A Letter for Atheists & Agnostics:-
I hope this finds you well, in good spirit and having a good day.
For centuries, people have tried to reconcile the differences between science and religion, in an effort to prove or disprove the existence of God, never realizing that they have been duped.
Science endeavors to explain the world around us through observation and conjecture, followed by testing and trying to make sense of the information gathered. A cause and effect relationship is observed when possible and measured, assumptions are made which in turn give way to theories, which then require experimentation and testing to prove or disprove those theories. In general terms this process is known as the scientific method of evaluation.
One question that is seldom considered in this approach is whether the scientific evaluation process itself is fundamentally flawed. If we objectively observe the world around us, it should be self-evident that science isn't just attempting to study and understand the world we live in; it is trying to alter it in the name of "progress". That is the very nature of scientific and technological "advancement" today and it is an extremely egotistical and self-destructive approach to attempt to understand our natural surroundings, much less our relationship with those surroundings and all of the lessons that have been built into them.
Consider for a moment how often scientific theories are manipulated into so-called scientific fact only to later be disproved with the discovery or exposure of additional evidence. That process is affectionately referred to in some circles as "the learning curve", but it offers undeniable proof that our understanding is extremely limited, even at our present level of sophistication. Bearing that in mind, is it really logical to tamper with things that we don't fully understand? Applying the scientific method and a modicum of common sense should make it clear that what we are doing to this planet, which is our life support system, is completely insane.
Oxygen & life, in exchange for money & death, to buy things we don't need.
We have used science and improved technology to help cut down nearly 2/3rds of the world's rain forests, which are the lungs of this planet, and we are steadily working on the final third...for profit. Where will we buy oxygen when we finish cutting down the last third? The rain-forests, in producing oxygen, also get rid of carbon-dioxide from the atmosphere, so it not only doesn’t poison everyone, but also doesn’t cause a “green-house effect”, which will over-heat the planet, change all of the world’s weather-patterns, melt the ice-caps and destroy everything.
Environmental Damage
Have any of the scientific experts studying our impact on the planet considered that the cause of the recent and exponential increase in flooding might have something to do with the amount of water that millions of trees, before they were cut down, used to use and store?
There's an old Cree Indian prophecy that sums this up rather succinctly:
When all of the trees are cut down;
When all of the rivers and lakes are polluted;
When all of the fish have been caught from the sea;
Only then will we realize that money cannot be eaten.
A Letter for
Moderator: Moderators
-
A Freeman
- Banned
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2025 8:03 am
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: A Letter for
Post #2The Science of Being Poisoned for Profit
Through science we have been able to genetically modify our plants, crops and animals, all under the guise of being able to more efficiently meet the world's demand for food. We have been told that all genetically-modified (G.M.) foods are clearly labeled as such, but studies in the U.K. reveal that cross-pollination has occurred between G.M. test crops and other natural species and it is now impossible to contain the genetically modified plant strains. This in turn makes it almost impossible to tell what foods contain genetically modified ingredients because nobody knows how far these alterations have and will spread through the food-chain. G.M. foods have been proven in scientific experiments to deplete the immune-systems of animals that they were fed to, and could potentially make all species on Earth, including mankind, extremely sick.
In addition to the genetic modifications to our crops, we use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, growth regulators and defoliating agents, etc. on our land, plants and crops. Has anyone seriously considered the impact that all of these chemicals have on the plants and crops subjected to them, the soil and water contaminated by them or the animals and people that consume these poisoned plants and crops? Does this seem like a logical or rational process to any scientifically-minded person? Unfortunately it doesn't stop there.
After feeding animals G.M. plants and crops, we inject them with chemical vaccines and growth hormones before the meat from those animals is itself injected with copious amounts of nitrate and phosphate solutions. And these animals may be genetically modified or cloned themselves. A recent article published in The Telegraph, entitled "Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk” states that "scientists have now created genetically modified cattle that produce 'human' milk in a bid to make cows' milk more nutritious."1
More nutritious? Does anyone have any idea what the long-term health effects of this supposedly more nutritious milk will be on those who drink it? Will the scientists and the regulatory agencies employed by the G.M. companies give this milk their stamp of approval to hurry it to the supermarket shelves for infant consumption? What about the cattle that have been genetically modified in this manner? How will this impact the now genetically modified bovine species?
Scientists have also been studying the rapid decline in the honey bee population and wondering if it is the result of chemical poisoning and G.M. plants, or if cellular phone technology might be a contributing factor as well. All we know at this point is that the honey bees are dying off in droves in what has been labeled as "Colony Collapse Disorder". How will the crops and plants be pollinated if we kill off the honey bees with all of these technological "advances"? Or will this strictly limit us in the future to G.M. plants and crops, and who would that serve?
Even if someone were to research just the few areas mentioned above, it should be evident that our so-called scientific advancements are having a profoundly negative impact on the planet. Through chemicals and genetic modifications, we are poisoning the plants, crops and animals that we depend on for food while at the same time destroying the natural strains and species that are integral to the extremely complex and interdependent eco-system. We have absolutely no clue what the long-term health effects of all of these changes are, only that there are more sick people now than ever before. In fact hospitals are overflowing. And we haven't even touched on many of the other various ways that our food, water AND air supplies have been poisoned, e.g. chem-trails, fluoride, aspartame, irradiating our food in microwave ovens and countless other food additives, preservatives, etc. that have made their way into our homes via the likes of Monsanto and ADM.
So how do we scientifically cope with the increased numbers of sick people in this world? Why through more chemicals of course. The same system of chemical companies that poison the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe are ready and waiting with the pharmaceutical "cure" for the resulting health problems. And sadly people have elevated doctors and the medical profession to the point that most are completely close-minded to what is really going on...
WE ARE BEING POISONED FOR PROFIT.
Nowhere is this easier to see than in the United States. The truth is Americans spend around $2 trillion a year on health-care to enjoy life-spans that are shorter than 30 other countries around the world and infant mortality rates higher than 20 other developed countries. Americans consume over half of all the drugs manufactured in the world, picking from over 200,000 non-prescription and over 30,000 prescription drugs that are available. Doctors (glorified drug dealers really) facilitate this process by writing over 3 billion prescriptions annually. In addition, despite all of these efforts and all of the research money that has gone into fighting cancer, our chances of dying from cancer are no better than they were in 19502.
Healing in His Wings
Does any of this sound remotely logical (sane), progressive or self-sustaining?
Through science we have been able to genetically modify our plants, crops and animals, all under the guise of being able to more efficiently meet the world's demand for food. We have been told that all genetically-modified (G.M.) foods are clearly labeled as such, but studies in the U.K. reveal that cross-pollination has occurred between G.M. test crops and other natural species and it is now impossible to contain the genetically modified plant strains. This in turn makes it almost impossible to tell what foods contain genetically modified ingredients because nobody knows how far these alterations have and will spread through the food-chain. G.M. foods have been proven in scientific experiments to deplete the immune-systems of animals that they were fed to, and could potentially make all species on Earth, including mankind, extremely sick.
In addition to the genetic modifications to our crops, we use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, growth regulators and defoliating agents, etc. on our land, plants and crops. Has anyone seriously considered the impact that all of these chemicals have on the plants and crops subjected to them, the soil and water contaminated by them or the animals and people that consume these poisoned plants and crops? Does this seem like a logical or rational process to any scientifically-minded person? Unfortunately it doesn't stop there.
After feeding animals G.M. plants and crops, we inject them with chemical vaccines and growth hormones before the meat from those animals is itself injected with copious amounts of nitrate and phosphate solutions. And these animals may be genetically modified or cloned themselves. A recent article published in The Telegraph, entitled "Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk” states that "scientists have now created genetically modified cattle that produce 'human' milk in a bid to make cows' milk more nutritious."1
More nutritious? Does anyone have any idea what the long-term health effects of this supposedly more nutritious milk will be on those who drink it? Will the scientists and the regulatory agencies employed by the G.M. companies give this milk their stamp of approval to hurry it to the supermarket shelves for infant consumption? What about the cattle that have been genetically modified in this manner? How will this impact the now genetically modified bovine species?
Scientists have also been studying the rapid decline in the honey bee population and wondering if it is the result of chemical poisoning and G.M. plants, or if cellular phone technology might be a contributing factor as well. All we know at this point is that the honey bees are dying off in droves in what has been labeled as "Colony Collapse Disorder". How will the crops and plants be pollinated if we kill off the honey bees with all of these technological "advances"? Or will this strictly limit us in the future to G.M. plants and crops, and who would that serve?
Even if someone were to research just the few areas mentioned above, it should be evident that our so-called scientific advancements are having a profoundly negative impact on the planet. Through chemicals and genetic modifications, we are poisoning the plants, crops and animals that we depend on for food while at the same time destroying the natural strains and species that are integral to the extremely complex and interdependent eco-system. We have absolutely no clue what the long-term health effects of all of these changes are, only that there are more sick people now than ever before. In fact hospitals are overflowing. And we haven't even touched on many of the other various ways that our food, water AND air supplies have been poisoned, e.g. chem-trails, fluoride, aspartame, irradiating our food in microwave ovens and countless other food additives, preservatives, etc. that have made their way into our homes via the likes of Monsanto and ADM.
So how do we scientifically cope with the increased numbers of sick people in this world? Why through more chemicals of course. The same system of chemical companies that poison the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe are ready and waiting with the pharmaceutical "cure" for the resulting health problems. And sadly people have elevated doctors and the medical profession to the point that most are completely close-minded to what is really going on...
WE ARE BEING POISONED FOR PROFIT.
Nowhere is this easier to see than in the United States. The truth is Americans spend around $2 trillion a year on health-care to enjoy life-spans that are shorter than 30 other countries around the world and infant mortality rates higher than 20 other developed countries. Americans consume over half of all the drugs manufactured in the world, picking from over 200,000 non-prescription and over 30,000 prescription drugs that are available. Doctors (glorified drug dealers really) facilitate this process by writing over 3 billion prescriptions annually. In addition, despite all of these efforts and all of the research money that has gone into fighting cancer, our chances of dying from cancer are no better than they were in 19502.
Healing in His Wings
Does any of this sound remotely logical (sane), progressive or self-sustaining?
-
A Freeman
- Banned
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2025 8:03 am
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: A Letter for
Post #3We Have the Technology to Destroy a Planet...This One
The 20th century saw the advent of the airplane, the automobile and the television. These were true technological advancements that would benefit us all...or so we were told.
The television is the greatest mind-control and propaganda machine ever invented. It is a weapon of mass persuasion, owned and controlled by criminals who use it to hypnotize the sleep-walking masses into thinking whatever and however THEY* want people to think. Why do you think they call them "programs"? The programming runs so deep that most can't believe something is true unless the TV says so.
*THEY = The Hierarchy Enslaving You
Along with the automobile and the increased freedom to travel came all of the poisonous exhaust gases that are causing the green-house effect mentioned earlier. In addition, each and every one of the hundreds of millions of automobiles on the road today is giving off a great deal of extra and unnatural heat, which further heats up the Earth inside the green-house effect they caused. In turn, this is melting the polar ice-caps and drastically changing the climate, with horrifying results. It is estimated that every minute we put 95 more vehicles on the road3 while destroying another 90 acres of rain forest4. Does that even remotely sound like a good idea?
Of course these technological advancements have made life temporarily seem easier, but at the very same time they are unquestionably having an adverse effect on the planet. And the same technology that brought us airplanes and cars has been used to develop more sophisticated weapons of war and their delivery systems, which in turn has elevated our destructive potential exponentially. But the TV and the self-professed experts—reportedly the smartest people on earth—tell us to believe in science and that it will save the planet.
Science is going to save the planet? SCIENCE IS DESTROYING THE PLANET.
The truth is we are barreling toward a brick wall at break-neck speed and are being told to sit back and enjoy the ride by the very same people who set us on this kamikaze course. Which brings us back to one of the fundamental flaws in the scientific approach: a complete lack of humility, coupled with corporate and individual greed and selfishness. This arrogance clouds all truly rational judgment and is an integral part of the egotistical mindset that dominates science at every level and in every field. There are absolutely no exceptions.
If you are in doubt of how widespread this arrogance is, then please consider why anyone would tamper with their own life support system when they do not fully understand how it works. We shouldn't be too proud of these technological terrors we've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the Power of The (Divine) Force.
The 20th century saw the advent of the airplane, the automobile and the television. These were true technological advancements that would benefit us all...or so we were told.
The television is the greatest mind-control and propaganda machine ever invented. It is a weapon of mass persuasion, owned and controlled by criminals who use it to hypnotize the sleep-walking masses into thinking whatever and however THEY* want people to think. Why do you think they call them "programs"? The programming runs so deep that most can't believe something is true unless the TV says so.
*THEY = The Hierarchy Enslaving You
Along with the automobile and the increased freedom to travel came all of the poisonous exhaust gases that are causing the green-house effect mentioned earlier. In addition, each and every one of the hundreds of millions of automobiles on the road today is giving off a great deal of extra and unnatural heat, which further heats up the Earth inside the green-house effect they caused. In turn, this is melting the polar ice-caps and drastically changing the climate, with horrifying results. It is estimated that every minute we put 95 more vehicles on the road3 while destroying another 90 acres of rain forest4. Does that even remotely sound like a good idea?
Of course these technological advancements have made life temporarily seem easier, but at the very same time they are unquestionably having an adverse effect on the planet. And the same technology that brought us airplanes and cars has been used to develop more sophisticated weapons of war and their delivery systems, which in turn has elevated our destructive potential exponentially. But the TV and the self-professed experts—reportedly the smartest people on earth—tell us to believe in science and that it will save the planet.
Science is going to save the planet? SCIENCE IS DESTROYING THE PLANET.
The truth is we are barreling toward a brick wall at break-neck speed and are being told to sit back and enjoy the ride by the very same people who set us on this kamikaze course. Which brings us back to one of the fundamental flaws in the scientific approach: a complete lack of humility, coupled with corporate and individual greed and selfishness. This arrogance clouds all truly rational judgment and is an integral part of the egotistical mindset that dominates science at every level and in every field. There are absolutely no exceptions.
If you are in doubt of how widespread this arrogance is, then please consider why anyone would tamper with their own life support system when they do not fully understand how it works. We shouldn't be too proud of these technological terrors we've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the Power of The (Divine) Force.
-
A Freeman
- Banned
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2025 8:03 am
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: A Letter for
Post #4The Organized Religion Crime Syndicate
Looking at organized religion from a logical, scientific point of view, who could believe that the Supreme Being and King Ruler of the Universe needs all of these churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. and their so-called spiritual leaders to impose their silly rites and rituals on the people of planet Earth? Does anyone really believe that an All-Powerful God needs everyone's money to do good in this world, or that turning over one's hard-earned income to the churches is a prerequisite for salvation?
What did Christ actually tell us about God and materialism/money 2000 years ago when He was here in the body of Jesus?
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye CANNOT serve God and materialism.
How then could anyone possibly think that the priests, pastors, rabbi, imams, etc. are working for God while at the same time representing the largest business empire on the planet? What did Christ actually say about them?
Matthew 23:8-12
23:8 But be not ye called priest (etc.): for One is your Teacher, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.
23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Matthew 15:14 LET THEM ALONE: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (or Pit).
Not only should there not be any priests, etc., there shouldn't be any churches either.
Matthew 6:5-8
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt NOT be as the hypocrites [ARE]: for they love to pray standing in the churches and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and WHEN THOU HAST SHUT THY DOOR, pray to thy Father in private (Enoch 56:5; Sura 7:55); and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
6:7 But when ye pray, use NOT vain repetitions, as the heathen [DO]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
6:8 Be NOT ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, BEFORE ye ask Him.
Enoch 56:5 Henceforward shall the holy people be told to seek in heaven the secrets of righteousness (Matt. 6:6; Sura 7:55), the portion of faith; for like the sun has it arisen upon the Earth (Matt. 24:27), while darkness has passed away. There shall be Light which cannot be calculated, nor shall they enter upon the enumeration of time (Rev. 10:6); for "Darkness" shall be previously destroyed, and Light shall increase before the Lord of spirits; before the Lord of spirits shall the Light of uprightness increase for ever (Rev. 22:4-5).
Sura 7:55. Call on your Lord with HUMILITY and in PRIVATE (Enoch 56:5; Matt. 6:6): for "I AM" loveth not those who trespass beyond bounds.
How could so many be duped into believing what they are told by people who obviously don't read much less practice what they preach? The Christ/Messiah/Mahdi told us that NO ONE should be a church leader (priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc.) or even go to church much less give money to the world's largest organized crime syndicate, i.e. ALL organized religion and their leaders, who are in fact the blind leading the blind.
Judge a Tree By Its Fruit
How would one reconcile the rampant criminal actions of these same church leaders—who have been found guilty of adultery, rape, child molestation, pedophilia, extortion, embezzlement, etc., and also the repeated conspiring to cover-up all of these crimes—with God, Whom they claim to represent? These self-proclaimed spiritual leaders seem to prove on a regular basis that they are not only no better than the rest of us, but often-times far worse. How can they claim to represent God/Good and be so evil?
The churches and their leaders (priests, etc.) tell us the theories of evolution and creation are mutually exclusive and that we should take their word for it. Shouldn't we at least read the Basic Instructions from our Creator for ourselves rather than trusting these salvation brokers and self-professed experts? Isn't it obvious that they haven't read nor understood the Instructions themselves?
The King Ruler of the Universe has told us that there is only ONE Mediator between God and men: Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). So how can there be all of these priests, etc. when God says they don't exist?
ALL organized religion is trying to lead us AWAY from God, Who is absolutely nothing like He is portrayed by the church leaders who don't know Him, don't obey Him and certainly don't work for Him. ALL organized religion is actually teaching the opposite of what God has told us in His-Story, found in the Bible AND the Koran.
No wonder there are so many atheists and agnostics in the world today with this generation of vipers falsely claiming to be God's representatives on earth.
Looking at organized religion from a logical, scientific point of view, who could believe that the Supreme Being and King Ruler of the Universe needs all of these churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. and their so-called spiritual leaders to impose their silly rites and rituals on the people of planet Earth? Does anyone really believe that an All-Powerful God needs everyone's money to do good in this world, or that turning over one's hard-earned income to the churches is a prerequisite for salvation?
What did Christ actually tell us about God and materialism/money 2000 years ago when He was here in the body of Jesus?
Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye CANNOT serve God and materialism.
How then could anyone possibly think that the priests, pastors, rabbi, imams, etc. are working for God while at the same time representing the largest business empire on the planet? What did Christ actually say about them?
Matthew 23:8-12
23:8 But be not ye called priest (etc.): for One is your Teacher, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.
23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.
23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Matthew 15:14 LET THEM ALONE: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (or Pit).
Not only should there not be any priests, etc., there shouldn't be any churches either.
Matthew 6:5-8
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt NOT be as the hypocrites [ARE]: for they love to pray standing in the churches and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and WHEN THOU HAST SHUT THY DOOR, pray to thy Father in private (Enoch 56:5; Sura 7:55); and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
6:7 But when ye pray, use NOT vain repetitions, as the heathen [DO]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
6:8 Be NOT ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, BEFORE ye ask Him.
Enoch 56:5 Henceforward shall the holy people be told to seek in heaven the secrets of righteousness (Matt. 6:6; Sura 7:55), the portion of faith; for like the sun has it arisen upon the Earth (Matt. 24:27), while darkness has passed away. There shall be Light which cannot be calculated, nor shall they enter upon the enumeration of time (Rev. 10:6); for "Darkness" shall be previously destroyed, and Light shall increase before the Lord of spirits; before the Lord of spirits shall the Light of uprightness increase for ever (Rev. 22:4-5).
Sura 7:55. Call on your Lord with HUMILITY and in PRIVATE (Enoch 56:5; Matt. 6:6): for "I AM" loveth not those who trespass beyond bounds.
How could so many be duped into believing what they are told by people who obviously don't read much less practice what they preach? The Christ/Messiah/Mahdi told us that NO ONE should be a church leader (priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc.) or even go to church much less give money to the world's largest organized crime syndicate, i.e. ALL organized religion and their leaders, who are in fact the blind leading the blind.
Judge a Tree By Its Fruit
How would one reconcile the rampant criminal actions of these same church leaders—who have been found guilty of adultery, rape, child molestation, pedophilia, extortion, embezzlement, etc., and also the repeated conspiring to cover-up all of these crimes—with God, Whom they claim to represent? These self-proclaimed spiritual leaders seem to prove on a regular basis that they are not only no better than the rest of us, but often-times far worse. How can they claim to represent God/Good and be so evil?
The churches and their leaders (priests, etc.) tell us the theories of evolution and creation are mutually exclusive and that we should take their word for it. Shouldn't we at least read the Basic Instructions from our Creator for ourselves rather than trusting these salvation brokers and self-professed experts? Isn't it obvious that they haven't read nor understood the Instructions themselves?
The King Ruler of the Universe has told us that there is only ONE Mediator between God and men: Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). So how can there be all of these priests, etc. when God says they don't exist?
ALL organized religion is trying to lead us AWAY from God, Who is absolutely nothing like He is portrayed by the church leaders who don't know Him, don't obey Him and certainly don't work for Him. ALL organized religion is actually teaching the opposite of what God has told us in His-Story, found in the Bible AND the Koran.
No wonder there are so many atheists and agnostics in the world today with this generation of vipers falsely claiming to be God's representatives on earth.
-
A Freeman
- Banned
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2025 8:03 am
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: A Letter for
Post #5The True Origin of Evolution
So where did we really come from and why are we here? What is the purpose of life?
Does anyone really believe we are here just to "have fun" and to accumulate as much material wealth as we can at the expense of our fellow man and future generations? Don't we have to consider the reason for our existence in any comprehensive study into the origins of life on this planet? Hopefully we can all agree not to allow ourselves to be fooled by this circus act known as organized religion. But it is critically important for us to separate the concept of the Supreme Being, the Lord Guardian Of Divinity, from ALL forms of organized religion and superstitious nonsense and read His Books with an open mind...i.e. without any preconceived notions...as part of any honest and thorough search for the truth.
If we do that, it doesn't take long to find glaring contradictions between what the churches and their leaders teach and what is really written in the Bible and the Koran. A good example of this is investigating what the Scriptures actually teach us about evolution.
Nowhere in the Bible or the Koran does it tell us that the theory of evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. In fact, if we turn to the very first page of the Bible, we will find EXACTLY where Darwin got his theory of evolution.
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
So Darwin wasn't that clever, he just knew how to read and must have believed in God and the Bible, because that is exactly where he got his theory.
Please note well that God also states on the very first page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation). Afterwards God CREATED (Adam) man, SEPARATELY, on the sixth day. It is also noteworthy that before his death, Darwin acknowledged there was a "missing-link" and admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.
That too is explained on the first page of The Bible along with the purpose of life. We are here to learn from God how to be Good/Sane and to REplenish the earth, meaning we were placed here approximately 6000 earth years ago AFTER everything else was created and/or had evolved.
Genesis 1:26-28
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in Our image, and teach him to be like Us (i.e. Good/Sane): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in His [Own] image, in the Image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REplenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Raising Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) is probably best known for his contributions to probability and the tabular presentation of binomial coefficients in what is now known as Pascal's Triangle, where each number in the table is the sum of the two numbers directly above it.
Pascal also put forward the following probability argument in the hope of appealing to agnostics. An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.
His argument goes something like this: God either exists or He doesn't. If we believe God and He exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe God and He does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures. If we do not believe God and He does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but in not turning to Him with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength we will face eternal damnation. Alternatively, if we do not believe God and He does not exist then our sins will not be punished. Given those options, would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?
Pascal's Wager by itself will likely be dismissed as a false dichotomy. However, if we add to Pascal's Wager the fact that 2/3 of the Bible is prophecy, 99+% of which has already been fulfilled in exact and minute detail, wouldn't it be extremely foolish given that track record for anyone to think the remaining less than 1% will not likewise be fulfilled in exact and minute detail?
So where did we really come from and why are we here? What is the purpose of life?
Does anyone really believe we are here just to "have fun" and to accumulate as much material wealth as we can at the expense of our fellow man and future generations? Don't we have to consider the reason for our existence in any comprehensive study into the origins of life on this planet? Hopefully we can all agree not to allow ourselves to be fooled by this circus act known as organized religion. But it is critically important for us to separate the concept of the Supreme Being, the Lord Guardian Of Divinity, from ALL forms of organized religion and superstitious nonsense and read His Books with an open mind...i.e. without any preconceived notions...as part of any honest and thorough search for the truth.
If we do that, it doesn't take long to find glaring contradictions between what the churches and their leaders teach and what is really written in the Bible and the Koran. A good example of this is investigating what the Scriptures actually teach us about evolution.
Nowhere in the Bible or the Koran does it tell us that the theory of evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. In fact, if we turn to the very first page of the Bible, we will find EXACTLY where Darwin got his theory of evolution.
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
So Darwin wasn't that clever, he just knew how to read and must have believed in God and the Bible, because that is exactly where he got his theory.
Please note well that God also states on the very first page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation). Afterwards God CREATED (Adam) man, SEPARATELY, on the sixth day. It is also noteworthy that before his death, Darwin acknowledged there was a "missing-link" and admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.
That too is explained on the first page of The Bible along with the purpose of life. We are here to learn from God how to be Good/Sane and to REplenish the earth, meaning we were placed here approximately 6000 earth years ago AFTER everything else was created and/or had evolved.
Genesis 1:26-28
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in Our image, and teach him to be like Us (i.e. Good/Sane): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in His [Own] image, in the Image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REplenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Raising Pascal's Wager
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) is probably best known for his contributions to probability and the tabular presentation of binomial coefficients in what is now known as Pascal's Triangle, where each number in the table is the sum of the two numbers directly above it.
Pascal also put forward the following probability argument in the hope of appealing to agnostics. An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.
His argument goes something like this: God either exists or He doesn't. If we believe God and He exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe God and He does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures. If we do not believe God and He does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but in not turning to Him with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength we will face eternal damnation. Alternatively, if we do not believe God and He does not exist then our sins will not be punished. Given those options, would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation?
Pascal's Wager by itself will likely be dismissed as a false dichotomy. However, if we add to Pascal's Wager the fact that 2/3 of the Bible is prophecy, 99+% of which has already been fulfilled in exact and minute detail, wouldn't it be extremely foolish given that track record for anyone to think the remaining less than 1% will not likewise be fulfilled in exact and minute detail?
-
A Freeman
- Banned
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2025 8:03 am
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: A Letter for
Post #6Nature is No Random Number Generator
If we take an honest and objective look at the world around us, does it really appear to be the result of random occurrences that simply had enough time to sort themselves out? Is there not a difference between patterns and designs? Do causal mechanisms adequately explain what we physically observe in nature?
Science defines a causal mechanism as a sequence of events or conditions, governed by lawlike regularities, leading from the explanans to the explanandum.
So who or what made up the laws that govern these causal mechanisms? How can there be laws without a lawmaker?
One of the most widespread and readily observable designs in nature is Fibonacci numbers. They appear everywhere in nature, from the leaf arrangement in plants, to the pattern of the florets of a flower, the bracts of a pine-cone, the scales of a pineapple, even in hurricanes. They are nature's numbering system. Fibonacci numbers are found in honey bee family trees, shell spirals, petals on flowers, seed heads and in leaf and limb arrangements, to name a few.
Fibonacci numbers are actually a mathematical series. The first twelve numbers in the series are as follows:
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144,
where every number in the series is the sum of the two numbers that precede it.
Johannes Kepler, the German mathematician and astronomer, observed that the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers converges. He wrote that "as 5 is to 8 so is 8 to 13, practically, and as 8 is to 13, so is 13 to 21 almost", and concluded that the limit approaches the golden ratio , where
which has the unique property among positive numbers of its inverse being exactly one less than itself, so that
Interestingly, it was the very same Johannes Kepler, the Astronomer Royal in Prague, who in 1603 computed that in the year 7 B.C. there was a conjunction of Jupiter (the king of the planets) and Saturn (thought to be the protector of Israel) in the Constellation of Pisces (the Sign of the Messiah), that was first visible at daybreak on the 12th of April 7 B.C. The Passover in 7 B.C. was on Monday April 13th which commenced at sunset on the 12th.
The earth-shattering significance of this conjunction – Messiah; King; Protector of Israel; Passover – was the cosmic event described in the second chapter of the book of Matthew, in the Bible, that marked the actual birth-date of Jesus and the promise of the golden age to come.
Golden Rule Reminders Everywhere
If we look to the stars we find that spiral galaxies, including our own Milky Way, also conform to Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio.
We are literally surrounded with evidence that life on this planet and out in the universe is extremely ordered and strictly adheres to a meticulous set of laws. In fact the more we observe and study our natural surroundings, the clearer it becomes that NOTHING is random. If we revisit Pascal's Triangle we will notice that even it contains Fibonacci numbers.
Fibonacci numbers in the diagonals of Pascal's Triangle
And the Fibonacci numbers don't stop with the macroscopic world; they are part of the microscopic world as well.
The DNA molecule, the program for all life, is also based on the golden ratio, represented as (phi). It measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral. DNA in the cell appears as a double-stranded helix referred to as B-DNA. This form of DNA has two grooves in its spirals, with a ratio of phi in the proportion of the major groove to the minor groove, or roughly 21 angstroms to 13 angstroms. The DNA cross-section is likewise based on phi, as the cross-section of the DNA double helix forms a decagon5.
A decagon is basically two concentric pentagons, with one rotated by 36 degrees from the other, so each spiral of the double helix must trace out the shape of a pentagon. The ratio of the diagonal of a pentagon to its side is phi to 1. So, no matter which way you look at it, the fundamental building blocks of life are constructed using the golden ratio!
Could it be with so many reminders of the golden ratio and golden numbers in our surroundings and in every cell of every living organism on the planet that someone is trying to send us a message to follow the golden rule? The golden rule, which is a restatement of the Second Great Commandment (Mark 12:31), says we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Strict adherence to this simple rule would end all oppression, injustice and war on this planet.
If we take an honest and objective look at the world around us, does it really appear to be the result of random occurrences that simply had enough time to sort themselves out? Is there not a difference between patterns and designs? Do causal mechanisms adequately explain what we physically observe in nature?
Science defines a causal mechanism as a sequence of events or conditions, governed by lawlike regularities, leading from the explanans to the explanandum.
So who or what made up the laws that govern these causal mechanisms? How can there be laws without a lawmaker?
One of the most widespread and readily observable designs in nature is Fibonacci numbers. They appear everywhere in nature, from the leaf arrangement in plants, to the pattern of the florets of a flower, the bracts of a pine-cone, the scales of a pineapple, even in hurricanes. They are nature's numbering system. Fibonacci numbers are found in honey bee family trees, shell spirals, petals on flowers, seed heads and in leaf and limb arrangements, to name a few.
Fibonacci numbers are actually a mathematical series. The first twelve numbers in the series are as follows:
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144,
where every number in the series is the sum of the two numbers that precede it.
Johannes Kepler, the German mathematician and astronomer, observed that the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers converges. He wrote that "as 5 is to 8 so is 8 to 13, practically, and as 8 is to 13, so is 13 to 21 almost", and concluded that the limit approaches the golden ratio , where
which has the unique property among positive numbers of its inverse being exactly one less than itself, so that
Interestingly, it was the very same Johannes Kepler, the Astronomer Royal in Prague, who in 1603 computed that in the year 7 B.C. there was a conjunction of Jupiter (the king of the planets) and Saturn (thought to be the protector of Israel) in the Constellation of Pisces (the Sign of the Messiah), that was first visible at daybreak on the 12th of April 7 B.C. The Passover in 7 B.C. was on Monday April 13th which commenced at sunset on the 12th.
The earth-shattering significance of this conjunction – Messiah; King; Protector of Israel; Passover – was the cosmic event described in the second chapter of the book of Matthew, in the Bible, that marked the actual birth-date of Jesus and the promise of the golden age to come.
Golden Rule Reminders Everywhere
If we look to the stars we find that spiral galaxies, including our own Milky Way, also conform to Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio.
We are literally surrounded with evidence that life on this planet and out in the universe is extremely ordered and strictly adheres to a meticulous set of laws. In fact the more we observe and study our natural surroundings, the clearer it becomes that NOTHING is random. If we revisit Pascal's Triangle we will notice that even it contains Fibonacci numbers.
Fibonacci numbers in the diagonals of Pascal's Triangle
And the Fibonacci numbers don't stop with the macroscopic world; they are part of the microscopic world as well.
The DNA molecule, the program for all life, is also based on the golden ratio, represented as (phi). It measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral. DNA in the cell appears as a double-stranded helix referred to as B-DNA. This form of DNA has two grooves in its spirals, with a ratio of phi in the proportion of the major groove to the minor groove, or roughly 21 angstroms to 13 angstroms. The DNA cross-section is likewise based on phi, as the cross-section of the DNA double helix forms a decagon5.
A decagon is basically two concentric pentagons, with one rotated by 36 degrees from the other, so each spiral of the double helix must trace out the shape of a pentagon. The ratio of the diagonal of a pentagon to its side is phi to 1. So, no matter which way you look at it, the fundamental building blocks of life are constructed using the golden ratio!
Could it be with so many reminders of the golden ratio and golden numbers in our surroundings and in every cell of every living organism on the planet that someone is trying to send us a message to follow the golden rule? The golden rule, which is a restatement of the Second Great Commandment (Mark 12:31), says we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Strict adherence to this simple rule would end all oppression, injustice and war on this planet.
-
A Freeman
- Banned
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2025 8:03 am
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: A Letter for
Post #7DNA – Design NOT Accident
The Human Genome Project (HGP) is likely the single largest international science project in the history of mankind. It formally began in 1989 and initially sought to identify and map the 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA and the sequences of the 3 billion chemical pairs that make up human DNA. The project goals were reportedly met in 2003, although additional sequences in areas like the central regions and ends of each chromosome, where the DNA sequences are highly repetitive, are still being mapped as the technology becomes available to do so.
But even with just what is presently known, the results of this project are astonishing. We have already discovered that DNA is by far the most efficient means of storing data known to man. In just one gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, it would be possible to store approximately one trillion CDs worth of information6 (or the equivalent of 250 billion DVDs).
To help put this into perspective, consider that a stack of 250 billion DVDs would stretch more than 3/4 of the way to the moon. And all of that information could be stored in a single gram of DNA the size of a sugar cube.
Put another way, the DNA information is so densely organized that a single teaspoonful could carry the instructions for building the entire population of planet Earth...hundreds of times over. We may think we have done well packing information densely onto chips, computer hard drives and DVDs, etc. but all of these devices store information on the surface only. DNA stores information in three dimensions and is by far the densest information storage mechanism known to man. And DNA also has the ability to self-replicate, fix errors, read and copy itself through a process known as transcription.
If we were to travel inside the cell to witness the transcription process, what we would see is a molecular machine first unwinding a section of the DNA helix to expose the genetic instructions needed to assemble a specific protein molecule. That step would be followed by another machine making copies of these encoding instructions to form the single strand molecule we refer to as messenger RNA.
Once the transcription process has been completed, the slender RNA strand carries the genetic information through the nuclear pore complex, which is the gatekeeper for traffic in and out of the cell nucleus, and is directed to a two-part molecular factory called a ribosome. After attaching itself securely, the decoding process of translation begins.
Inside the ribosome, a molecular assembly line builds a specifically sequenced chain of amino acids. These amino acids are transported from other parts of the cell and then linked into chains often hundreds of units long. Their sequential arrangement determines the type of protein manufactured.
When the chain is finished, it is relocated from the ribosome to a barrel-shaped machine that helps fold it into the precise shape critical to its function. After the chain is folded into a protein, it is then released and shepherded to the exact location where it is needed. And all of this is going on inside every living cell, of every living creature, all of the time.
In every respect this is an absolutely amazing design and process and it is going on at a cellular level with molecular machines that we haven't even begun to understand. Thinking that causal mechanisms could explain this process in the absence of any observable or testable evidence isn't reasonable or scientific at all. Logically speaking this could only be a super-intelligent design and manufacturing process.
The Human Genome Project (HGP) is likely the single largest international science project in the history of mankind. It formally began in 1989 and initially sought to identify and map the 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA and the sequences of the 3 billion chemical pairs that make up human DNA. The project goals were reportedly met in 2003, although additional sequences in areas like the central regions and ends of each chromosome, where the DNA sequences are highly repetitive, are still being mapped as the technology becomes available to do so.
But even with just what is presently known, the results of this project are astonishing. We have already discovered that DNA is by far the most efficient means of storing data known to man. In just one gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, it would be possible to store approximately one trillion CDs worth of information6 (or the equivalent of 250 billion DVDs).
To help put this into perspective, consider that a stack of 250 billion DVDs would stretch more than 3/4 of the way to the moon. And all of that information could be stored in a single gram of DNA the size of a sugar cube.
Put another way, the DNA information is so densely organized that a single teaspoonful could carry the instructions for building the entire population of planet Earth...hundreds of times over. We may think we have done well packing information densely onto chips, computer hard drives and DVDs, etc. but all of these devices store information on the surface only. DNA stores information in three dimensions and is by far the densest information storage mechanism known to man. And DNA also has the ability to self-replicate, fix errors, read and copy itself through a process known as transcription.
If we were to travel inside the cell to witness the transcription process, what we would see is a molecular machine first unwinding a section of the DNA helix to expose the genetic instructions needed to assemble a specific protein molecule. That step would be followed by another machine making copies of these encoding instructions to form the single strand molecule we refer to as messenger RNA.
Once the transcription process has been completed, the slender RNA strand carries the genetic information through the nuclear pore complex, which is the gatekeeper for traffic in and out of the cell nucleus, and is directed to a two-part molecular factory called a ribosome. After attaching itself securely, the decoding process of translation begins.
Inside the ribosome, a molecular assembly line builds a specifically sequenced chain of amino acids. These amino acids are transported from other parts of the cell and then linked into chains often hundreds of units long. Their sequential arrangement determines the type of protein manufactured.
When the chain is finished, it is relocated from the ribosome to a barrel-shaped machine that helps fold it into the precise shape critical to its function. After the chain is folded into a protein, it is then released and shepherded to the exact location where it is needed. And all of this is going on inside every living cell, of every living creature, all of the time.
In every respect this is an absolutely amazing design and process and it is going on at a cellular level with molecular machines that we haven't even begun to understand. Thinking that causal mechanisms could explain this process in the absence of any observable or testable evidence isn't reasonable or scientific at all. Logically speaking this could only be a super-intelligent design and manufacturing process.
-
A Freeman
- Banned
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2025 8:03 am
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: A Letter for
Post #8The Super-Intelligently Designed Language of Life
In addition to being the densest and by far the most efficient means of information storage in the known universe, the genetic code in DNA is also a language.
Perry Marshall, an electrical engineer and specialist in communication systems, has made some important connections between information theory and DNA, which itself is a digital communication system7. In fact many digital communication methods that are commonplace in the information technology field have been adapted and applied to genetics research and the Human Genome Project.
The first step in understanding the significance of DNA being a language is to define the difference between a pattern and a design.
Patterns are created from matter and energy only. While patterns frequently occur in nature, not all patterns have designs. Also, with patterns there is never an exact copy. Snowflakes are an example of a naturally occurring pattern.
Conversely, all designs do have patterns and all designs require a language. Music would be an example of a design, where the notes on paper symbolically represent the music that is heard by actually playing the notes.
A language symbolically represents something other than itself. The DNA molecule represents more than itself; it represents the design information and assembly instructions for an entire living organism. Every language has 4 things: alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. Information CANNOT be created without intent and there are no examples of this ever happening.
All languages also have error correction and redundancy, just as DNA does. In fact, the functions of DNA Nucleotide, Codons, Genes, Operons and Regulons have very recognizable counterparts in the English language.
DNA / Language
Nucleotide (A, T, C, G) / Characters
Codons / Letters
Genes / Words
Operons / Sentences
Regulons / Paragraphs
So is DNA just a naturally occurring pattern, or is it a design? An essential distinction between patterns and designs is language, and DNA meets all of the criteria for being a language. There are no examples of patterns ever turning into designs so any argument that DNA began as a pattern and then later organized itself into a design is baseless no matter how much time is involved. The following conditions establish that DNA is not just a pattern but is indeed a language:
• DNA is an encoding/decoding mechanism/system that stores and transmits the messages of the living organism.
• the DNA molecule represents more than itself; it represents an entire living organism
• DNA has alphabet, syntax, semantics, pragmatics (or more simply stated alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent)
• DNA can be copied and even stored in other media with no loss of information
ALL information BEGINS with language (please see John 1:1) and does NOT occur naturally. Information is neither matter nor energy and neither matter nor energy can produce information. Since we know that information CANNOT be created without intent, and that intention/will is the property of a conscious mind, there is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn:-
The very sophisticated language of DNA was designed by a Super-Intelligent Mind.
In addition to being the densest and by far the most efficient means of information storage in the known universe, the genetic code in DNA is also a language.
Perry Marshall, an electrical engineer and specialist in communication systems, has made some important connections between information theory and DNA, which itself is a digital communication system7. In fact many digital communication methods that are commonplace in the information technology field have been adapted and applied to genetics research and the Human Genome Project.
The first step in understanding the significance of DNA being a language is to define the difference between a pattern and a design.
Patterns are created from matter and energy only. While patterns frequently occur in nature, not all patterns have designs. Also, with patterns there is never an exact copy. Snowflakes are an example of a naturally occurring pattern.
Conversely, all designs do have patterns and all designs require a language. Music would be an example of a design, where the notes on paper symbolically represent the music that is heard by actually playing the notes.
A language symbolically represents something other than itself. The DNA molecule represents more than itself; it represents the design information and assembly instructions for an entire living organism. Every language has 4 things: alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. Information CANNOT be created without intent and there are no examples of this ever happening.
All languages also have error correction and redundancy, just as DNA does. In fact, the functions of DNA Nucleotide, Codons, Genes, Operons and Regulons have very recognizable counterparts in the English language.
DNA / Language
Nucleotide (A, T, C, G) / Characters
Codons / Letters
Genes / Words
Operons / Sentences
Regulons / Paragraphs
So is DNA just a naturally occurring pattern, or is it a design? An essential distinction between patterns and designs is language, and DNA meets all of the criteria for being a language. There are no examples of patterns ever turning into designs so any argument that DNA began as a pattern and then later organized itself into a design is baseless no matter how much time is involved. The following conditions establish that DNA is not just a pattern but is indeed a language:
• DNA is an encoding/decoding mechanism/system that stores and transmits the messages of the living organism.
• the DNA molecule represents more than itself; it represents an entire living organism
• DNA has alphabet, syntax, semantics, pragmatics (or more simply stated alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent)
• DNA can be copied and even stored in other media with no loss of information
ALL information BEGINS with language (please see John 1:1) and does NOT occur naturally. Information is neither matter nor energy and neither matter nor energy can produce information. Since we know that information CANNOT be created without intent, and that intention/will is the property of a conscious mind, there is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn:-
The very sophisticated language of DNA was designed by a Super-Intelligent Mind.
-
A Freeman
- Banned
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2025 8:03 am
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: A Letter for
Post #9Evolution needs to Evolve
So we now have undeniable proof that life on this planet was designed by a Super-Intelligent Mind and that if life did evolve, the capacity to evolve had to be designed and programmed into the DNA. An example of this is the telomeric structure that determines life-span.
On the tips of each chromosome there is a structure called a telomere. The simplest way to think of this structure is that it is a timing device, with a series of beads attached to the end. Every time the cell divides the telomere is shortened by a bead. Once the beads are all gone, cell division is no longer possible, eventually resulting in cell death.
The machinery by which cells divide is controlled by the instruction code programmed into the DNA. So a big part of aging is a pre-programmed genetic limit rather than the result of any random mutation or genetic drift.
It is interesting to note that in the English language, the word "evolution", with a single exception, always refers to an intelligent process, whether it is applied to personal or social development, business, manufacturing or technology, etc. That single exception is of course materialistic Darwinian evolution.
Darwinism is actually the belief in random mutation with no intention, no purpose, and no planning, coupled with natural selection and enough time. This hypothesis of evolution by random process has now been scientifically disproven by information theory.
Natural selection on the other hand is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again. But no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. Information theory shows us why this is so: in communication systems, random mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal; it NEVER enhances it.
In communication systems this is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as it is for thermodynamic entropy. To keep things simple, entropy is a scientific term describing an irreversible process of degradation. Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. Thus we can be absolutely certain that random mutation is not the source of biodiversity.
Building a Better Watch
About 200 years ago, William Paley advanced a teleological argument for the existence of God that goes something like this: if I found a watch in the woods I would know it was designed, and since life also has a purpose, it too must have been designed.
David Hume's attempted refutation of this argument was that we can't prove life has a purpose, so we can't prove design. He posited that for the design argument to be feasible, order and purpose are only observed when they result from design. Hume went on to claim that order is regularly observed in nature, in presumably mindless processes such as the formation of a snowflake.
But we already know that a snowflake is a pattern, NOT a design. It is the result of the correct conditions being met to form a snowflake. The essential distinction between patterns and designs is language. You cannot present a design idea without language and the idea ALWAYS precedes the implementation of the idea.
If we reexamine Paley's watch argument we find that the common element to both the watch and to life is language, and language requires intent. The watch is preceded by a design idea that becomes a plan or blueprint for building the watch. Life is preceded by DNA, the language created to carry out the plan and assembly instructions for life.
Therefore Hume's attempted refutation fails against the better watch argument.
So we now have undeniable proof that life on this planet was designed by a Super-Intelligent Mind and that if life did evolve, the capacity to evolve had to be designed and programmed into the DNA. An example of this is the telomeric structure that determines life-span.
On the tips of each chromosome there is a structure called a telomere. The simplest way to think of this structure is that it is a timing device, with a series of beads attached to the end. Every time the cell divides the telomere is shortened by a bead. Once the beads are all gone, cell division is no longer possible, eventually resulting in cell death.
The machinery by which cells divide is controlled by the instruction code programmed into the DNA. So a big part of aging is a pre-programmed genetic limit rather than the result of any random mutation or genetic drift.
It is interesting to note that in the English language, the word "evolution", with a single exception, always refers to an intelligent process, whether it is applied to personal or social development, business, manufacturing or technology, etc. That single exception is of course materialistic Darwinian evolution.
Darwinism is actually the belief in random mutation with no intention, no purpose, and no planning, coupled with natural selection and enough time. This hypothesis of evolution by random process has now been scientifically disproven by information theory.
Natural selection on the other hand is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again. But no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. Information theory shows us why this is so: in communication systems, random mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal; it NEVER enhances it.
In communication systems this is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as it is for thermodynamic entropy. To keep things simple, entropy is a scientific term describing an irreversible process of degradation. Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. Thus we can be absolutely certain that random mutation is not the source of biodiversity.
Building a Better Watch
About 200 years ago, William Paley advanced a teleological argument for the existence of God that goes something like this: if I found a watch in the woods I would know it was designed, and since life also has a purpose, it too must have been designed.
David Hume's attempted refutation of this argument was that we can't prove life has a purpose, so we can't prove design. He posited that for the design argument to be feasible, order and purpose are only observed when they result from design. Hume went on to claim that order is regularly observed in nature, in presumably mindless processes such as the formation of a snowflake.
But we already know that a snowflake is a pattern, NOT a design. It is the result of the correct conditions being met to form a snowflake. The essential distinction between patterns and designs is language. You cannot present a design idea without language and the idea ALWAYS precedes the implementation of the idea.
If we reexamine Paley's watch argument we find that the common element to both the watch and to life is language, and language requires intent. The watch is preceded by a design idea that becomes a plan or blueprint for building the watch. Life is preceded by DNA, the language created to carry out the plan and assembly instructions for life.
Therefore Hume's attempted refutation fails against the better watch argument.
-
A Freeman
- Banned
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2025 8:03 am
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Re: A Letter for
Post #10The Missing Link
As previously mentioned, materialistic Darwinian evolution stands alone in its application of the word "evolution". In all other uses of the word, evolution describes a process of learning based on the scientific evaluation method of observing a cause and effect along with testing and validating prior to implementation. It is of critical importance to note there is a "feedback loop" in this process, or in other words a means for the information gathered to be incorporated and put into use.
Darwinism would have us believe that blind, random mutations can and supposedly do occur with no intention, purpose or planning. All that is needed is to throw in natural selection and enough time and everything will magically sort itself out. But has this process EVER been observed? No. If you introduce noise into communication it never helps. If you introduce chaos into order, the information doesn't organize or improve itself no matter how much time there is.
Random mutations follow the exact same principle. The very idea of random mutation violates the whole nature of how information is created. Assuming for a moment that mutations would improve rather than degrade features, how would the mutations target a specific area in need of improvement? It's of critical importance to note there is no "feedback loop" in this process, or in other words there's no means for the information gathered to be incorporated and put into use.
This is the critical missing link in the entire Darwinian mindset and the reason LaMarckian evolutionary theory was dismissed decades ago. There simply isn't a physical means for the information gathered by the organism to be communicated and programmed into the DNA code, in the exact location required to make specific and meaningful changes to the transitional area.
The Gene Pool
In all communication systems, the encoding/decoding process of an idea starts at the top, goes to the alphabet for encoding, and then the alphabetic/symbolic representation of the idea gets transmitted to the recipient, where it is subsequently decoded. As we know, information does NOT occur naturally and ALL information is based on language.
While language may take on many different forms, there is no other way to convey information from design to implementation aside from language. DNA is not only a language; it is the most exquisitely engineered communication protocol that anyone has ever seen. In humans, it is a three-billion lettered program communicating to the cell to carry out specific functions in a very calculated and specific way. And DNA is unrivaled in its sophistication, elegance, precision, repeatability and in its storage density.
Which begs the question: Does anyone really believe that this highly complex, highly reliable molecular machinery could come about by chance or by random mutation? Without solid proof, wouldn't such a belief amount to a blind leap of faith?
It has been said that "...the point of evolutionary theory is to explain phenomena without having to appeal to intelligence or divine design8". Indeed. That is precisely the point and therein lies the fundamental flaw in reasoning.
Regardless of the field of study, the goal of all scientific research should be the pursuit of truth. We should all feel as Henry David Thoreau did when he said "Any Truth is better than make-believe…rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." So if someone rules out certain possibilities beforehand, how can their evaluation method be valid? How can any conclusions they may reach be objective? We have a long history of selfishly manipulating scientific theories into scientific “fact” only to have them later disproved when the truth can no longer remain hidden.
It is an established fact that ALL information is based on language and does NOT occur naturally. Information is neither matter nor energy and neither matter nor energy can produce information. Information CANNOT be created without intent, and intention (or will) is the property of a conscious mind, NOT the result of senseless, unconnected random mutations no one has ever observed and which have been proven to be impossible.
Impossible?
DNA carries the encoded hereditary assembly instructions in the form of base pairs or letters which form the connecting "rungs" of the double-helix ladder of life. Sections or "words" of DNA can be formed from these letters and are referred to as genes. Typically a single gene will code for a single protein chain.
In the smallest theoretical living thing, the average gene would still consist of over 1200 letters, or base pairs. For reference, the smallest living cell contains 600 genes while a set of human chromosomes consists of over 2 million genes. So what is the statistical probability of a series of the DNA code letters arranging themselves in order to form just one…JUST ONE…usable "word" (gene) by chance?
To give chance the best hope of success, the following assumptions have been made:
1. All of the atoms in the entire cosmos have been made into base pairs and are ready and available for use/linking up.
2. The linking/polymerization process will take place at the fastest known speed of atomic processes (estimated to be around 10^16 per second)
3. At this polymerization rate, the number of complete chains/words (genes) per second is 8.3 x 10^12 in any one set. In a year, a set of nucleotides/base pairs would produce 2.6 x 10^20 genes, which we will round off to 10^21.
4. Chance is trying for the first gene in the universe, so there is no pattern strand of DNA or RNA existing. The four different nucleotides will occur only in random order in the chain.
5. If just one side of the ladder or double helix is obtained, it will be considered sufficient, in the thought that if one is obtained, the other side might form by base pairing.
6. Nucleotides are made of atoms of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus, of which phosphorus is the least plentiful and therefore the limiting element.
7. There are estimated to be 1.5 x 10^72 phosphorus atoms in the universe, which will make 1068 sets, so that one copy of each of the four kinds of nucleotides is present at each point of the 1,200-unit chain being formed.
8. Three atoms of phosphorus are needed for each activated nucleotide. This will make 10^68 sets, so that if each set is producing 10^21 sequences per year, that will be a total of 10^89 different chains annually, using all of the appropriate atoms of the universe.
9. Each chain will be dismantled immediately and another one built until there is a usable gene. This will be done at the prodigious speed of eight trillion chains per second.
10. There are no duplicate codons.
11. Nothing will interfere, so chance will have an ideal opportunity. And if a usable sequence is ever obtained, the action will stop so it may be preserved.
12. The probability of getting a meaningful amino acid sequence to produce a usable protein for an amino acid chain 400 long is 1 in 4^400, which is equal to 1 in 10^240.
With 4 kinds of nucleotides and a chain 1200 units in length, the total possible arrangements would be 4^1200, which is approximately 10^722. The letters of a gene though are read in triplicate codons, comprising 64 kinds of triplets. A chain this size would contain 400 of these triplets, or 64^400 possible combinations, which is the same as figuring the possible orders by individual letter arrangements, namely 10^722.
Many of the twenty amino acids though are coded by more than one triplet, and though some believe these duplicate codons represent "historical accidents” or "junk DNA" there is a growing body of evidence that this isn't the case9, 10. If there is no such thing as junk DNA, the probability of a single gene arranging itself by chance in the entire universe is simply one chance in the total number of possible arrangements. In other words,
The probability of just one gene in the entire universe arranging itself by chance is 1 in 10^722.
Which could be expressed as 1/10^722, or 10^-722. But even if we assume that junk DNA does exist, and decided to treat all of the duplicate codons as if they were useless extras, the odds don't get much better. With only twenty-one different possible primary outcomes for each codon position (twenty amino acids plus the "end of the chain"), for a chain 400 amino acids long the potential outcomes are 21^400, which is approximately 10528. Allowing one substitution per chain, the equivalent total of different sequences would reduce to 10524.
Since this is still less likely than the sequencing to produce a single, usable protein, 1/10^240 will be used for the probability of obtaining a usable gene on any try for the very first gene11. This probability reduces to 1/10236 by allowing for one substitution. Multiplying this by the total orders produced in a year of all of the nucleotide sets from the entire cosmos, the probability of getting a usable gene in a year is 10^89/10^236, or 1/10^147. So with all of the concessions given in the list of assumptions above, a usable gene could be expected to occur in 10^147 years12. And that's just to produce ONE gene working with all of the nucleotide sets of all of the atoms of the universe at incredible speed. Let's not forget that the smallest known cell has about 600 genes.
For reference, if we assume that the universe is 15 billion years old, we would need trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions...repeat this 12 times total...of times the assumed age of the universe to produce one gene by chance even working at the astronomical speed assumed. So anyone who mistakenly thinks that enough time can magically produce extremely improbable results is choosing to believe in a proven fantasy. The fallacy of such a mistaken belief lies in the size of the figures.
To better understand just how big a number like 10^147 really is, consider that one trillion trillion is only 1024. Written out, 10^147 is a 1 followed by 147 zeros. And we're still talking about just ONE gene arranging itself by dumb luck during that period of time. Each subsequent gene match would be another order of magnitude less likely to occur. Common sense should make it clear that getting hundreds or even millions of genes to arrange themselves by chance given these odds is completely ridiculous. But does that mean life by the Darwinian evolutionary theory is absolutely impossible?
As previously mentioned, materialistic Darwinian evolution stands alone in its application of the word "evolution". In all other uses of the word, evolution describes a process of learning based on the scientific evaluation method of observing a cause and effect along with testing and validating prior to implementation. It is of critical importance to note there is a "feedback loop" in this process, or in other words a means for the information gathered to be incorporated and put into use.
Darwinism would have us believe that blind, random mutations can and supposedly do occur with no intention, purpose or planning. All that is needed is to throw in natural selection and enough time and everything will magically sort itself out. But has this process EVER been observed? No. If you introduce noise into communication it never helps. If you introduce chaos into order, the information doesn't organize or improve itself no matter how much time there is.
Random mutations follow the exact same principle. The very idea of random mutation violates the whole nature of how information is created. Assuming for a moment that mutations would improve rather than degrade features, how would the mutations target a specific area in need of improvement? It's of critical importance to note there is no "feedback loop" in this process, or in other words there's no means for the information gathered to be incorporated and put into use.
This is the critical missing link in the entire Darwinian mindset and the reason LaMarckian evolutionary theory was dismissed decades ago. There simply isn't a physical means for the information gathered by the organism to be communicated and programmed into the DNA code, in the exact location required to make specific and meaningful changes to the transitional area.
The Gene Pool
In all communication systems, the encoding/decoding process of an idea starts at the top, goes to the alphabet for encoding, and then the alphabetic/symbolic representation of the idea gets transmitted to the recipient, where it is subsequently decoded. As we know, information does NOT occur naturally and ALL information is based on language.
While language may take on many different forms, there is no other way to convey information from design to implementation aside from language. DNA is not only a language; it is the most exquisitely engineered communication protocol that anyone has ever seen. In humans, it is a three-billion lettered program communicating to the cell to carry out specific functions in a very calculated and specific way. And DNA is unrivaled in its sophistication, elegance, precision, repeatability and in its storage density.
Which begs the question: Does anyone really believe that this highly complex, highly reliable molecular machinery could come about by chance or by random mutation? Without solid proof, wouldn't such a belief amount to a blind leap of faith?
It has been said that "...the point of evolutionary theory is to explain phenomena without having to appeal to intelligence or divine design8". Indeed. That is precisely the point and therein lies the fundamental flaw in reasoning.
Regardless of the field of study, the goal of all scientific research should be the pursuit of truth. We should all feel as Henry David Thoreau did when he said "Any Truth is better than make-believe…rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." So if someone rules out certain possibilities beforehand, how can their evaluation method be valid? How can any conclusions they may reach be objective? We have a long history of selfishly manipulating scientific theories into scientific “fact” only to have them later disproved when the truth can no longer remain hidden.
It is an established fact that ALL information is based on language and does NOT occur naturally. Information is neither matter nor energy and neither matter nor energy can produce information. Information CANNOT be created without intent, and intention (or will) is the property of a conscious mind, NOT the result of senseless, unconnected random mutations no one has ever observed and which have been proven to be impossible.
Impossible?
DNA carries the encoded hereditary assembly instructions in the form of base pairs or letters which form the connecting "rungs" of the double-helix ladder of life. Sections or "words" of DNA can be formed from these letters and are referred to as genes. Typically a single gene will code for a single protein chain.
In the smallest theoretical living thing, the average gene would still consist of over 1200 letters, or base pairs. For reference, the smallest living cell contains 600 genes while a set of human chromosomes consists of over 2 million genes. So what is the statistical probability of a series of the DNA code letters arranging themselves in order to form just one…JUST ONE…usable "word" (gene) by chance?
To give chance the best hope of success, the following assumptions have been made:
1. All of the atoms in the entire cosmos have been made into base pairs and are ready and available for use/linking up.
2. The linking/polymerization process will take place at the fastest known speed of atomic processes (estimated to be around 10^16 per second)
3. At this polymerization rate, the number of complete chains/words (genes) per second is 8.3 x 10^12 in any one set. In a year, a set of nucleotides/base pairs would produce 2.6 x 10^20 genes, which we will round off to 10^21.
4. Chance is trying for the first gene in the universe, so there is no pattern strand of DNA or RNA existing. The four different nucleotides will occur only in random order in the chain.
5. If just one side of the ladder or double helix is obtained, it will be considered sufficient, in the thought that if one is obtained, the other side might form by base pairing.
6. Nucleotides are made of atoms of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus, of which phosphorus is the least plentiful and therefore the limiting element.
7. There are estimated to be 1.5 x 10^72 phosphorus atoms in the universe, which will make 1068 sets, so that one copy of each of the four kinds of nucleotides is present at each point of the 1,200-unit chain being formed.
8. Three atoms of phosphorus are needed for each activated nucleotide. This will make 10^68 sets, so that if each set is producing 10^21 sequences per year, that will be a total of 10^89 different chains annually, using all of the appropriate atoms of the universe.
9. Each chain will be dismantled immediately and another one built until there is a usable gene. This will be done at the prodigious speed of eight trillion chains per second.
10. There are no duplicate codons.
11. Nothing will interfere, so chance will have an ideal opportunity. And if a usable sequence is ever obtained, the action will stop so it may be preserved.
12. The probability of getting a meaningful amino acid sequence to produce a usable protein for an amino acid chain 400 long is 1 in 4^400, which is equal to 1 in 10^240.
With 4 kinds of nucleotides and a chain 1200 units in length, the total possible arrangements would be 4^1200, which is approximately 10^722. The letters of a gene though are read in triplicate codons, comprising 64 kinds of triplets. A chain this size would contain 400 of these triplets, or 64^400 possible combinations, which is the same as figuring the possible orders by individual letter arrangements, namely 10^722.
Many of the twenty amino acids though are coded by more than one triplet, and though some believe these duplicate codons represent "historical accidents” or "junk DNA" there is a growing body of evidence that this isn't the case9, 10. If there is no such thing as junk DNA, the probability of a single gene arranging itself by chance in the entire universe is simply one chance in the total number of possible arrangements. In other words,
The probability of just one gene in the entire universe arranging itself by chance is 1 in 10^722.
Which could be expressed as 1/10^722, or 10^-722. But even if we assume that junk DNA does exist, and decided to treat all of the duplicate codons as if they were useless extras, the odds don't get much better. With only twenty-one different possible primary outcomes for each codon position (twenty amino acids plus the "end of the chain"), for a chain 400 amino acids long the potential outcomes are 21^400, which is approximately 10528. Allowing one substitution per chain, the equivalent total of different sequences would reduce to 10524.
Since this is still less likely than the sequencing to produce a single, usable protein, 1/10^240 will be used for the probability of obtaining a usable gene on any try for the very first gene11. This probability reduces to 1/10236 by allowing for one substitution. Multiplying this by the total orders produced in a year of all of the nucleotide sets from the entire cosmos, the probability of getting a usable gene in a year is 10^89/10^236, or 1/10^147. So with all of the concessions given in the list of assumptions above, a usable gene could be expected to occur in 10^147 years12. And that's just to produce ONE gene working with all of the nucleotide sets of all of the atoms of the universe at incredible speed. Let's not forget that the smallest known cell has about 600 genes.
For reference, if we assume that the universe is 15 billion years old, we would need trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions...repeat this 12 times total...of times the assumed age of the universe to produce one gene by chance even working at the astronomical speed assumed. So anyone who mistakenly thinks that enough time can magically produce extremely improbable results is choosing to believe in a proven fantasy. The fallacy of such a mistaken belief lies in the size of the figures.
To better understand just how big a number like 10^147 really is, consider that one trillion trillion is only 1024. Written out, 10^147 is a 1 followed by 147 zeros. And we're still talking about just ONE gene arranging itself by dumb luck during that period of time. Each subsequent gene match would be another order of magnitude less likely to occur. Common sense should make it clear that getting hundreds or even millions of genes to arrange themselves by chance given these odds is completely ridiculous. But does that mean life by the Darwinian evolutionary theory is absolutely impossible?
