It
had no origin, it just has always existed.  Accept this, and move on.
This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot swallow it.
I would be more accepting if they would simply say that as of yet they
just don't know.  That at least would be truthful.  There are several
reasons they refuse to answer this way, but the effect is still the
same.  To me, it is simply unacceptable to claim something has always
existed.  Worse, I believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop.  Yet,
unless you search, you would never know it is there.  Your own view
that anything is possible given enough time is the theory that gives
Darwinian thought a lifeline.  Yes, Darwin's evolution is not the same
as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism now, but the
necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of the reasons the
brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that even
more than the entire length of time the known universe has existed is
not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build even a single
cell.

We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what the
universe is.

If you believe in the science, we certainly do. I'm sure you have heard
of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB. Predicted by Ralph Apher
in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson. Without
getting into the science here, which is easily found if one wants to
know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the universe
400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe at around
13.8 Billion years old. It's pretty accepted science these days and
gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it looks like.

<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search for
it because the secular scientific community will not allow it.  It's
called Scientism.  If you even consider intelligence or design in the
creation of the universe, you get blacklisted, shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown they
could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will never
concede that even though the evidence points toward design, there must
have been a designer.  That is not really true science.  It is simply
living with a biased paradigm that controls your thinking and
exploration.  It is not open minded.

I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious faith.

I find this an interesting analysis. Look at it this way. One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin. From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to how
our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy, to
how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang. This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there. That is following the science.

The other side, also believes the same thing all the way to the
beginning, yet chooses NOT to follow the science that matter and energy
cannot come from nothing and instead claims it has always existed. I
would agree with you that this is somehow having faith, a naturalistic
faith if you will. To them, it is religious.

I am of the first group. I want to know where it came from and choose
not to believe the fairy tale (brute fact) it has always existed. I can
understand that some at this point find it hard to believe in unnatural
causes and are hesitant to agree with the obvious logic of there being
no free lunch. But to do so simply because you have a scientific
naturalistic paradigm controlling your thought seems a little odd coming
from a group that claims the other side does not follow the science.

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
FWIW, my paper is being written not to convince anyone about a
particular religion.  It is simply about "What is Truth", and is an
attempt to show evidence why what most people think science has
reached consensus on is not so.

Science reaches consensuses frequently, and frequently they turn out to
be temporary consensuses. Somebody once said that the only thing
permanent is change. I ride that bus, too.

I agree, that's how it should be, and for the most part it is. In the
areas of the origin of the universe and also the origin of life, this is
not the case. A current example of how this works in the scientific
community is the climate change controversy. It is changing lately in
that more experts are willing to disagree and show evidence that the
data has been misused to represent something other than what actually
exists, and has been done for political and economic reasons. The point
is, the science was controlled by outside factors and was thus corrupted
and shaped to form a narrative advantageous to a common group of
thinkers. If you didn't play along, you got expelled from the
community. You could show the same type of manipulations with the covid
virus and the science. It is a fake consensus, not scientific at all.

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
That what they believe to be truth is scientifically impossible.  The
evidence IMO is abundant!

So that I might have a chance of obtaining at least a shallow
understanding of what you're saying there, give me one example.

I will give another. I say another, because I have already given you
one above, and look how easily you passed it off. I understand
answering the question is difficult, if not impossible. I am not
looking for an answer from you. I am interested in whether or not
someone is just accepting of the "has always existed" brute fact, or
thinks it is an interesting question and wonders for themselves how this
could be here and where it came from.

Post by bfh
I've been in many discussions similar to this off and on during my life,
and they are fun, but in my infinitesimally short span of spacetime,
I've yet to see/hear anything even remotely approaching an Answer to any
of the BigQuestions. One thing that I'm currently fairly certain of is
that after I die, I'll get some Answers.........or I won't get some
Answers.

I'm not sure there are what you would call answers. People go looking
for "proof" of something. Science does this every day. They come up
with "evidence" that then has to be interpreted. For it to be
scientific, it has to be repeatable. My interest is in showing how what
some people believe to be proof, in reality has been shown to be
impossible. From there, each person has to decide for themselves how to
move forward. I don't care if a person looks at the evidence and
decides he believes it was Q from Star Trek who created all this, or an
unknown super-intelligence in another dimension or reality who wanted
some pets to play with, or any one of the religions earth's inhabitants
choose. I also don't care if a person doesn't give a shit and just
wants to ignore all of it. That's up to the individual on how he deals
with what he believes is truth.

I am more interested in the evidence alone, for now. When the evidence
actually points toward there being information and intelligence
necessary for things to have happened, it makes me want to keep finding
more of this evidence.

Post by bfh
Life after death is pretty much the same as life before life.
But that's not an Answer either. It's just fun. To me, anyway.

That's classic Nietzsche Nihilism. You have made a choice. Whether or
not that means you've stopped learning and researching is up to you.
Some would say there are passive and active nihilists. I think there is
room for those falling somewhere in the middle.

Post by bfh
Lots of unjustifiable hubris in humans - IMO - particularly in the
science and religion areas.
At ease. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I don't fear hubris on any side of an argument or theory. What bothers
me more is that most people are uninterested in the discussion.

I'll get you another point of evidence later....

[bfh]

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though.  It goes against everything we know
of physics and even quantum physics.  Specifically, the second
law of thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy
in the universe as time marches on.  The chaos of a super
massive black hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable
light and heat as the process occurs.  Yet, it too will end
and entropy will win.  Until we show evidence for some unknown
law of physics, things lose energy.  They never gain it.

Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that
started a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to
conform to our current hubristic and pathetically incomplete
understanding of things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even
support it - but I believe that there are uncountable unknown
unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.

I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen
with the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and
Socrates had to confront.  I applaud you for being one who
considers such questions. Most people these days don't.  That
troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type
of science and the ramifications of it  We are lucky enough to
live in a time to witness incredible scientific discovery.  Your
question on what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show
stopper for the Naturalist.  It is not only the energy, but the
matter and the actual space.  I would also throw in time, though
some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all
this here and what does it mean?  The opposite of a naturalist
would be someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own,
and thus believes in something supernatural.  Creationist is the
known term for those people.  The Naturalist and the Creationist
both have to answer the biggest question of all time as posed
above.  The creationist would say there is an intelligence and
design involved in our universe.  The naturalist, unfortunately
cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been.Â
It had no origin, it just has always existed.  Accept this, and
move on. This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot
swallow it. I would be more accepting if they would simply say that
as of yet they just don't know.  That at least would be
truthful.  There are several reasons they refuse to answer this
way, but the effect is still the same.  To me, it is simply
unacceptable to claim something has always existed.  Worse, I
believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop.Â
Yet, unless you search, you would never know it is there.  Your
own view that anything is possible given enough time is the theory
that gives Darwinian thought a lifeline.  Yes, Darwin's evolution
is not the same as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism
now, but the necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of
the reasons the brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that
even more than the entire length of time the known universe has
existed is not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build
even a single cell.

We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.

If you believe in the science, we certainly do.  I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB.  Predicted by Ralph
Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old.  It's pretty accepted science these
days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>

What's on the other side of the edge of this clearly pictured
universe? Or maybe easier, what does the edge of the universe look like?

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search
for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it.  It's called Scientism.  If you even consider intelligence or
design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted,
shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer.  That is not really true
science.  It is simply living with a biased paradigm that controls
your thinking and exploration.  It is not open minded.

I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious faith.

I find this an interesting analysis.  Look at it this way.  One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin.  From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang.  This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there.  That is following the science.

Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?

The other side, also believes the same thing all the way to the
beginning, yet chooses NOT to follow the science that matter and
energy cannot come from nothing and instead claims it has always
existed.  I would agree with you that this is somehow having faith, a
naturalistic faith if you will.  To them, it is religious.
I am of the first group.  I want to know where it came from and choose
not to believe the fairy tale (brute fact) it has always existed.  I
can understand that some at this point find it hard to believe in
unnatural causes and are hesitant to agree with the obvious logic of
there being no free lunch.  But to do so simply because you have a
scientific naturalistic paradigm controlling your thought seems a
little odd coming from a group that claims the other side does not
follow the science.

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
FWIW, my paper is being written not to convince anyone about a
particular religion.  It is simply about "What is Truth", and is
an attempt to show evidence why what most people think science has
reached consensus on is not so.

Science reaches consensuses frequently, and frequently they turn out
to be temporary consensuses. Somebody once said that the only thing
permanent is change. I ride that bus, too.

I agree, that's how it should be, and for the most part it is.  In the
areas of the origin of the universe and also the origin of life, this
is not the case.  A current example of how this works in the
scientific community is the climate change controversy.  It is
changing lately in that more experts are willing to disagree and show
evidence that the data has been misused to represent something other
than what actually exists, and has been done for political and
economic reasons.  The point is, the science was controlled by outside
factors and was thus corrupted and shaped to form a narrative
advantageous to a common group of thinkers.  If you didn't play along,
you got expelled from the community.  You could show the same type of
manipulations with the covid virus and the science.  It is a fake
consensus, not scientific at all.

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
That what they believe to be truth is scientifically impossible.Â
The evidence IMO is abundant!

So that I might have a chance of obtaining at least a shallow
understanding of what you're saying there, give me one example.

I will give another.  I say another, because I have already given you
one above, and look how easily you passed it off.  I understand
answering the question is difficult, if not impossible.  I am not
looking for an answer from you.  I am interested in whether or not
someone is just accepting of the "has always existed" brute fact, or
thinks it is an interesting question and wonders for themselves how
this could be here and where it came from.

Post by bfh
I've been in many discussions similar to this off and on during my
life, and they are fun, but in my infinitesimally short span of
spacetime, I've yet to see/hear anything even remotely approaching
an Answer to any of the BigQuestions. One thing that I'm currently
fairly certain of is that after I die, I'll get some
Answers.........or I won't get some Answers.

I'm not sure there are what you would call answers.  People go looking
for "proof" of something.  Science does this every day.  They come up
with "evidence" that then has to be interpreted.  For it to be
scientific, it has to be repeatable.  My interest is in showing how
what some people believe to be proof, in reality has been shown to be
impossible.

Whenever see "impossible" without a qualifier of something like,
"based on what we know right now", my eyebrows pop up or my eyes roll.

From there, each person has to decide for themselves how
to move forward.  I don't care if a person looks at the evidence and
decides he believes it was Q from Star Trek who created all this, or
an unknown super-intelligence in another dimension or reality who
wanted some pets to play with, or any one of the religions earth's
inhabitants choose.  I also don't care if a person doesn't give a shit
and just wants to ignore all of it.  That's up to the individual on
how he deals with what he believes is truth.
I am more interested in the evidence alone, for now.  When the
evidence actually points toward there being information and
intelligence necessary for things to have happened, it makes me want
to keep finding more of this evidence.

Are you saying that there is evidence of intelligent design?

Post by bfh
Life after death is pretty much the same as life before life.
But that's not an Answer either. It's just fun. To me, anyway.

That's classic Nietzsche Nihilism.  You have made a choice.

I hope that's a general "You", because the only choice myownself has
made is to temporarily conclude that the smartest people on the planet
don't "know" nearly as much as they think they do.

Whether
or not that means you've stopped learning and researching is up to
you. Some would say there are passive and active nihilists.  I think
there is room for those falling somewhere in the middle.

Post by bfh
Lots of unjustifiable hubris in humans - IMO - particularly in the
science and religion areas.
At ease. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I don't fear hubris on any side of an argument or theory.  What
bothers me more is that most people are uninterested in the discussion.
I'll get you another point of evidence later....

[George.Anthony]

Post by bfh

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though.  It goes against everything we know
of physics and even quantum physics.  Specifically, the second
law of thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy
in the universe as time marches on.  The chaos of a super
massive black hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable
light and heat as the process occurs.  Yet, it too will end
and entropy will win.  Until we show evidence for some unknown
law of physics, things lose energy.  They never gain it.

Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that
started a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to
conform to our current hubristic and pathetically incomplete
understanding of things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even
support it - but I believe that there are uncountable unknown
unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.

I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen
with the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and
Socrates had to confront.  I applaud you for being one who
considers such questions. Most people these days don't.  That
troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type
of science and the ramifications of it  We are lucky enough to
live in a time to witness incredible scientific discovery.  Your
question on what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show
stopper for the Naturalist.  It is not only the energy, but the
matter and the actual space.  I would also throw in time, though
some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all
this here and what does it mean?  The opposite of a naturalist
would be someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own,
and thus believes in something supernatural.  Creationist is the
known term for those people.  The Naturalist and the Creationist
both have to answer the biggest question of all time as posed
above.  The creationist would say there is an intelligence and
design involved in our universe.  The naturalist, unfortunately
cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been.Â
It had no origin, it just has always existed.  Accept this, and
move on. This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot
swallow it. I would be more accepting if they would simply say that
as of yet they just don't know.  That at least would be
truthful.  There are several reasons they refuse to answer this
way, but the effect is still the same.  To me, it is simply
unacceptable to claim something has always existed.  Worse, I
believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop.Â
Yet, unless you search, you would never know it is there.  Your
own view that anything is possible given enough time is the theory
that gives Darwinian thought a lifeline.  Yes, Darwin's evolution
is not the same as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism
now, but the necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of
the reasons the brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that
even more than the entire length of time the known universe has
existed is not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build
even a single cell.

We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.

If you believe in the science, we certainly do.  I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB.  Predicted by Ralph
Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old.  It's pretty accepted science these
days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>

What's on the other side of the edge of this clearly pictured
universe? Or maybe easier, what does the edge of the universe look like?

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search
for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it.  It's called Scientism.  If you even consider intelligence or
design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted,
shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer.  That is not really true
science.  It is simply living with a biased paradigm that controls
your thinking and exploration.  It is not open minded.

I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious faith.

I find this an interesting analysis.  Look at it this way.  One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin.  From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang.  This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there.  That is following the science.

Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?

If I may join in here, that is a question I have. That and where was the
energy before the energy before the alleged big bang. And where did God
come from and what was there before God. I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing, yet here we are.

[sticks]

---snip---

Post by George.Anthony

Post by bfh

I find this an interesting analysis.  Look at it this way.  One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin.  From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang.  This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there.  That is following the science.

Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?

If I may join in here, that is a question I have. That and where was the
energy before the energy before the alleged big bang. And where did God
come from and what was there before God. I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing, yet here we are.

Hope you had a nice trip, George.

I had a surgery yesterday and was feeling a little too good (if'n ya
know what I mean) to answer Bill, and plan on doing so today. but first
I thought I'd give my opinion on your questions above.

Where did the stuff come from is how I like to begin my thinking, but
probably the last thing I need answered. For me, it is a scientifically
unanswerable question and what you have to decide is whether or not you
think it had a beginning, or just always has been. If you think it has
always been, you can just move on with no further analysis necessary.
If like me, you think it did have a beginning (intelligently designed)
somehow, you then would consider what could possibly do that. My path
is to show different evidence that also points toward an information
rich intelligence being more likely the cause of certain things, and
then add them up and weigh the pros and cons on each side of the debate.

Meaning, I might have an answer personally to your second question of
where then did God come from, but I am not ready to give an answer to it
yet. More information is available and can be helpful. My goal is not
to try and proselytize for anything in a religious manner, though it is
hard to escape the inference if intelligent design gains strength. Who
or what someone might thing that designer might be I want to leave up to
the individual. My goal is to show the science saying much of
naturalism is simply impossible, and contrary to general belief is not
proven in any manner shape or form.

I will say there is a path to answering your question, and that path
includes these scientific and metaphysical questions and discoveries.
Like I said earlier, I am just saddened so few even ask the question
anymore.

[George.Anthony]

Post by sticks
---snip---

Post by George.Anthony

Post by bfh

I find this an interesting analysis.  Look at it this way.  One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin.  From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang.  This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there.  That is following the science.

Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?

If I may join in here, that is a question I have. That and where was the
energy before the energy before the alleged big bang. And where did God
come from and what was there before God. I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing, yet here we are.

Hope you had a nice trip, George.
I had a surgery yesterday and was feeling a little too good (if'n ya
know what I mean) to answer Bill, and plan on doing so today. but first
I thought I'd give my opinion on your questions above.
Where did the stuff come from is how I like to begin my thinking, but
probably the last thing I need answered. For me, it is a scientifically
unanswerable question and what you have to decide is whether or not you
think it had a beginning, or just always has been. If you think it has
always been, you can just move on with no further analysis necessary.
If like me, you think it did have a beginning (intelligently designed)
somehow, you then would consider what could possibly do that. My path
is to show different evidence that also points toward an information
rich intelligence being more likely the cause of certain things, and
then add them up and weigh the pros and cons on each side of the debate.
Meaning, I might have an answer personally to your second question of
where then did God come from, but I am not ready to give an answer to it
yet. More information is available and can be helpful. My goal is not
to try and proselytize for anything in a religious manner, though it is
hard to escape the inference if intelligent design gains strength. Who
or what someone might thing that designer might be I want to leave up to
the individual. My goal is to show the science saying much of
naturalism is simply impossible, and contrary to general belief is not
proven in any manner shape or form.
I will say there is a path to answering your question, and that path
includes these scientific and metaphysical questions and discoveries.
Like I said earlier, I am just saddened so few even ask the question
anymore.

We had an excellent trip. Went to Arkansas. Not too much fall color to see
though given the dry spell. Ironically, or maybe not, the best color we
saw was in a cemetery.

[sticks]

Post by George.Anthony

Post by sticks
Hope you had a nice trip, George.

We had an excellent trip. Went to Arkansas. Not too much fall color to see
though given the dry spell. Ironically, or maybe not, the best color we
saw was in a cemetery.

Glad you had a good trip. The fall came and went pretty fast around
here. 2-3 inches of snow yesterday already. It's gone today, but it is
time to put the motorcycle away I guess.

[George.Anthony]

Post by sticks

Post by George.Anthony

Post by sticks
Hope you had a nice trip, George.

We had an excellent trip. Went to Arkansas. Not too much fall color to see
though given the dry spell. Ironically, or maybe not, the best color we
saw was in a cemetery.

Glad you had a good trip. The fall came and went pretty fast around
here. 2-3 inches of snow yesterday already. It's gone today, but it is
time to put the motorcycle away I guess.

I put away my motorcycle many, many years ago. It was a mini bike and I
wrecked on it. I figured it could only get worse… stuck to race cars after
that.

[sticks]

Post by George.Anthony

Post by sticks

Post by George.Anthony

Post by sticks
Hope you had a nice trip, George.

We had an excellent trip. Went to Arkansas. Not too much fall color to see
though given the dry spell. Ironically, or maybe not, the best color we
saw was in a cemetery.

Glad you had a good trip. The fall came and went pretty fast around
here. 2-3 inches of snow yesterday already. It's gone today, but it is
time to put the motorcycle away I guess.

I put away my motorcycle many, many years ago. It was a mini bike and I
wrecked on it.

Every time I start to consider if it is time to give up on motorcycle
riding, we go out and have an absolutely great day on one. My Ultra
comes in at just under 1000 lbs, and with the wife on it over a half a
ton. I dropped it on it's side once, and there was no way I could get
it back up by myself. Losing the capabilities with age, I'm sure
eventually I'll have to part with it. Probably get an old pickup after
that.

Post by George.Anthony
I figured it could only get worse… stuck to race cars after
that.

The kid races street stocks. Would love to try it, but I guess I'll
just settle for going to watch him. We're big racing fans. Last night
I tried watching the Indy cars in Las Vegas, but it just ain't the same.
Too much strategy, not enough pushing and shoving.

[bfh]

Post by George.Anthony

Post by bfh

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though.  It goes against everything we know
of physics and even quantum physics.  Specifically, the second
law of thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy
in the universe as time marches on.  The chaos of a super
massive black hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable
light and heat as the process occurs.  Yet, it too will end
and entropy will win.  Until we show evidence for some unknown
law of physics, things lose energy.  They never gain it.

Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that
started a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to
conform to our current hubristic and pathetically incomplete
understanding of things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even
support it - but I believe that there are uncountable unknown
unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.

I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen
with the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and
Socrates had to confront.  I applaud you for being one who
considers such questions. Most people these days don't.  That
troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type
of science and the ramifications of it  We are lucky enough to
live in a time to witness incredible scientific discovery.  Your
question on what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show
stopper for the Naturalist.  It is not only the energy, but the
matter and the actual space.  I would also throw in time, though
some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all
this here and what does it mean?  The opposite of a naturalist
would be someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own,
and thus believes in something supernatural.  Creationist is the
known term for those people.  The Naturalist and the Creationist
both have to answer the biggest question of all time as posed
above.  The creationist would say there is an intelligence and
design involved in our universe.  The naturalist, unfortunately
cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been.Â
It had no origin, it just has always existed.  Accept this, and
move on. This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot
swallow it. I would be more accepting if they would simply say that
as of yet they just don't know.  That at least would be
truthful.  There are several reasons they refuse to answer this
way, but the effect is still the same.  To me, it is simply
unacceptable to claim something has always existed.  Worse, I
believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop.Â
Yet, unless you search, you would never know it is there.  Your
own view that anything is possible given enough time is the theory
that gives Darwinian thought a lifeline.  Yes, Darwin's evolution
is not the same as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism
now, but the necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of
the reasons the brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that
even more than the entire length of time the known universe has
existed is not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build
even a single cell.

We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.

If you believe in the science, we certainly do.  I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB.  Predicted by Ralph
Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old.  It's pretty accepted science these
days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>

What's on the other side of the edge of this clearly pictured
universe? Or maybe easier, what does the edge of the universe look like?

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search
for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it.  It's called Scientism.  If you even consider intelligence or
design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted,
shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer.  That is not really true
science.  It is simply living with a biased paradigm that controls
your thinking and exploration.  It is not open minded.

I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious faith.

I find this an interesting analysis.  Look at it this way.  One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin.  From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang.  This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there.  That is following the science.

Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?

If I may join in here, that is a question I have. That and where was the
energy before the energy before the alleged big bang. And where did God
come from and what was there before God.

That assumes an alleged fact not in evidence?

Post by George.Anthony
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing, yet here we are.

Or so we think. I mean, like, you know, at the end of the day going
forward, for all I know, you might be a bot that thinks it's not a
bot, you know?

[sticks]

Post by bfh

Post by George.Anthony
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing,  yet here we are.

Or so we think. I mean, like, you know, at the end of the day going
forward, for all I know, you might be a bot that thinks it's not a bot,
you know?

Max Tegmark also went over another possibility that comes from movies
like The Matrix and the likes. That all this is somehow a computer like
generated simulated reality, or non-reality if you will. They've
actually done experiments to figure out if this is all real or not. I
take comfort in him claiming that as of now the scientists have ruled
this out and actually believe we do exist. ;-)

[George.Anthony]

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by George.Anthony
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing,  yet here we are.

Or so we think. I mean, like, you know, at the end of the day going
forward, for all I know, you might be a bot that thinks it's not a bot,
you know?

Max Tegmark also went over another possibility that comes from movies
like The Matrix and the likes. That all this is somehow a computer like
generated simulated reality, or non-reality if you will. They've
actually done experiments to figure out if this is all real or not. I
take comfort in him claiming that as of now the scientists have ruled
this out and actually believe we do exist. ;-)

I think therefore I am? This is all so confusing, eg., yesterday, today was
tomorrow and tomorrow, today will be yesterday, therefore … yesterday is
tomorrow.

[bfh]

Post by George.Anthony

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by George.Anthony
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing,  yet here we are.

Or so we think. I mean, like, you know, at the end of the day going
forward, for all I know, you might be a bot that thinks it's not a bot,
you know?

Max Tegmark also went over another possibility that comes from movies
like The Matrix and the likes. That all this is somehow a computer like
generated simulated reality, or non-reality if you will. They've
actually done experiments to figure out if this is all real or not. I
take comfort in him claiming that as of now the scientists have ruled
this out and actually believe we do exist. ;-)

I think therefore I am?

Or maybe you are, therefore you think. I support that with: It's
highly unlikely that you thought before you were.

Post by George.Anthony
This is all so confusing, eg., yesterday, today was
tomorrow and tomorrow, today will be yesterday, therefore … yesterday is
tomorrow.

Which supports my (Gasp!) theory that you can change the past if you
realize the fact that today is tomorrow's yesterday.

[sticks]

Post by George.Anthony

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by George.Anthony
I am from the school that nothing
comes from nothing,  yet here we are.

Or so we think. I mean, like, you know, at the end of the day going
forward, for all I know, you might be a bot that thinks it's not a bot,
you know?

Max Tegmark also went over another possibility that comes from movies
like The Matrix and the likes. That all this is somehow a computer like
generated simulated reality, or non-reality if you will. They've
actually done experiments to figure out if this is all real or not. I
take comfort in him claiming that as of now the scientists have ruled
this out and actually believe we do exist. ;-)

I think therefore I am? This is all so confusing, eg., yesterday, today was
tomorrow and tomorrow, today will be yesterday, therefore … yesterday is
tomorrow.

If you could see the smile on my face right now, you might wonder why.
I'd tell you that you have somehow put your finger on a very, very
important subject, and that if you let this play it's course, you just
might have to reconsider what you believe to be the truth of.... exactly
what is time. I really struggled with this one, and my understanding of
it. It becomes very important in the latter parts of this journey, and
maybe we'll get there. But for now, you really made me smile, and I
thank you for your interest!

[sticks]

---snip---

Post by bfh
We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.

If you believe in the science, we certainly do.  I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB.  Predicted by Ralph
Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old.  It's pretty accepted science these
days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>

What's on the other side of the edge of this clearly pictured universe?
Or maybe easier, what does the edge of the universe look like?

It has no light in it yet, and it actually doesn't have any space. That
is what is being created thru inflation: space time. The concept of
"nothing" is extremely difficult to grasp. When it comes to space and
time, actually understanding what nothing means is something that took
the likes of Monsignor Georges Lemaitre's discovery of the Big Bang
Theory in 1927 (which even Einstein didn't believe at the time), and
Albert Einstein who was able to think through and give us his theory of
general relativity.

In short, the edge looks like the rest of what we see, you just can't
get past it because it isn't there yet. Of course, it is expanding so
fast you couldn't remain at the edge anyway. BTW, what is expanding
isn't what most would think. It's not that the stars and whatever else
is out there is moving, it is the space itself that is being created and
expanding. Just as far away galaxies are moving away from us, it is not
the actual stars that are moving, it is the space itself. Hubble helped
prove this and convince Einstein of this fact with his work in 1929 now
know as Hubble's Law.

---snip---

This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there.  That is following the science.

Where was the energy and the stuff before it banged?

See my answer to George earlier. I'll leave it at that for now.

Are you saying that there is evidence of intelligent design?

Abundantly. But as I've said repeatedly, it is not what you would call
independent pieces of proof. I don't find proof and evidence the same.
You look at the evidence and then make judgements or build theories upon
the evidence. I shall give you more of this evidence below.

Post by bfh
Life after death is pretty much the same as life before life.
But that's not an Answer either. It's just fun. To me, anyway.

That's classic Nietzsche Nihilism.  You have made a choice.

I hope that's a general "You", because the only choice myownself has
made is to temporarily conclude that the smartest people on the planet
don't "know" nearly as much as they think they do.

Yes, I was not specifically speaking of you. And after rereading it,
you almost appear as though you're saying it is a saying and not a
belief. The saying is certainly nihilistic, and if someone chooses that
path of beliefs I couldn't care less. Each to his own.

---snip---

I'll get you another point of evidence later....

So I'll move down the timeline. We've discussed the beginning, the
starting point if you will, of our understanding of what this reality we
observe is.
Big Bang was 13.82 Billions years ago
Our galaxy is about 4.6 Billion years old, or about 9 billion years
after the Big Bang
Our Earth is approximately 4.6 Billion years old.
(note that I don't agree or disagree with this timeline. Though I could
explain why, it is irrelevant because either works for me in the
discussion and it would just muddy the waters for now)

This time period of about 9 billion years gets us to the next big
problem for the naturalist. It is a well known and much discussed
problem. It is known as the Fine Tuned Universe. There are about 30
major physics properties that are what creates this controversy. Some
people call it the turning of the dials problem. You have among these
finely tuned laws like these
Mp (mass of the proton) 938.28 MeV,
Mn (mass of the neutron), 939.57 MeV
c (the speed of light) 2.99792458 × 108 m1 s−1
G (the Newtonian gravitational constant) 6.6742 × 10–11 m 3 kg−1 s−2
If any of these are tuned by slight fractions, none of it works and the
universe either collapses in on itself, or expands outward so fast it
all disappears. But somehow, they were all set just right to get us in
this lovely place we call Earth.

Here's a few more from this link I'll highlight, though the entire
article is interesting.
<https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil383/collins.htm>

A few examples of this fine-tuning are listed below:

1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by
as little as 1 part in 10 to the 60th power, the universe would have
either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for
stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. [See Davies,
1982, pp. 90-91. (As John Jefferson Davis points out (p. 140), an
accuracy of one part in 10 to the 60th power can be compared to firing a
bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable
universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.)

2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force
that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger
or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989,
pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.)

3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger
or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars
like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life
impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)

4. If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all
protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have
decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible. (Leslie,
1989, pp. 39-40 )

5. If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life
would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons. (Leslie, 1988,
p. 299.)


Now by themselves, each one constitutes a big problem in that
individually they each have the potential to make everything break, and
we have not only no life, but no universe as we know it. When you add
up each on on top of the other, the statistical chance of each parameter
being what they are becomes such a crazy number you can't physically
write it out. It contains more numbers than there are atoms in the
universe.

You could also get into the science on how we are in a location known to
cosmologists as "The Goldilocks Zone."
<https://www.astronomy.com/science/is-earth-the-only-goldilocks-planet/>
But for now, I'll just stay with the tuning of the dials problem.

The problem is so big, it is actually what led to the creation of the
Multiverse Theory. One of my favorites on this is a very popular and
well known genius from MIT. Max Tegmark is a renowned physicist,
cosmologist, and machine learning researcher (artificial intelligence)
from MIT. He is also an atheist, by the way, but his writing is
fascinating and easy to get hooked on. In his book “Our Mathematical
Universe,” he tackles some of these questions about the Universe and
says there are three main available choices to the fine-tuning necessary
for the creation of not only our galaxy, but any galaxy:

1. Fluke: It’s just a fluke coincidence and there’s nothing more to it.
2. Design: It’s evidence that our Universe was designed by some entity
(perhaps a deity or an advanced universe-simulating life form) with the
knobs deliberately fine-tuned to allow life.
3. Multiverse: It’s evidence for the Level II multiverse, since if the
knobs have all settings somewhere, it’s natural that we’ll exist and
find ourselves in a habitable region.

There are thousands of things that would have had to happen, all on an
exact tuned law of physics for the universe ever to be created as we
know it today. Any deviation in any of them or the law, and it would
have all collapsed in on itself. He writes, "Our Universe appears
highly fine-tuned for life. Basically, we’ve discovered that many of
those knobs that we discussed appear tuned to very special values, and
if we could change them even by quite small amounts, then life as we
know it would become impossible. Tweak the dark-energy knob and
galaxies never form, tweak another knob and atoms become unstable, and
so on.” “That means that if you want to tune the knob to allow galaxies
to form, you have to get the angle by which you rotate it right to over
120 decimal places! Although this sounds like an impossible fine-tuning
task, some mechanism appears to have done precisely this for our
Universe,” he writes.

Multiply this by the thousands of other steps in the creation of the
known universe, perfectly adjusted, and you start to understand why
“chance” is not a very good answer to the why! Tegmark goes on to say he
believes we are the only life in our Galaxy, and it is an amazing thing
that even this has happened. He is not one who can take the step and
say the evidence points toward his choice #2, Design, though. He is a
multiverse follower. It's an amazing thing when you think about it. He
knows choice #1 is impossible, but he just can't consider design, even
when there is so much evidence pointing toward it. If you actually
research the multiverse, you will also find it has the same problems
we've already discussed. Namely, it either had a beginning or it has
always been. Besides that, I find it totally improbably, and I'd be in
good company since Stephen Hawking tried to work out before he died how
it could be possible, but ended up not really being a big fan.

So these are some of the cosmological and physics problems the
naturalist encounters. If anyone is interested, I'd move on to some
more easily and hands on evidence in the realm of chemistry and biology
that bring us further into our present timeline.

[sticks]

Post by sticks
So these are some of the cosmological and physics problems the
naturalist encounters.  If anyone is interested, I'd move on to some
more easily and hands on evidence in the realm of chemistry and biology
that bring us further into our present timeline.

The issue of understanding time I referenced earlier becomes relevant in
the next phase of the timeline, but for now I want to skip over it and
move to things a little easier to grasp. I'll move from the origin of
the universe to the origin of life. I’ll start at the building block of
everything: the cell. A cell is the smallest component that can be
considered a living entity. Cells are made of proteins, which in turn
are made of amino acids. Sounds simple enough right? Not so fast. We
can look at what scientists in Darwin’s day understood about cellular
structure, look at what we know now, and see if they got things right or
not. If you're unaware, it should be noted that Darwin’s theory of
evolution does not specifically address how the first forms of life
originated, but only how he suspected they evolved ultimately ending in
something like us. Once his work was published, a thought process known
as “Darwinian logic” took hold and gave the naturalist tools to push
their design free creation paradigm. It is curious that the scientific
world holds so much value in a theory that explains how species evolve,
yet completely ignores the processes required for life to begin in the
first place. To this day, Darwinian disciples try and avoid the
problems this line of science has to get past. To them, somehow it just
happened.

Darwin in his day actually could see individual cells with microscopes
available to him at the time. Not as good as today, but they were good
enough for him to understand cells were complex in some ways. He felt
the cell somehow contained hereditary information that allowed it to
reproduce and called it a Gemmule.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2013/06/did_scientists_/>
He had to do this because if that first cell could not replicate itself,
life would have been over as soon as it had begun. This in fact is an
obvious truth. We now know there was no such thing as a Gemmule, but at
least we know he must have understood the cell was more complicated than
the view of his contemporaries and proponents who called it “a
microscopic lump of jelly-like substance.” I think he understood he
would have to leave the origin of the first life form to real scientists
and just stick to his speculation on species and their evolution.

So what exactly do naturalists now think a cell is, and specifically how
is a cell created? Currently, the argument is the atmosphere of Earth
around 4 billion years ago, with little or no oxygen and high in
methane, in the presence of water, and with either sunlight or an
electrical discharge like lightning, lead to the spontaneous formation
of organic molecules. The molecules they speak of were amino acids.
Amino Acids are what make proteins, which are essentially long chains of
amino acids. The smallest known protein is glutathione with 3 amino
acids, and the largest know is titin, which has 34,350 amino acids! The
average size for humans is 480. Every protein has its sequence of
amino acids, and the sequence is what makes the protein take different
shapes which allows them to perform different functions in the body. So
all you need is a little primordial atmosphere, water, and a little
sunlight or lightning and you get life! Now you must remember that
amino acids and proteins are considered organic molecules, but in no way
can be considered to be either “alive”, or “life” on their own. Amino
acids are even found in the void of space! It takes an incredibly
difficult process of joining the amino acids into proteins, and then
folding the proteins in specific ways to get even one cell!

Steve Laufman is a systems Engineer who teamed up with physician Howard
Glicksman to write "Your Designed Body." This pairing of authors is
special because their work investigates from a medical standpoint of
just what the different parts of the body do, but combines it with an
engineering analysis of just what is required to actually build these
systems and the problems and solutions the body somehow has achieved.
It is an incredibly eye opening read!

They go on to explain that when the specific order of a string of amino
acids is just right, it enables the protein to fold, though sometimes it
needs help to do so from another protein called a chaperone. The
special folds and shape determine the functions the particular protein
can perform. However, they write that Douglas Axe finds that “It’s been
shown experimentally that functional protein shapes are extremely rare
among the set of all possible amino acid sequences. The overwhelming
majority of possible sequences will not fold into a stable protein
shape, and therefore are unlikely to provide a useful function. And, of
all the sequences that do fold into a stable shape, only a very few will
perform a task that’s useful to a given organism.”

For how truly mind blowing his words on exactly how rare this is, Axe’s
experiments showed that, for every DNA sequence that generates a
relatively short (150 amino acid) functional protein fold, there are
about 10^77 combinations of the same length that will not yield a
stable, useful protein. This means that it would take more than the
probabilistic resources of the universe to randomly find even a single
useful protein of moderate length. Douglas Axe, “Estimating the
Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,”
Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (2004): 1295–1315. For perspective,
there are an estimated 10^78 atoms in the entire universe, spread across
hundreds of billions of galaxies. Several other studies have
corroborated Axe’s numbers using different methods. See, for example,
Sean V. Taylor et al., “Searching Sequence Space for Protein Catalysts,”
PNAS USA 98 (2001): 10596–10601.”

Joseph Mastropaolo, PH.D. in his article Evolution is Biologically
Impossible, also gets right to the difficulty of assembling amino acids
and proteins, essentially proclaiming it an impossibility. “The trail
of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of
amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by
mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a
monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics
necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of
evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in
plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion
vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by
realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or
to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every
second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein
molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded,
"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in
probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is
impossible in probability."

To have a little fun on this, Mastropaolo says famed atheist and
supporter of evolutionary theory Richard Dawkins agreed when he states,
“Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA
and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to
come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an
extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence
occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one." The
100 billion billion is 10^20. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible
in probability, one chance in more than 10^20, has been exceeded by 50
orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that
Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution,
politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant,
stupid, insane, or wicked."

It gets even more mathematically impossible in the rest of the article,
but I’ll let you read that on your own and only make one last cite.
“Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these
conclusions is 10^4,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one.”
These numbers are not refuted, they simply get ignored.

There are so many tasks proteins do in the cell, it hard to fathom. It
is the scope of what I am trying to get across, but they are so numerous
it is mind boggling. I haven't even touched on the fact that every cell
contains the "information" necessary to perform its function, DNA, and
the fact that the energy necessary to form the DNA was unavailable. All
of these different processes and actions have “chicken-or-egg problems
evolutionists must confront.” The precise size and shape of each folded
protein is a perfect example with how it managed to form that way in the
first place. How did lifeless, brainless amino acids form a protein,
folded in the perfect shape to do a specific task, at a specific
location in the body, in enough quantity, at just the right time?

I'll give three specific examples of this next I think you'll like, and
they all reside within the cell.

[bfh]

Post by sticks

Post by sticks
So these are some of the cosmological and physics problems the
naturalist encounters.  If anyone is interested, I'd move on to
some more easily and hands on evidence in the realm of chemistry and
biology that bring us further into our present timeline.

The issue of understanding time I referenced earlier becomes relevant
in the next phase of the timeline, but for now I want to skip over it
and move to things a little easier to grasp.  I'll move from the
origin of the universe to the origin of life.  I’ll start at the
building block of everything: the cell.  A cell is the smallest
component that can be considered a living entity. Cells are made of
proteins, which in turn are made of amino acids.  Sounds simple enough
right?  Not so fast.  We can look at what scientists in Darwin’s day
understood about cellular structure, look at what we know now, and see
if they got things right or not.  If you're unaware, it should be
noted that Darwin’s theory of evolution does not specifically
address how the first forms of life originated, but only how he
suspected they evolved ultimately ending in something like us.  Once
his work was published, a thought process known as “Darwinian
logic” took hold and gave the naturalist tools to push their design
free creation paradigm.  It is curious that the scientific world holds
so much value in a theory that explains how species evolve, yet
completely ignores the processes required for life to begin in the
first place.  To this day, Darwinian disciples try and avoid the
problems this line of science has to get past.  To them, somehow it
just happened.
Darwin in his day actually could see individual cells with microscopes
available to him at the time.  Not as good as today, but they were
good enough for him to understand cells were complex in some ways.  He
felt the cell somehow contained hereditary information that allowed it
to reproduce and called it a Gemmule.
<https://evolutionnews.org/2013/06/did_scientists_/>
He had to do this because if that first cell could not replicate
itself, life would have been over as soon as it had begun.  This in
fact is an obvious truth.  We now know there was no such thing as a
Gemmule, but at least we know he must have understood the cell was
more complicated than the view of his contemporaries and proponents
who called it “a microscopic lump of jelly-like substance.”  I
think he understood he would have to leave the origin of the first
life form to real scientists and just stick to his speculation on
species and their evolution.
So what exactly do naturalists now think a cell is, and specifically
how is a cell created?  Currently, the argument is the atmosphere of
Earth around 4 billion years ago, with little or no oxygen and high in
methane, in the presence of water, and with either sunlight or an
electrical discharge like lightning, lead to the spontaneous formation
of organic molecules.  The molecules they speak of were amino acids.
Amino Acids are what make proteins, which are essentially long chains
of amino acids.  The smallest known protein is glutathione with 3
amino acids, and the largest know is titin, which has 34,350 amino
acids!  The average size for humans is 480.   Every protein has its
sequence of amino acids, and the sequence is what makes the protein
take different shapes which allows them to perform different functions
in the body.  So all you need is a little primordial atmosphere,
water, and a little sunlight or lightning and you get life!  Now you
must remember that amino acids and proteins are considered organic
molecules, but in no way can be considered to be either “alive”,
or “life” on their own.  Amino acids are even found in the void of
space!  It takes an incredibly difficult process of joining the amino
acids into proteins, and then folding the proteins in specific ways to
get even one cell!
Steve Laufman is a systems Engineer who teamed up with physician
Howard Glicksman to write "Your Designed Body."  This pairing of
authors is special because their work investigates from a medical
standpoint of just what the different parts of the body do, but
combines it with an engineering analysis of just what is required to
actually build these systems and the problems and solutions the body
somehow has achieved. It is an incredibly eye opening read!
They go on to explain that when the specific order of a string of
amino acids is just right, it enables the protein to fold, though
sometimes it needs help to do so from another protein called a
chaperone.  The special folds and shape determine the functions the
particular protein can perform.  However, they write that Douglas Axe
finds that “It’s been shown experimentally that functional protein
shapes are extremely rare among the set of all possible amino acid
sequences. The overwhelming majority of possible sequences will not
fold into a stable protein shape, and therefore are unlikely to
provide a useful function.  And, of all the sequences that do fold
into a stable shape, only a very few will perform a task that’s
useful to a given organism.”
For how truly mind blowing his words on exactly how rare this is,
Axe’s experiments showed that, for every DNA sequence that generates
a relatively short (150 amino acid) functional protein fold, there are
about 10^77 combinations of the same length that will not yield a
stable, useful protein. This means that it would take more than the
probabilistic resources of the universe to randomly find even a single
useful protein of moderate length. Douglas Axe, “Estimating the
Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,”
Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (2004): 1295–1315. For perspective,
there are an estimated 10^78 atoms in the entire universe, spread
across hundreds of billions of galaxies. Several other studies have
corroborated Axe’s numbers using different methods. See, for
example, Sean V. Taylor et al., “Searching Sequence Space for
Protein Catalysts,” PNAS USA 98 (2001): 10596–10601.”
Joseph Mastropaolo, PH.D. in his article Evolution is Biologically
Impossible, also gets right to the difficulty of assembling amino
acids and proteins, essentially proclaiming it an impossibility.
“The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the
microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the
probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by
evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology,
information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat.
Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of
iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is
an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The
magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that
ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in
evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from
the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule
would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The
origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in
probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is
impossible in probability."
To have a little fun on this, Mastropaolo says famed atheist and
supporter of evolutionary theory Richard Dawkins agreed when he
states, “Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began
when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery
spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves
the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds
against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100
billion billion to one."  The 100 billion billion is 10^20. So
Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in
more than 10^20, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only
one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has
joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids
inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or
wicked."
It gets even more mathematically impossible in the rest of the
article, but I’ll let you read that on your own and only make one
last cite. “Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of
these conclusions is 10^4,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to
one.” These numbers are not refuted, they simply get ignored.
There are so many tasks proteins do in the cell, it hard to fathom.
It is the scope of what I am trying to get across, but they are so
numerous it is mind boggling.  I haven't even touched on the fact that
every cell contains the "information" necessary to perform its
function, DNA, and the fact that the energy necessary to form the DNA
was unavailable.  All of these different processes and actions have
“chicken-or-egg problems evolutionists must confront.”  The
precise size and shape of each folded protein is a perfect example
with how it managed to form that way in the first place.  How did
lifeless, brainless amino acids form a protein, folded in the perfect
shape to do a specific task, at a specific location in the body, in
enough quantity, at just the right time?
I'll give three specific examples of this next I think you'll like,
and they all reside within the cell.

You seem to be leaning heavily toward intelligent design. Where do you
speculate that the intelligent designer came from?

[sticks]

Post by bfh
You seem to be leaning heavily toward intelligent design.

I am presenting evidence that says the naturalist explanation of how
things could have happened could not be so. That actual scientists say
it is impossible. These are not my opinions, these are leaders in their
fields, brilliant people who are willing to look into the actual science
in their fields. In most cases, the evidence not only says the events
could not have happened on their own, or naturally, they point towards a
design involving information and intelligence.

That said, all this knowledge is available to anyone looking, including
other scientists. It rarely gets refuted, often just ignored for the
reasons I have stated. I'm always open to see any evidence
contradicting anything this evidence I have presented, just as I am
willing to look at anything that shows the opposite of what I am doing,
evidence showing there cannot have been an intelligent designer.

Post by bfh
Where do you
speculate that the intelligent designer came from?

As I said earlier, I could answer that question, but that would be how I
chose to accept or reject the evidence against naturalism. I will say
that the answer is not as simple as one would suppose. In the end, I
simply don't care what people choose to do with the knowledge I think
this process gets you. I could lay out why people with various beliefs
see things the way they do. But if you don't at least come to an
understanding on whether or not you think the universe and the creation
of life could have happened on it's own or not, it's pointless. I am
not trying to be theological. I'm trying to be scientific.

[bfh]

Post by sticks

Post by bfh
You seem to be leaning heavily toward intelligent design.

I am presenting evidence that says the naturalist explanation of how
things could have happened could not be so.  That actual scientists
say it is impossible.  These are not my opinions, these are leaders in
their fields, brilliant people who are willing to look into the actual
science in their fields.  In most cases, the evidence not only says
the events could not have happened on their own, or naturally, they
point towards a design involving information and intelligence.
That said, all this knowledge is available to anyone looking,
including other scientists.  It rarely gets refuted, often just
ignored for the reasons I have stated.  I'm always open to see any
evidence contradicting anything this evidence I have presented, just
as I am willing to look at anything that shows the opposite of what I
am doing, evidence showing there cannot have been an intelligent
designer.

C'mon, man. Take a stand.

Post by sticks

Post by bfh
Where do you speculate that the intelligent designer came from?

As I said earlier, I could answer that question,

C'mon man. Take a stand.

Post by sticks
but that would be how
I chose to accept or reject the evidence against naturalism.  I will
say that the answer is not as simple as one would suppose.  In the
end, I simply don't care what people choose to do with the knowledge I
think this process gets you.  I could lay out why people with various
beliefs see things the way they do.  But if you don't at least come to
an understanding on whether or not you think the universe and the
creation of life could have happened on it's own or not, it's
pointless.  I am not trying to be theological.  I'm trying to be
scientific.

[sticks]

Post by sticks
I'll give three specific examples of this next I think you'll like, and
they all reside within the cell.

First, I'll explain something I discovered years ago that really got me
hooked on this research and information. Similar to the 3 examples I'll
show next was something written by an atheist investigative journalist
who worked for the Chicago Tribune named Lee Strobel. Though his book
gets dismissed for the usual reasons, I want to only examine the facts
of two things he presented as being irreducibly complex systems,
incapable of originating from a naturalist evolutionary process. Cilium
is the first. The well known and often cited bacterial flagellum was
the second. I had just read several books on Darwin's theory of
evolution. Thus, no design, no intent, no brain, no plan whatsoever.
Even if you had a brain that decided you needed two eyes instead of one,
you couldn't physically make your body grow one. That's not how
evolution works. Instead it had to work by small changes brought on by
chance, that had superior capabilities and thus took hold over the next
generation. There is no agenda for supremacy in nature; it all just
happens by chance or accident if you will.

“Cilia are whiplike hairs on the surface of cells. If the cell is
stationary, the cilia move fluid across the cell’s surface. For
instance,” he said, pointing toward my throat, “you’ve got cilia lining
your respiratory tract. Every cell has about two hundred of them, and
they beat in synchrony in order to sweep mucus toward your throat for
elimination. That’s how your body expels little foreign particles that
you accidentally inhale. But cilia also have another function: if the
cell is mobile, the cilia can row it through a fluid. Sperm cells would
be an example; they’re propelled forward by the rowing action of cilia.”

When we first discovered these, they just looked like little hairs that
did their thing. Today's electron microscopes have now told us a
different and complicated story.

“There are nine pairs of microtubules, which are long, thin, flexible
rods, which encircle two single microtubules. The outer microtubules are
connected to each other by what are called nexin linkers. And each
microtubule has a motor protein called dynein. The motor protein
attaches to one microtubule and has an arm that reaches over, grabs the
other one, and pushes it down. So the two rods start to slide lengthwise
with respect to each other. As they start to slide, the nexin linkers,
which were originally like loose rope, get stretched and become taut. As
the dynein pushes farther and farther, it starts to bend the apparatus;
then it pushes the other way and bends it back. That’s how you get the
rowing motion of the cilium."

The important part in this discovery is that there are three separate
parts of cilium (rods, linkers, and motors) that "are necessary to
convert a sliding motion into a bending motion so the cilium can move.
If it weren’t for the linkers, everything would fall apart when the
sliding motion began. If it weren’t for the motor protein, it wouldn’t
move at all. If it weren’t for the rods, there would be nothing to move.
So like the mousetrap, the cilium is irreducibly complex.” Not only
that, but without them, we'd die. This also means not only do we have
the irreducible complexity problem, we have another chicken-or-egg
situation. All five of these special motors I'm going to show all have
this problem. If you need them to live, how did we live without them
before evolution somehow built them?

Next, look at the most famous example; bacterial flagellum. These are
basically a "biological machine for propelling cells" that he calls the
world's most efficient motor. They exist only in bacteria, and unlike
cilia which act like oars to move cells, these act like a rotary
propeller. "The flagellum’s propeller is long and whiplike, made out of
a protein called flagellin. This is attached to a drive shaft by hook
protein, which acts as a universal joint, allowing the propeller and
drive shaft to rotate freely. Several types of proteins act as bushing
material to allow the drive shaft to penetrate the bacterial wall and
attach to the rotary motor.”

Where does it get it's energy? “That’s an interesting phenomenon,” he
replied. “Some other biological systems that generate movement, like
muscles, use energy that has been stored in what’s called a ‘carrier
molecule.’ But the flagellum uses another system — energy generated by a
flow of acid through the bacterial membrane. This is a complex process
that scientists are still studying and trying to understand. The whole
system works really well — the flagellum’s propeller can spin at ten
thousand revolutions per minute."

This spinning has been shown to be able to stop within 1/4 turn and
reverse and immediately spin at over 10,000 RPM the other way. So, what
is controlling this process? "It turns out it has sensory systems that
feed into the bacteria flagellum and tell it when to turn on and when to
turn off, so that it guides it to food, light, or whatever it’s
seeking." This is another chicken-or-egg situation. What came first?
The system allowing it to function, or the mechanism of doing so? It is
also irreducibly complex in that you need all three parts (a paddle, a
rotor, and a motor) or the flagellum does not work at all. Without
these in our bodies....we die. Evolutionists have no valid explanation
for how these came into existence.

When you look at these two mechanisms from an engineering point of view,
they are remarkable solutions to difficult problems the body had to
solve for life to exist. If you're a naturalist, you'll have to wait
for some kind of explanation on how they came about. There is nothing
acceptable for now. The obvious answer is that there is an incredible
amount of information and intelligence involved in the design of these
things. These really got me interested in this scientific search for
some kind of answers to difficult questions.

Next I'll show similar mechanisms, motors and pumps, inside every cell
in your body. Kinesin, ribosomes, and the most amazing of all ATP Synthase.

[sticks]

Post by sticks
Next I'll show similar mechanisms, motors and pumps, inside every cell
in your body.  Kinesin, ribosomes, and the most amazing of all ATP
Synthase.

Steve Laufman and Howard Glicksman go on to detail 3 of the “thousands
of specialized protein machines. Specifically, three of the most
interesting and best understood in the human body.” The first is ATP
Synthase, which looks and works like a turbine! To get a better idea of
just how amazing this little “machine” is and what it does, they suggest
a look at a short YouTube video by Discovery Science. Molecular
Machines - ATP Synthase: The power plant of the cell

“When you’re at rest, about one-quarter of your body’s energy needs are
taken up by these hard-working pumps. Each of your cells has about a
million of these pumps, and you have about 30 trillion or more cells,
all trying to maintain their chemical balance. That’s 30,000,000,
000,000,000,000 (3 x 1019) sodium-potassium pumps working, even when
you’re sleeping.” But to top it all off, to create ATP, you need ATP to
start the process, creating another chicken-or–egg problem. They state
it this way, “One machine turns ADP into ATP; another turns ATP back
into ADP—a complete energy cycle. One system infuses ADP with energy;
another, encoded separately in the DNA, uses that energy. This cycle can
ramp up production quickly, as needed, since nothing new needs to be
manufactured—only rapidly recycled. Notice, too, that it takes two
machines working together to achieve function. Neither would be useful
without the other. If that’s not challenge enough for any causal theory
of origins, here’s another: some of the enzymes needed to extract ATP
from glucose must consume energy (in the form of ATP) to perform the
chemical change at their step in the process. Thus, to generate ATP, ATP
is required. There is no other way known to make ATP except by consuming
ATP, and this presents a causal quandary known as causal circularity.
The product of the reaction is required to start the reaction itself. So
where do you get the ATP required to make the first ATP? There are many
similar examples in biology.” You could call this an ultimate
chicken-or-egg problem since without ATP to begin the energy making
process, you would not be alive, and we know of no other source of ATP.

The second amazing protein is called Kinesin. It’s another “motor
protein that transports cargo along microtubules from one place to
another.” Human cells build around forty different types of Kinesin,
with most of the differences in the types of clamps, or adapters that
attach to different types of cargo. Discovery Science also has produced
a YouTube video of this amazing motor in action. I urge you to watch
this 3 1/2 minute video to see exactly what these machines are and
decide if you see the intelligence necessary to design this machine that
transports things many times it's size around the cell. If it gets too
heavy or needs a pull to get past an obstruction, it grabs a buddy or two!
The Workhorse of the Cell: Kinesin

“Somehow, Kinesins know exactly what they’re supposed to do: pick up the
right cargo from the right source, take it to the right destination, and
drop it off.”
You have to ask yourself when seeing these in action if evolution has
the necessary processes in it's arsenal to allow it to build things like
this. Keep in mind you need these to live. How did, or could have
these mechanisms possibly evolved when without them you die? How did
mindless evolution program DNA to allow for the building of Kinesin?

Then we get to Ribosomes, which are another large (300 protein) machine
in the cell that deals with the cell’s information processing, making up
the last step in converting the information encoded in the DNA into
proteins. Luckily, there are videos showing the different actions that
have to be “properly orchestrated” for everything to work. One is from
DNA Learning Center. mRNA Translation.

Another is from Charles Reilly, which was created for E. O. Wilson’s
Life on Earth, an interactive textbook of biology in 2014. Ribosome.

As you can see, we come back to yet another chicken-or-egg problem they
describe as this: “A typical human cell contains around 10 million
Ribosomes. DNA contains large amounts of information, information
essential for life. But as with any information source, the information
is useless without a means of decoding and processing it. The ribosome
serves this role, but the ribosome is itself made up mainly of proteins,
which can only be produced by a ribosome. So the information-processing
machinery cannot be constructed without the information that it must
process itself. Here, then, is yet another chicken-or-egg problem. Which
came first: the information or the ribosome? How could the information
originate when it has no value without the processing machinery? And how
could the processing machinery originate when there’s no information to
build it? This is another case of causal circularity. As with all
biological systems, the human body contains many such causal
circularities.” I've already discussed the extreme difficulty in
getting the proper sequence of amino acids to join into a functional
protein that can properly fold into a usable shape to perform a specific
function. Yet, Ribosomes perform this function in a way any modern
engineer would dream of as a solution to the problem. To again ask the
chicken-or-egg question, how did life manage to build the cellular
structure that allows us to exist if this mechanism wasn't in place
first? It couldn't have evolved if you understand this. It had to have
existed first.

As you can probably guess, I have only scratched the surface of the
amazing properties and “engineering sophistication of human cells.” I
urge you to take a look at this 4 minute video that gives a little wider
look at the amazing human cell, that is so much more complex that
Darwin’s “jelly-like protoplasm” that was created by the group The Human
Protein Atlas.
The Human Cell.

By now, if you're of the naturalist mindset and after seeing these
amazing scientific discoveries you still are unable to consider the
option of there being an intelligence that somehow designed these
systems, I doubt I could convince you to reconsider.
I'll look next into an amazing solution to a problem in our eyes. If
you think this one is the result of evolution, I'd love to hear how.

[sticks]

I'll look next into an amazing solution to a problem in our eyes.  If
you think this one is the result of evolution, I'd love to hear how.

So, I've given a few examples and a taste of why I believe the original
cell gives the naturalist fits in explaining how it is possible to have
come about without intervention. For now, let's just do what Darwin did
and ignore the origin of life and move into an actual living thing.
We'll also have to then put aside the fact that every amazing thing in
biology is made of cells, from plant life to animal life, and that every
system involved in actually being alive has to deal with the complexity
of the cell and how it could possibly have come about and now has the
DNA to know what to build. Just put that on the back burner.

To be honest, I find the entire human body to be an irreducibly complex
system, and science for the most part agrees. We have 11 separate
systems in the human body that allow us to function and keep us alive.
Some people claim there are 12 by having one for the male reproductive
system, and one for the female reproductive system. I'll just call it
the human reproductive system and say there is 11. I won't get into it
here, but I have given some thought as to how "nature" came up with a
reproductive system for a male specimen and a different system for a
female specimen. How did the slow process of evolution figure this one
out? But anyways, here are the 11 systems:

1. The circulatory (cardiovascular) system
2. The lymphatic system
3. The respiratory system
4. The integumentary (skin and its structures) system
5. The endocrine (metabolism regulation) system
6. The gastrointestinal (digestive) system
7. The urinary (excretory) system
8. The musculoskeletal system
9. The nervous system
10. The reproductive system
11. The immune system

When any one of these systems ceases to function, you die. They also
have the same nagging chicken-or-egg problems which becomes clearer
every day as science uncovers more of the true nature and complexity of
each of the 11 systems and how they coordinate and function as a whole.
I could give an example of a show stopper in any one of these 11
systems, but I want to give just one from the nervous system for you to
consider, and it's part of the human eye.

The human eye even gave Darwin problems and he once confessed that it
was "absurd" to propose that the human eye evolved through spontaneous
mutation and natural selection. Much debate has occurred over the years
centering on the origin of our eye. There are many things I could cite
that I believe show a design element involved, but I want to give just
one for now that I see as a naturalist show stopper. The superior
oblique and the trochlea.

Image of the superior oblique.
<https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/>

The eye has a set of 6 tendons and muscles that control it's movement.
One of these, the superior oblique, is extremely special. The
engineering problem with affixing these muscles to the eye is that there
was no good place to put the one controlling the movement necessary with
a muscle of similar size to maintain similar push and pull energy
because of the shape of the skull and the position of our eyes.

To solve this problem and get the desired motion, our eye sockets
contain something called the trochlea. In Latin this means pulley, and
that is exactly how it is used. The superior oblique threads it's
lengthy muscle through the bony trochlea and then down to attach itself
to the eye in a position that allows the lateral movement and does not
affect vision or stability of the eye. It's a remarkable engineering
solution in my view, and one that deserves consideration of how it came
to be. It actually acts like a farmer pulling hay up in the barn with a
pulley system, and that requires intelligence and thought.

How the superior oblique knows to thread itself through the sling is one
thing, how a perfect solution for eye movement like this could have come
about through the slow and chance process of evolution is another. When
this lateral rotation of the eye was deemed necessary by "mother
nature," why didn't it go directly from a place in the eye socket and
attach itself to the eye? What mechanism does evolution have that would
allow for a part of the body like the eye to assess the problem, use a
tool like a pulley, and then actually grow one? We haven't even touched
on the irreducible complexity of the necessity for blood supply, the
information the eye processes and its connection to the brain, and the
fact that the ear amazingly is also a part of our vision, among many
other things. There are no intermediary specimens of this in nature in
any species. You either have it, or you don't.

The existence of the trochlea and its superior oblique muscle simply
cannot be explained in my view through evolutionary processes, and is
one of those “show stoppers” with irreducible complexity and “no
intermediate steps in evolutionary terms” as explained by the Centre for
Intelligent Design in this linked article. It is short read of only
about one page and very well written.

<https://www.c4id.org.uk/Articles/487300/The_superior_oblique.aspx>

I have really only touched the surface on this wonderful engineered
solution to our sight, but if anyone thinks evolution could do this on
its own, I'd love to have it explained to me just how. If anything, I
would at least expect acknowledgement that it poses some serious
question regarding the possibility of evolution!

[bfh]

Post by sticks

I'll look next into an amazing solution to a problem in our eyes.Â
If you think this one is the result of evolution, I'd love to hear how.

So, I've given a few examples and a taste of why I believe the
original cell gives the naturalist fits in explaining how it is
possible to have come about without intervention.  For now, let's just
do what Darwin did and ignore the origin of life and move into an
actual living thing. We'll also have to then put aside the fact that
every amazing thing in biology is made of cells, from plant life to
animal life, and that every system involved in actually being alive
has to deal with the complexity of the cell and how it could possibly
have come about and now has the DNA to know what to build.  Just put
that on the back burner.
To be honest, I find the entire human body to be an irreducibly
complex system, and science for the most part agrees.  We have 11
separate systems in the human body that allow us to function and keep
us alive. Some people claim there are 12 by having one for the male
reproductive system, and one for the female reproductive system.  I'll
just call it the human reproductive system and say there is 11.  I
won't get into it here, but I have given some thought as to how
"nature" came up with a reproductive system for a male specimen and a
different system for a female specimen.  How did the slow process of
1.  The circulatory (cardiovascular) system
2.  The lymphatic system
3.  The respiratory system
4.  The integumentary (skin and its structures) system
5.  The endocrine (metabolism regulation) system
6.  The gastrointestinal (digestive) system
7.  The urinary (excretory) system
8.  The musculoskeletal system
9.  The nervous system
10. The reproductive system
11. The immune system
When any one of these systems ceases to function, you die. They also
have the same nagging chicken-or-egg problems which becomes clearer
every day as science uncovers more of the true nature and complexity
of each of the 11 systems and how they coordinate and function as a
whole. I could give an example of a show stopper in any one of these
11 systems, but I want to give just one from the nervous system for
you to consider, and it's part of the human eye.
The human eye even gave Darwin problems and he once confessed that it
was "absurd" to propose that the human eye evolved through spontaneous
mutation and natural selection.  Much debate has occurred over the
years centering on the origin of our eye.  There are many things I
could cite that I believe show a design element involved, but I want
to give just one for now that I see as a naturalist show stopper.  The
superior oblique and the trochlea.
Image of the superior oblique.
<https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/>
The eye has a set of 6 tendons and muscles that control it's movement.
One of these, the superior oblique, is extremely special.  The
engineering problem with affixing these muscles to the eye is that
there was no good place to put the one controlling the movement
necessary with a muscle of similar size to maintain similar push and
pull energy because of the shape of the skull and the position of our
eyes.
To solve this problem and get the desired motion, our eye sockets
contain something called the trochlea.  In Latin this means pulley,
and that is exactly how it is used.  The superior oblique threads it's
lengthy muscle through the bony trochlea and then down to attach
itself to the eye in a position that allows the lateral movement and
does not affect vision or stability of the eye.  It's a remarkable
engineering solution in my view, and one that deserves consideration
of how it came to be.  It actually acts like a farmer pulling hay up
in the barn with a pulley system, and that requires intelligence and
thought.
How the superior oblique knows to thread itself through the sling is
one thing, how a perfect solution for eye movement like this could
have come about through the slow and chance process of evolution is
another.  When this lateral rotation of the eye was deemed necessary
by "mother nature," why didn't it go directly from a place in the eye
socket and attach itself to the eye?  What mechanism does evolution
have that would allow for a part of the body like the eye to assess
the problem, use a tool like a pulley, and then actually grow one?  We
haven't even touched on the irreducible complexity of the necessity
for blood supply, the information the eye processes and its connection
to the brain, and the fact that the ear amazingly is also a part of
our vision, among many other things.  There are no intermediary
specimens of this in nature in any species.  You either have it, or
you don't.
The existence of the trochlea and its superior oblique muscle simply
cannot be explained in my view through evolutionary processes, and is
one of those “show stoppers” with irreducible complexity and “no
intermediate steps in evolutionary terms” as explained by the Centre
for Intelligent Design in this linked article.  It is short read of
only about one page and very well written.
<https://www.c4id.org.uk/Articles/487300/The_superior_oblique.aspx>
I have really only touched the surface on this wonderful engineered
solution to our sight, but if anyone thinks evolution could do this on
its own, I'd love to have it explained to me just how.  If anything, I
would at least expect acknowledgement that it poses some serious
question regarding the possibility of evolution!

What did the very first human look like?

[sticks]

Post by bfh
What did the very first human look like?

<Loading Image...>

[bfh]

Post by sticks

Post by bfh
What did the very first human look like?

<https://assets.editorial.aetnd.com/uploads/2020/03/human-evolution-gettyimages-122223741.jpg>

damn! Is that Adam leading his squad to an After Creation Party?

[bfh]

Post by sticks
It has no light in it yet, and it actually doesn't have any space.
That is what is being created thru inflation: space time.  The concept
of "nothing" is extremely difficult to grasp.  When it comes to space
and time, actually understanding what nothing means is something that
took the likes of Monsignor Georges Lemaitre's discovery of the Big
Bang Theory in 1927 (which even Einstein didn't believe at the time),
and Albert Einstein who was able to think through and give us his
theory of general relativity.

I just discovered that I was born 8 years before the Big Bang.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a 1949 radio broadcast for the BBC, the English astronomer Fred
Hoyle jokingly referred to the expanding Universe as the Big Bang. The
name stuck.
-----------------------------------------------------------
https://aeon.co/essays/scientists-are-no-longer-sure-the-universe-began-with-a-bang

Unfortunately, I can't remember much of what happened............or
didn't.

[sticks]

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
It has no light in it yet, and it actually doesn't have any space.
That is what is being created thru inflation: space time.  The concept
of "nothing" is extremely difficult to grasp.  When it comes to space
and time, actually understanding what nothing means is something that
took the likes of Monsignor Georges Lemaitre's discovery of the Big
Bang Theory in 1927 (which even Einstein didn't believe at the time),
and Albert Einstein who was able to think through and give us his
theory of general relativity.

I just discovered that I was born 8 years before the Big Bang.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a 1949 radio broadcast for the BBC, the English astronomer Fred Hoyle
jokingly referred to the expanding Universe as the Big Bang. The name
stuck.
-----------------------------------------------------------
https://aeon.co/essays/scientists-are-no-longer-sure-the-universe-began-
with-a-bang
Unfortunately, I can't remember much of what happened............or didn't.

There ya go. It has now been confirmed that Bill is actually older than
time!

[bfh]

Post by bfh

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
I find this theory on increasing temperatures of the universe
highly improbable, though.  It goes against everything we know
of physics and even quantum physics.  Specifically, the second
law of thermodynamics and the proven science of increased entropy
in the universe as time marches on.  The chaos of a super
massive black hole quasar can certainly show more than imaginable
light and heat as the process occurs.  Yet, it too will end
and entropy will win.  Until we show evidence for some unknown
law of physics, things lose energy.  They never gain it.

Go the other direction. What was before the universe (whatever the
fuck the "universe" is)? Where did the energy come from that
started a universe that could then proceed to entropyize to
conform to our current hubristic and pathetically incomplete
understanding of things? I can't, of course, prove it - or even
support it - but I believe that there are uncountable unknown
unknowns.
To loosely paraphrase someone whose name I can't remember - given
enough time, nothing is impossible. I have a tendency to ride that
bus, too.

I have been interested in this my whole life, starting as a teen
with the metaphysical questions just like Plato, Aristotle and
Socrates had to confront.  I applaud you for being one who
considers such questions. Most people these days don't.  That
troubles me deeply.
For about 5 years now I have been researching precisely this type
of science and the ramifications of it  We are lucky enough to
live in a time to witness incredible scientific discovery.  Your
question on what was before the universe is IMO the ultimate show
stopper for the Naturalist.  It is not only the energy, but the
matter and the actual space.  I would also throw in time, though
some would call it spacetime.
The question is one I wish everyone would ask: Why and how is all
this here and what does it mean?  The opposite of a naturalist
would be someone who doesn't believe all this happened on it's own,
and thus believes in something supernatural.  Creationist is the
known term for those people.  The Naturalist and the Creationist
both have to answer the biggest question of all time as posed
above.  The creationist would say there is an intelligence and
design involved in our universe.  The naturalist, unfortunately
cannot answer the question satisfactorily IMO.
They use what is called a "Brute Fact", the most famous one of all
time in this case, and would answer that it just has always been.Â
It had no origin, it just has always existed.  Accept this, and
move on. This answer defies so many known laws of science I cannot
swallow it. I would be more accepting if they would simply say that
as of yet they just don't know.  That at least would be
truthful.  There are several reasons they refuse to answer this
way, but the effect is still the same.  To me, it is simply
unacceptable to claim something has always existed.  Worse, I
believe they all know this, and are in effect lying.
I am writing about it, finding more and more of these showstoppers.
The problem is not finding evidence, but deciding where to stop.Â
Yet, unless you search, you would never know it is there.  Your
own view that anything is possible given enough time is the theory
that gives Darwinian thought a lifeline.  Yes, Darwin's evolution
is not the same as in his day, they mostly call it Neo-Darwinism
now, but the necessity of time...lots and lots of time, is one of
the reasons the brute fact on the origins of the universe is used.
Fortunately, we now live in a scientific age where we know that
even more than the entire length of time the known universe has
existed is not enough to generate the proteins necessary to build
even a single cell.

We know squat. Not only do we not know the length of time the known
universe has existed, we don't even know what percentage our "known
universe" is of the actual universe. Again, we don't even know what
the universe is.

If you believe in the science, we certainly do.  I'm sure you have
heard of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the CMB.  Predicted by Ralph
Apher in 1948, and proven to exist in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson.
Without getting into the science here, which is easily found if one
wants to know more, It is estimated the image it produced shows the
universe 400,000 years after the big bang and helps date the universe
at around 13.8 Billion years old.  It's pretty accepted science these
days and gives a clear picture of what the universe is and what it
looks like.
<https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-background.html>

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
Yet you would never know this fact, unless you specifically search
for it because the secular scientific community will not allow
it.  It's called Scientism.  If you even consider intelligence or
design in the creation of the universe, you get blacklisted,
shunned, and exiled.
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer.Â

What is this designer, and how did it come to be?
Did it exist before the Big Bang?

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
That is not really true
science.  It is simply living with a biased paradigm that controls
your thinking and exploration.  It is not open minded.

I call that "faith", and not - in this case, at least - religious faith.

I find this an interesting analysis.  Look at it this way.  One side
uses the laws of physics and believes there is no free lunch.
Everything we see and are aware of existing can be shown to have an
origin.  From explaining where they keyboard we type on is made, to
how our Earth and the other planets came into existence in our galaxy,
to how stars formed, to how hydrogen and helium compressed from
gravitational forces, and everything else all the way back to the big
bang.  This group of people simply want to know where that energy,
matter and space time got there.  That is following the science.
The other side, also believes the same thing all the way to the
beginning, yet chooses NOT to follow the science that matter and
energy cannot come from nothing and instead claims it has always
existed.  I would agree with you that this is somehow having faith, a
naturalistic faith if you will.  To them, it is religious.
I am of the first group.  I want to know where it came from and choose
not to believe the fairy tale (brute fact) it has always existed.  I
can understand that some at this point find it hard to believe in
unnatural causes and are hesitant to agree with the obvious logic of
there being no free lunch.  But to do so simply because you have a
scientific naturalistic paradigm controlling your thought seems a
little odd coming from a group that claims the other side does not
follow the science.

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
FWIW, my paper is being written not to convince anyone about a
particular religion.  It is simply about "What is Truth", and is
an attempt to show evidence why what most people think science has
reached consensus on is not so.

Science reaches consensuses frequently, and frequently they turn out
to be temporary consensuses. Somebody once said that the only thing
permanent is change. I ride that bus, too.

I agree, that's how it should be, and for the most part it is.  In the
areas of the origin of the universe and also the origin of life, this
is not the case.  A current example of how this works in the
scientific community is the climate change controversy.  It is
changing lately in that more experts are willing to disagree and show
evidence that the data has been misused to represent something other
than what actually exists, and has been done for political and
economic reasons.  The point is, the science was controlled by outside
factors and was thus corrupted and shaped to form a narrative
advantageous to a common group of thinkers.  If you didn't play along,
you got expelled from the community.  You could show the same type of
manipulations with the covid virus and the science.  It is a fake
consensus, not scientific at all.

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
That what they believe to be truth is scientifically impossible.Â
The evidence IMO is abundant!

So that I might have a chance of obtaining at least a shallow
understanding of what you're saying there, give me one example.

I will give another.  I say another, because I have already given you
one above, and look how easily you passed it off.  I understand
answering the question is difficult, if not impossible.  I am not
looking for an answer from you.  I am interested in whether or not
someone is just accepting of the "has always existed" brute fact, or
thinks it is an interesting question and wonders for themselves how
this could be here and where it came from.

Post by bfh
I've been in many discussions similar to this off and on during my
life, and they are fun, but in my infinitesimally short span of
spacetime, I've yet to see/hear anything even remotely approaching
an Answer to any of the BigQuestions. One thing that I'm currently
fairly certain of is that after I die, I'll get some
Answers.........or I won't get some Answers.

I'm not sure there are what you would call answers.  People go looking
for "proof" of something.  Science does this every day.  They come up
with "evidence" that then has to be interpreted.  For it to be
scientific, it has to be repeatable.  My interest is in showing how
what some people believe to be proof, in reality has been shown to be
impossible.  From there, each person has to decide for themselves how
to move forward.  I don't care if a person looks at the evidence and
decides he believes it was Q from Star Trek who created all this, or
an unknown super-intelligence in another dimension or reality who
wanted some pets to play with, or any one of the religions earth's
inhabitants choose.  I also don't care if a person doesn't give a shit
and just wants to ignore all of it.  That's up to the individual on
how he deals with what he believes is truth.
I am more interested in the evidence alone, for now.  When the
evidence actually points toward there being information and
intelligence necessary for things to have happened, it makes me want
to keep finding more of this evidence.

Post by bfh
Life after death is pretty much the same as life before life.
But that's not an Answer either. It's just fun. To me, anyway.

That's classic Nietzsche Nihilism.  You have made a choice.  Whether
or not that means you've stopped learning and researching is up to
you. Some would say there are passive and active nihilists.  I think
there is room for those falling somewhere in the middle.

Post by bfh
Lots of unjustifiable hubris in humans - IMO - particularly in the
science and religion areas.
At ease. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I don't fear hubris on any side of an argument or theory.  What
bothers me more is that most people are uninterested in the discussion.
I'll get you another point of evidence later....

[sticks]

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
Nearly every field of science has these things where it is shown
they could not have happened on their own, Yet the naturalist will
never concede that even though the evidence points toward design,
there must have been a designer.Â

What is this designer, and how did it come to be?
Did it exist before the Big Bang?

These are the questions everyone has to grapple with. My desire in this
is not to give my opinion on the question. My point above probably
could have been worded better. What I wished to convey was the attitude
among the naturalist group of scientists of shutting the door on hearing
anything once ID is invoked as a possibility. Even if evidence points
that way it gets dismissed. There is case after case of people getting
exiled from their respective scientific and educational community for
making such a glaring mistake. I just want to show some of this
evidence to you. You get to decide what to do with any of it.

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
That is not really true science.  It is simply living with a biased
paradigm that controls your thinking and exploration.  It is not
open minded.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by sticks
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus". Just
start exposing this house of cards. The leftists simply won't hear.
But as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are open to
the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>

My touchstone on whether to listen to someone claiming CO2 is a
threat is to look into what their position is on nuclear power.

If they have a record of opposing and blocking nuclear power,
then reducing harm from CO2 release ***IS NOT THEIR AGENDA***.

Their real agenda is ... something else.

People opposing fossil fuel due to CO2 release have historically
almost entirely been in the forefront of the anti-nuke movement,
doing everything in their power to block nuclear power. Exceptions
can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Q.E.D.

[sticks]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by sticks
Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots. I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus". Just
start exposing this house of cards. The leftists simply won't hear.
But as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are open to
the truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>

My touchstone on whether to listen to someone claiming CO2 is a
threat is to look into what their position is on nuclear power.
If they have a record of opposing and blocking nuclear power,
then reducing harm from CO2 release ***IS NOT THEIR AGENDA***.
Their real agenda is ... something else.
People opposing fossil fuel due to CO2 release have historically
almost entirely been in the forefront of the anti-nuke movement,
doing everything in their power to block nuclear power. Exceptions
can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Q.E.D.

Agreed. The global elites would love to shrink the world economy, and
have little problem basing their agenda on the lies of dependence to
fossil fuels. They willingly allow the climate change zealots to rage
on against nuclear power as that also helps their agenda. The misery
and even death doing so will cause seems obvious, but they won't be the
ones suffering. Or at least so they think. None of this hurts the
wealthy, only the commoners.

[sticks]

Post by sticks

Post by bfh

Post by sticks
WTF?
<https://www.rvtravel.com/rv-industry-responds-6-state-motorhome-ban-
controversy/>

You're not surprised. It's what dumbasses do.

Maybe Lee Zeldin at the EPA can start by showing the lies of these
climate change zealots.  I would say most people have probably never
read a single book on this stuff and just believe the "consensus".  Just
start exposing this house of cards.  The leftists simply won't hear. But
as was just shown in the election, those in the middle are open to the
truth.
<https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/11/12/red-guard-regan-out/>

Crazy when you see what these fires produce and the little they have
done to reduce them and mitigate the effects on the environment, and
somehow they manage to find the time to legislate your inability to own
a diesel RV. Fucking idiots!