Tuesday, February 1, 2011

postheadericon Proof of God.

When you face an issue with two different points of view, you can be sure that one is an absolute right and the other is an absolute wrong. To determine which point of view is right, it would make perfect sense to weigh up each argument to reach a rational conclusion. This sounds simple however this is the one capability that modern society does not appreciate.

Society prefers to follow the beliefs of those who sound more intelligent, assuming that intellectual people such as scientists or doctors are actually correct just because they wear a smart looking suit or a lab coat. How is it right for someone to base their beliefs on this without actually researching and understanding all possible points of view?

Whenever there is a major event that makes the headlines, the media fundamentally takes the information, data and statistics from sometimes completely unreliable sources to develop the story into something interesting that captures the audience’s attention. The problem is though, viewers are made to believe everything they are told and their way of thinking is manipulated.

The argument of whether or not God exists is ongoing, though most people tend to follow the media’s manipulative way of presenting information. Sometimes, the media are not even sure whether the information which they present is accurate. If you are an Atheist, ask yourself this; How do you know that what you believe is true? Is it because of the so called facts that you hear on the Discovery Channel? Or have you actually looked in depth into all points of view? If you are a Creationist, do you believe what you hear at church without thinking or have you also looked into all points of view to make your own decision?

I have personally researched both arguments and I have reached the conclusion that there cannot possibly be a creation without a creator. In this article, the facts that I have found are presented plainly in an easy way to understand without unexplained scientific jargon that people attach their beliefs to. These facts are not just assumptions or ideas based on what I have been told; I have studied the facts and I have discovered the truth about evolution, spontaneous development and many other ideas of a creation without a creator. Please do not write-off your own beliefs without researching these facts for yourself. Just as I have not taken the media for granted, you should not take me for granted. You should use your common sense to establish your opinion.

The Big Bang

The Big Bang is an attempt to try and explain what happened at the beginning of the universe. Studies in astronomy and physics have found beyond doubt that the universe had a beginning. This is known because when galaxies are observed over time, it can be seen that the universe is expanding. The way in which it expands suggests that all contents of the universe were originally in one spot.

The Big Bang is portrayed by the media to be a fact. This is not true, it is simply an idea. For something to be factual, it must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt with explicit evidence to support it. What the media does not tell you is that The Big Bang is one of many ideas about the beginning of the universe. There are hundreds of ideas about our origin and this empathizes how pathetic it is for someone to believe in the most popular one without even understanding it.

Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis stated that “people need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observation for Earth at the centre of the universe and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” George's statement does not suggest that the Earth is actually in the centre of the universe; it simply says that it is possible. When you read George's statement, you probably thought to yourself, “Don't be ridiculous, everyone knows the earth is not the centre of the universe. That was disproved years ago” but if you actually think about it, the only reason that you believe that it is not central is because you have been told to. Do you personally have the ability to look to the edge of every direction of the universe (edges which may or may not exist) and then make measurements to determine if Earth is central? Obviously you do not, so why do you believe the scientists when they cannot do this either yet they try to render a simple idea of Earth not being central into a fact. This is just one example of a simple idea that is believed by society because of the way the media portrays it.

The Big Bang Theory is not only doubted by people without scientific background, there are also many scientists that disagree on the idea based on research that they have personally done. They have been able to see for themselves many flaws in the theory. Physicist Robert Gentry from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in America claimed that the standard Big Bang Model is founded upon a faulty paradigm. (A paradigm being a word in science used to describe distinct concepts.) He claims that the theory is inconsistent with the experiential data.

A perfect example of inconsistency with experiential data is found within the world's largest experiment, The Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It is the world's largest particle accelerator and collider located about one hundred meters below the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva. Scientist use the LHC to try and determine how they believe the Big Bang actually occurred. The energy, density and temperature made available during the collisions are what scientists consider to be very close to the conditions at the beginning of the universe. The truth is though; nobody actually knows what those conditions were. Nobody was alive during the start of existence. The conditions that the scientists use are nothing but guesses based on wishful observations.

The Large Hadron Collider gets its name from the ability to collide Hadrons at extremely high speeds. A Hadron is a family of particles made of quarks (a quark being a fundamental particle with no substructure i.e. it is the smallest possible particle that cannot be rendered down to anything smaller.)

A quark is a theoretical substance because while assuming its existence allows a better physics theory, it has never been observed directly. Approximately six hundred million quarks supposedly collide every second during operation of the LHC. You would assume that if the collider functioned for a fraction of a second, there would be enough collisions to achieve a substantial result yet after years of operation; no results have been discovered to prove or even substantially support the idea of a Big Bang.

The lack of results from the Large Hadron Collider has sparked an absurd theory among scientists involved with the project. Holger Bech Nielsen from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen suggests that the results of the LHC has formed in the future then gone back in time to sabotage its very own creation. This idea is linked to the concept of a man going back in time to kill his grandfather creating a paradox which does not allow his own existence. Other scientists support this theory by stating that this idea is theoretically valid because no known laws of physics prevent time travel.

The purpose of the LHC was to find evidence to support the Big Bang. Without this evidence, common sense would allow one to assume that the idea of the Big Bang is flawed. It is not just the lack of evidence that is sabotaging the theory, something which was highly expected has failed therefore it ought to be assumed that the reason it was unsuccessful was due to the scientists being wrong. This is a much more reasonable conclusion compared to the suggestion of time travel.

If you still have faith in The Big Bang, then please answer this: What caused it? Scientists claim that the only thing which existed before The Big Bang was infinite energy; this is believed to have turned into matter. So my second question is: How did the energy come into existence? Usually this question is answered with a question: How did God come into existence? The obvious answer is: He has always existed. This sounds absurd though the entire debate of whether or not God exists boils down to two possible outcomes. 1) An intelligent designer has always existed and created the universe for a reason. Or 2)The entire universe formed from nothing by itself.

The reason that people like the idea of randomness as an explanation for our existence is because the media portrays scientists to appear as though they have a good understanding of the concept and in turn, society follows science sheepishly. The truth is though, scientists cannot understand everything. Nobody can ever fully understand how something can possibly exist from nothing. We can only look at the evidence around us to make an assumption. To do this correctly, we must consider all evidence before making a judgment however this is made impossible due to the media’s controlled thinking that majority of us are subject to.

It is impossible to understand how God has “always existed” therefore people ignore this idea. Instead of trying to understand something which cannot be understood, try to understand it in this context: Imagine that God had created the world with every color accept red. Everything would seem normal to us based on our own experiences however, if God told someone to tell the world that there is in fact a new color, everyone would call that person a fool because it is easier for the world to understand what has already been experienced. If God were to reveal the color red, the entire world would see then understand.

As discussed earlier, the entire debate of whether or not God exists boils down to two possible outcomes. 1) An intelligent designer has always existed and created the universe for a reason. Or 2)The entire universe formed from nothing by itself. Society chooses to believe the second option because they cannot understand the first. If they tried to understand the first, they would have to accept that they are accountable for their sins hence they go for the second option which requires no effort.


For someone to believe in a Big Bang that spontaneously turned nothing into everything without the intercession of an intelligent designer, they would need a means of explaining how life formed from the matter which suddenly existed. Some scientists resort to the idea that once the planet Earth had formed, inorganic chemicals reacted with each other to form amino acids. It is believed that the amino acids organized themselves into proteins which formed organic molecules. This process is referred to as abiogenesis. Atheists believe that this idea functions as a way of explaining how existence is possible without the need of God's intercession. I laugh every time I hear this because if the atheists had actually paid attention to the Bible, it would be obvious that the theory simply cannot remove God from the equation. In Genesis, it states that God taken dust from the Earth to create Adam, the first man. This is indeed a great example of non organic matter becoming a living human. Despite this, the entire idea of abiogenesis is still fruitless, the point I want to make is that if it were plausible, it would by no means disprove our creator.

The issue with abiogenesis is that it doesn't seem to occur in modern times. If it supposedly happened billions of years ago, why aren't there new forms of life constantly developing today from the innumerable collections of organic matter that surrounds us? If the idea was valid, then common sense would tell you that it is a lot easier for life to form today than many years ago when the universe was young. The conditions are much more favorable today. This is known because of the obvious widespread life across our entire planet. The point is, if life is capable of forming from non-life without God, then why can this not be seen in modern times when the conditions are most supporting of this theory? The answer is simple. It doesn’t work today because it has never worked.

Just like the Big Bang, abiogenesis is just an idea, it is not a fact. The media portrays many things to be factual though this is not the case. Abiogenesis is actually not even a theory. A theory requires testing and observing though no one has ever been able to create life from non-living matter nor have they been able to discover an observable process.

As you have just read, it is believed that life had formed by chemicals reacting with each other to form amino acids, which had then organized themselves into proteins. This may sound somewhat plausible to someone who hears it from a scientist wearing a white lab coat on a documentary, however, what you didn't hear on the documentary is that every protein which makes up every living molecule in existence needs a complex and specific combination to form a single molecule. Each strand of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in existence also requires multiple molecules in a specific order (depending on the life form which the DNA represents). The question that chemical evolutionists do not like to answer is: How do amino acids know how to arrange themselves to form a single protein? DNA is scientifically proven to be the genetic instructions for life to develop. This includes instructions on how the amino acids are required to link together in their specific, unique and complex sequence in order to form protein. If amino acids formed in the ocean from chemical reactions and then formed into proteins which formed the molecules of DNA, then how did the DNA tell the amino acids which order to make the sequence for protein when the DNA did not yet exist? Remember DNA is made of molecules which are made of proteins which are made of amino acids and the DNA tells the amino acids how to form. This is only possible if there is already an external source of DNA such as the DNA found in a man's sperm or a woman's egg. This scientifically proves that life is required for life to form. If this sounds too complex for you to understand, let me put it simply. When two species mate, sperm fertilizes an egg which has specific chemicals needed to form amino acids. DNA from each mating species is used to tell the amino acids the specific combination that it is required to form into. This allows them to form and develop into protein. Basically, life cannot form without DNA and DNA comes from life.

Life cannot possibly form from non living matter.


shekhar said...

It is very wonderfull center