Origins Part 8: Math is Fun!

Again, I must advise you to read all other posts before reading this one. If you do not, you will be more confused than a pumpkin.

We have seen that life could not have formed from non-life. Now I intend to briefly explain why the “evolution” of one species to another is illogical.

There are two theorized types of evolution: macro and micro. Both are theorized to work in approximately the same way. As DNA is being copied during reproduction, a mistake is made in the code. As you make more and more copies, imagine a genetic photo-copy machine, the clarity and quality of the code begins to fade. Remember the rules of thermodynamics: everything goes from a higher, more complex quality to a lower, less complex quality.

Although only one mutation occurs at a time, except in extreme situations like nuclear radiation, the mutation can take several forms: An addition, a subtraction, or duplication. Mutations can also occur on various levels: a single amino acid or an entire gene.

How often do mutations take place? Almost never. Mutations are quite a rare phenomenon. Also, remember that not all mutations will take place in reproductive cells. Most of them happen in the rest of your body where they either have no effect or cause cancer. Of those that form in reproductive cells, the chance that that cell will actually be the one chosen to create another person is slim.

Micro-evolution occurs in the real world. It is the only form of mutation that has ever been recorded. Micro-evolution is when an organism receives a mutated genetic makeup that is equally or less-complex than that of the parents. A lizard with spots may birth a lizard without spots, or spots of a different color. Bacteria may be formed that is immune to certain medicines, but vulnerable to others. Flies may be hatched with legs coming out of their heads.

Macro-evolution, which supposedly gives the offspring genetic material more complex than its parents, has never been observed in all of recorded history, among thousands of distinct species with untold populations. Ants alone out-populate all other animals combined. One would think that if macro-evolution were an actual event, it would have been seen some time during written history, especially with all the procreation being done by ants, mosquitoes, bacteria, and grass. An animal, plant, bacteria, or mold that formed through beneficial macro-evolution would, according to the evolutionary theory, be a level above the rest of its species and environment. That hasn’t happened in all of written history. We could not have missed it because it would be quite drastic, really. If the Egyptians wrote about riding around on land-sharks as an everyday activity, then evolution would have some sort of evidence.

Evolutionists try to get around this disturbing lack of new species by saying that the process moves really slow. They claim that over billions of years, these genetic mutations happened over long periods to create bigger and better life forms. Let’s look at the math. There are an estimated 10 quadrillion ants alive in the world today (source below). None of them have evolved in a beneficial way. Now let us pretend, as a favor to the evolutionists, that there was one beneficial mutation among all the ants alive today. If we take that rate, and divide it by the reproduction cycle of an amoeba (which is closest to the supposed first life form) of two days (source below), then we get this equation:

10 Quadrillion / (365 days in a year/2 days) = 10 Quadrillion / 183 = 54 Trillion years

54 Trillion!!! This means that the time needed for the FIRST beneficial evolutionary mutation is 54 Trillion years!!! The evolutionary theory claims the earth did not even exist until 4.5 billion years ago! Life supposedly began a mere 1 billion years ago! Do you see a problem with the math?

And that is just the ants, meaning that the number of 54 trillion is way too small! If we add in the population of every species of life on earth that has ever lived in all recorded history, the number 54 trillion will look like a crumb on the sidewalk next to the skyscraper that is the time needed for just one positive mutation.

If you want, read this article and apply your new knowledge to it.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/life_origins_001205.html

Sounds pretty silly, doesn’t it?

This is a lot to chew, so I will leave you with this until the next post. Leave a comment, or the cyber ghost will haunt you.

Sources

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_ants_are_there_in_the_world

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060914103932AAYe9Qj

Origins Part 7: Frankenstein Goes for a Swim

Please make sure to read all previous chapters in order before reading this part or you will be very confused. I will not be explaining things I have already talked about in this post.

We've discovered in previous posts that the world is under 10,000 years old. Life would not have had time to "evolve" in that period of time, so we almost don't have to talk about how rediculous the idea of evolution is. Almost.

In a recent laboratory experiment, some scientists were able to replicate a simple amino acid. They then declared that they had proven that life could form under natural causes in a pre-life world. Is this a logical conclusion?

Nope. In creating amino acids in a controlled laboratory setting, they proved that amino acids could be formed in a controlled laboratory setting. Laboratories are not the same as natural, uncontrolled swamps from "billions of years ago" that may or may not have existed. Is there an evolutionist out there who thinks there was a fully sterile lab set up for amino acids to form in with scientists constantly combining only the right chemicals in only the right amount and in the right patterns?

Also, when they created the amino acid, they failed to mention that it was equal parts right and left handedness. Hands? Handedness basically means which direction it is facing, like your hands. It makes sense that the acids would be half and half, because it's just like flipping a coin. In life, however, all amino acids are left handed. That would be like flipping a coin and getting heads 100 times in a row. This is for each amino acid, which is made of hundreds of molecules. Many proteans are made of hundreds of amino amino acids. Each gene in DNA is made of multiple proteans. DNA is smaller than a virus and is surrounded by highly organized organelles and a cell wall- all made of proteans. If you can flip coins that all land head side up and eventually they all just happen to form a life size model of New York City, give me a call.

Upon any thought at all about molecules, amino acids, and proteans, you begin to realize how silly the idea that life originated from a swamp really is. Then you remember that this can't just be a random arrangement of legos, this single cell is more complex than the entirety of human society. This cell actually has to have life put into it- Frankenstein anyone? Then it needs the capacity to eat, which would probably be sunlight and a pre-existing abundance of fully functional solar powered generators that run of Chlorophyll. These generators also need to be already functioning and a delivery system must also be active and in place to bring the food to important places around the cell.

The cell also has to be able to get rid of waste, and have the know-how to actually do it. It needs to have gasses to intake (yes, even plants need oxygen, as well as carbon) and the ability to do so. Does this sound like something that just happens without any reason?

I don't even want to start talking about splitting cells. In short, the first cell would need to be able to split and survive the split. As the evolutionary theory claims, eventually a two cell organism would form. This is so bigger life-forms can come to be. Unfortunately for them, there are no 2 celled life forms. In fact, there are no 3, 4, or 5 celled life forms either. There is a 6 cell life form, but it's a parasite and cannot live without bigger creatures. Twenty is the number of cells which the second generation of cells would need to aspire to. Can you imagine having a baby that is 20 times your size? I'm thinking the theory of life in a swamp is dead at this point.

So how did life form? It sure wasn't an accident. The complex functions of all life leads us to believe that there was a plan from the beginning. Life was formed with the help of thought and blueprints. It doesn't take a genius to realize this intelligence is God. God planned how life would work and built living creatures with astonishing care and detail.

Origins Part 6: The Circle of Life?

So, if we can conclude that the earth is, in fact, 10,000 years old or younger, what does that mean?

Logically, we can deduce that the entire theory of evolution is a lie.

The theory of evolution calls for millions of years of life-forms reproducing and dying. Naturally, these creatures would need a planet to live on during those millions of years. Since we have deduced that there was no earth millions of years ago, there could not have been any creatures millions of years ago.

"But what about those fossils?" a fellow student once asked me. Does the existence of fossils provide evidence for evolution?

Well, what is a fossil? Fossils are the remains of an organism that are preserved inside rock layers that were suddenly laid down by water. Fossils do not form over millions of years. The remains of any organism will decay entirely in only a few thousand years. In order for a fossil to be formed, a phenomenon must occur that flash-freezes and contains a creature with a huge amount of pressure instantly.

The only event in history that could have caused fossils to form would be the world-wide Flood. Now, if you are like my 8th grade biology teacher, and your response to this is "yes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes..." then you need to read that statement again. I did not say floods, but rather The World-Wide Flood. Only an event of this magnitude could possibly create a fossil. It is the only thing that could create so sudden a temperature change. It is the only thing that could kill billions of life-forms and cover them in rock layers via a huge amount of water. I will explain more about the flood in a later post.

"What about carbon-dating?" Carbon Dating is inaccurate. This is not a secret. It assumes that the sample is in a closed environment, and that nothing has changed the atmosphere or the sample during all the time it has been decomposing. Rocks have been carbon dated to millions of years, with a tree stump inside them dated to only a few thousand years. Most carbon-dated numbers you will see will be "selected dates," and those are less than half of the results that are found. The other half are rejected because they don't fit the "evolutionary theory."

Still think life has existed for more than 10,000 years? Lets look at human population. At a 0.5% population growth, which is only 1/4 of the constant growth throughout history, the human race would reach its current population in only 4,000 years. Notice how that number is not million of years. Wars, disease, and disasters are already accounted for in the 2% population growth.

Interesting note, the World-Wide Flood is dated 4000 years ago. During that event, all but 8 humans were killed, essentially restarting the population growth. The math works, not to mention that there are surviving records of family lines going back past the flood that agree with this account. Hmmm.

Comments? Questions? Leave a comment, or the cyber ghost will haunt you.

Origins Part 5: Older than Dirt

How old is the earth?

I hope you have read the other posts before this, because I don't feel like repeating explanations of the laws of time and thermodynamics.

How do you tell how old something is? Usually, you look for trends associated with aging and try to figure it out that way. Carbon-dating is a popular but inaccurate method, as it assumes that the samples are not affected by their surroundings in terms of carbon.

Carbon tests of historically chronicled hardened lava yielded the result of several million years. A chicken bone from a two-year dead chicken also yielded a huge amount of time. Apparently, Carbon dating is unacceptably inaccurate.

However, there are other tests that can tell us an estimate of how old the earth is. The earth's magnetic field drops drastically every year. By putting the equation in backwards, we can see that 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a field greater than that of the sun. Since this scenario seems unlikely, we can assume that the earth is under 10,000 years old.

The moon is gradually getting closer to the earth. Again, working backwards, it would have been outside of the planet's gravitational pull 10,000 years ago.

From this data, we can conclude that the world is indeed under 10,000 years old.

"But, what about all the millions of years I learned about in school?" is probably what you're saying now. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those millions of years were a bunch of fairy tales that you should never have been taught in a serious learning environment. Why would someone lie to you about this on so large a scale? I will try to address that in a later post. In the meantime, you should post a comment below.

Origins Part 4: Shapes

With dimensions to put matter in, we can now discuss how actual physical things were formed.

The widely spread idea that gravity pulled matter together after the mythical "big bang" holds many logical flaws. First of all, reasons why the "big bang" could never have occurred are explained in my previous posts. Secondly, in an explosion, objects move away from each other. If gravity were to pull two pieces of matter together, it would have been easiest to do at the beginning, right as the "big bang" was taking place. This would have resulted in the pre-universe object not having split at all, as it would have just held itself together with gravity. If gravity did not pull the matter together right away, it would never have been able to pull it together afterwards.

For an example of how objects move away from each other, please look at your hand. Notice how your fingers are closer to each other at their bases, and how they move farther away from each other as they extend. I'm surprised that anyone with a hand could believe that gravity drew matter together after a "big bang." Some would claim that gravity just wasn't strong enough. All I need to refute this argument is two words: black holes.

So where did galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets come from? In the First-Person shooter game Halo, designers had to input complicated mathematical codes in order to create three dimensional shapes. The Halo world is only a shadow world, meaning that it has no real substance to it, only numbers. This means that our world is infinitely more complex than Halo. If our reality were in some sort of computer program, then our reality would be nothing but a shadow compared to the world of the designer. That world would be infinitely more complex than our own.

Does there need to be a designer? Yes. Computers don't program themselves. Halo took lots of work and math, and that world is much simpler than ours, so our world would take a being infinitely more intelligent than any human to design. If our universe was indeed designed, then it would make sense for there to be physical laws that we could observe and use to our advantage: science. Unless our universe was designed with mathematical logic in place, science is a lie.

Origins Part 3: Matter and Energy

Everything is made of matter, but what is matter made of?

With the discovery of the atom, scientists thought for a brief second they had figured it all out. Then they discovered the proton, neutron, electron, lepton, quark, and a new universe of tiny tiny things.

A question arises: do building blocks keep getting smaller forever, or is there a smallest particle?

The idea that size just keeps going on and on forever breaks our human minds. Mathematically speaking, forevers don't happen all that often. If matter particle blocks really do go on forever getting smaller and smaller, then it holds implications. The smaller blocks were not formed before the larger ones. Had the smaller blocks been formed first, then because of the infinite size scale, they would never have built their way up to anything we could see. Matter would never reach us. Thus, if there are infinite levels, we must conclude that all levels were created at the same time.

Perhaps matter is in itself a trick, and the idea of scale is only a concept of zoom. Zooming in on an atom, one could argue that it begins to look like a solar system (or even a galaxy). Could atoms be actual galaxies? Could they be the galaxies we look at in the night sky? This is the idea behind repeating scale. This hypothesis also has implications: the Andromeda galaxy is an atom in your shoe; you are currently standing on an electron; you are an electron; and so on. Again, no foreseeable way exists to test this idea, so we are left to question what would happen if the Andromeda galaxy in atom scale was ripped in half by scientists. Would the galaxy in our scale explode?

Perhaps we are over thinking this question. Even if matter was a self-repeating scale, we still wouldn't know what it was. It would still need to be made of something. If there is a smallest particle, then we have to wonder where it came from, and what made it.

Energy, on the other hand, is relatively self-contained. It isn't made of anything other than itself, and it takes up space. Scientists have also proven that matter and energy can be converted into each other. With this evidence, we feel confident in saying that matter is in fact concentrated energy within certain regions of space.

Where does this energy come from? Is energy eternal? The Laws of Thermodynamics demand that the amount of useful energy must have started high and will eventually dwindle to zero. Please note that this is a LAW of science, and thereby supersedes theories and ideas. So, where did all this useful energy come from, and how is it lasting this long? Could it have been the Big Bang? Nope. Explosions take energy to happen, thus the Big Bang could not have been the start of energy. Also, according to the LAWS of Thermodynamics, all the useful energy would be used up in under a million years. The Big Bang was supposed to have happened Trillions of years ago. If the Bang did happen, then all the universe should have been an empty, useless waste of space by now. Obviously, this outdated theory is now irrelevant.

If matter/energy had a starting point within our dimension, then it seems logical that the matter/energy came from a higher dimension. If you've ever written on a sheet of paper, then you understand the concept of adding matter to a simpler dimension. The paper cannot write on itself. Only an outside source can add material to any plane of existence.

I think it is pretty easy to see that our universe had an author, someone who not only put in place the foundations of our existence, but reached into our plane and added matter/energy. The name of this author is God.

And you thought this blog was going to be boring. Tisk Tisk.

Origins Part 2: Space

When say space, I am not talking about the final frontier. If you've ever had a math class in your life, then you know that space is made up of dimensions. Height, Length, and width are the three dimensions we are aware of within the further dimension of time.

Seeing as space cannot exist without time, and time has not always been around, it is only logical to assume that space has not always existed. Space can only exist when time exists. So the question is: where did space come from?

As mentioned in the previous post, one popular idea is that a massive explosion known as the "Big Bang" began the universe, and that includes space. However, this fairy-tale quickly is stricken with several fatal wounds when thought is involved. The "Big Bang" would have been composed of an orb of matter. Matter can only exist within space, within time. Already, we can see why this theory should have been eaten before people took it seriously. Matter, space, and time cannot exist in a pre-matter, pre-space, pre-time, period of non-events.

So where did space come from? Let's take a journey down logic lane and observe a more simple universe than our own. In the video game Halo, space is essential for Master Chief to exist within and move around in. Programmers created several grids at right angles to each other, providing an open representation of space. These gridlines required lots of math and programming that the majority of people don't understand. The programmers were not inside the Halo video game, but rather inside our world, which is on a higher plane of existance. Considering this, it is logical to deduce that a programmer in a higher reality than our own mathematically calculated what we percieve as space into a heightened-reality computer of some sort.

This begs the question, where did the programmer's space come from? In answer, as dimensions move up, things make more sense. For example, a one dimensional person would not really be able to exist without two other dimensions. A two dimensional person would not really be able to exist without having some sort of height to them. A three dimensional person, to all observations, can exist. Most people agree that there is a limited number of dimensions, and that the "top dimension" is the only one to make sense. All realities come from that one dimension.

How big is the universe?

In essence, this question is asking how much space is in space. The answer: all of it. It is difficult for humans, who exist within space, to understand what lies beyond the boarder of the universe, where no space exists. It seems impossible in everyway for there to be anything "outside" of space. For this reason the idea that space has an "edge" is often discounted.

Another popular idea is that space goes on forever. Once again, though we have to wonder how that could be possible. As we look around in nature, it seems that nothing is really boundless. The oceans are not boundless. The sky is not boundless. It doesn't seem to make any sense that the universe would extend forever.

There is a third idea, however, which makes a lot more sense. Einstein theorized that, like the earth, space itself was curved (or warped for all you sci-fi nerds out there). He claimed that if you continued going straight through space, you would eventually return to your point of origin. This idea, while it resembles a level from an old Mario video game, does seem to make more sense than the other two ideas. Unfortunately, this theory will be difficult to test, for obvious reasons. For this reason, I cannot say "For Sure" this theory is correct, but it is the one I currently accept.

Origins Part 1: Existence?

When talking about origins, people often make silly assumptions. They assume that things "just are" when in fact there is usually a more involved explanation.

For example: time. If you didn't know that time is a dimension, then I'm sorry to tell you that you've been missing out on...everything. Time was proven to be a dimension when NASA watched a clock in space go at a different speed than one on the earth's surface. Einstein's theory of relativity states:

E=MC^2

This means that mass (and thus gravity) and the speed of light affect the dimension of time. If you still have doubts about time being a dimension, take it up with Einstein.

Okay, what has been observed in our natural realm is that you can't have a where without a when. Time had to start sometime so that the universe could exist. If the universe were infinitely old, then we would have never reached this point in time. Don't believe me? Go ahead and count to infinity.

A popular fairy tale is that something called the Big Bang started time. Unfortunately for Mother Goose, the Big Bang theory includes a bang, implying that there was something there to blow up. Something is usually known by the name of mass, and always exists in a place and time. But wait a minute, didn't they just say that the Big Bang began time? I don't know how they ever got us to believe in this story.

If you are like I once was, and used to think the Big Bang had ANY scientific evidence at all, I'm here to tell you that there is hope. Realizing that from the very beginning, you have been lied to by an evil Mother Goose will start you on the path of intelligence.

Now, if time didn't come from a bang, where did it come from?

Sometimes, when facing questions about our own universe, a quick look at a simpler universe can be very helpful. For now, we will look at the video game Halo. Halo has a time dimension in it. This is what allows everyone's favorite Spartan to run around, jump, and shoot stuff. So where did the time come from in this simple universe? It was programmed into the computer by the developers. Lots of effort was put into creating the time equations for Halo. If we apply this to our universe, we can assume that a "programmer" installed time into existence.

If you suddenly don't feel like reading my blogs anymore, I encourage you to fight your own ignorance and keep reading. Stopping a discussion or reading because you feel uncomfortable does not take the logic behind it away.

In conclusion, today we learned that time is a dimension, that it couldn't have come from an event within time, and that someone highly intelligent probably installed it into the foundation of our universe. Tune in next post for a lesson on Space!

Getting Things Started

Okay, the world is quickly falling apart and nobody seems to know how to fix it. It has come to my attention that the reason for most of these problems is a basic deception about the organization of the universe.

What we do is affected by who we are. Who we are is affected by what we are. And what we are is decided from where we came from. Therefore, it is imperative that I attempt to educate this world about its origins, which it seems to have forgotten.

The answers I give may be suprising to you. They are not what you have been taught in school. Now, of course you may be cautious about accepting these truths right away. Some of you readers might even react angrily against them. Before you spam my blog with angry complaints and predictable unfounded counters, however, I would like you to ask yourself "why am I angry about this?"

Thank you for reading this introduction. Now lets get things started!

-A Smart Person

This is the first blog

Like the Title says, this is the first blog.
I will be writing about a variety of things, but mostly politics.
If you are one of those people who "doesn't like to get involved in politics" then you are the cause of all pain and suffering in this world. My future posts will explain.