ENTROPY AND LIFE

Entropy is a very interesting concept, explained by science with some complicated mathematics.  But in its simplest terms entropy can be summarized as “nature tends from order to disorder”  This can be observed all around us as we see things deteriorate, iron rusts, leaves decay, even our bodies gradually decline eventually leading to death.  But the reverse isn’t true – disordered things do not organize themselves without some external force.  The typical teenagers bedroom does not reorganize itself without some external force.  So how did the universe organize itself without some direction?

Scientists – comfortable in their knowledge of all things – have explained the big Bang and the origin of the universe.  It seems at the beginning there was this primordial speck that contained all of the energy in the universe.  They are a little vague on exactly how this speck came to be or exactly where it was located since space did not yet exist, but that’s what they believe.  At that instant of the Big Bang all energy was released but in what form?  Apparently the energy was released in the form of protons, neutrons, and electrons. So the Big Bang was entropy in action since it went from order in the form of this primordial speck to disorder. 

But almost immediately the Law of Entropy was reversed because these energetic particles began to coalesce into atoms and then into molecules gaining mass in the process.  But with mass comes gravity so perhaps it was gravity – assuming of course that gravity is not a particle and that was the external force that reversed entropy.  Given that the Big Bang created the universe and everything it in and that no energy or particle was created after that, then gravity could logically be the external force.  But then what about everything else that came later?  What about life?  What about Dark Matter and Dark Energy?  These are theorized but unknown.

The origin of life has always been a problem for science and as science extends our knowledge of life and the universe the problem has gotten more complicated.  The idea that life began spontaneously through some cosmic particle impacting some random molecule in the sea has been abandoned.  Instead scientists have postulated “Pan Spermia” which postulates that life originated outside of our solar system and was introduced via a comet or meteor or some similar interstellar particle.  Of course this doesn’t really address the origin of life, it merely sidesteps the issue.  So the question remains – how did life begin?  The evolutionists believe that life began in the sea and all life evolved from that first self-replicating molecule, but what about the Law of Entropy?  Order can only come from disorder due to some external force but what external force created DNA?

The mathematicians have determined that DNA is so complicated that it is virtually impossible for this molecular structure to have been created randomly.  Yet life rests on DNA – even that first little paramecium and Pre-Cambrian pond scum which became human requires DNA.  Nevertheless the world of science presses on and essentially now we have seven theories describing how life began.

Theory 1 – The Electric Spark

This Theory rests on the Urey-Miller Experiment which demonstrated that an electric spark in an atmosphere rich in water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen could have produced the “building blocks” of life.  Unfortunately the early atmosphere was hydrogen poor, so the fall back position was – maybe hydrogen from volcanoes.

Theory 2 – Community Clay

This idea comes from Alexander Cairns-Smith who suggests that organic molecules might organize themselves via the mineral crystals in clay.  These mineral crystals would have helped to organize these organic molecules into organized patterns that eventually led to organize themselves.

Theory 3 – Deep Sea Vents

This theory suggests that life may have begun through hydrothermal vents spewing key hydrogen rich molecules that were concentrated into nooks where mineral catalysts provided for critical reactions leading to the building blocks of life.

Theory 4 – Icy Start

This theory assumes that the oceans 3 billion years ago where frozen to great depths protecting the fragile organic compounds in the water from damaging ultraviolet light and cosmic particles.  This cold might have helped these organic molecules survive long enough for key reactions to happen.

Theory 5 – RNA World

Life requires Proteins and Proteins require DNA but mathematically it is virtually impossible for DNA to have formed randomly.  The answer might be – according to some scientists – RNA which can help create both proteins and DNA.  Of course how RNA came into being is unknown and some scientists say a spontaneous creation of RNA is unlikely to have happened.

Theory 6 – Simple Beginning

This theory suggest that instead of developing from complex molecules like RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles or reactions leading to more complex molecules   These might have been contained in simple capsules similar to cell membranes evolving over time into more complex molecules that became the building blocks of life.

Theory 7 Pan Spermia

This theory simply side steps the question and suggests that life was introduced on the Earth via a meteor or comet impacts.  So even if this theory were true it doesn’t address how life originated elsewhere.

Yes these are very short summaries of very complicated theories but reading the complete theories doesn’t really add any meaningful data because they all assume order from disorder and are laced with qualifiers.  None of these theories really address the problem of DNA and how it could have been created through random processes.  The law of Entropy requires some external force for order to emerge from disorder and none of these theories actually explain even how these organic molecules came into existence. The assumption underlying all of these theories is that molecules have randomly combined to create these organic molecules.  These organic molecules have become more and more complex through random process until they became self-replicating.  These self-replicating molecules grew more complicated until they did the mathematically impossible and formed DNA and the pattern for life.  All that is missing is the admission that magic was involved. So the question regarding the origin of life remains open while the Atheists and Scientists reject anything resembling intelligent design.

 

 

 

God -- The Bible -- Science

PREFACE

What follows are my opinions.  They are not intended to prove anything and certainly not intended to offend anyone.  I view myself as a Christian but many of my Christian friends would disagree due to various doctrinal conflicts.  I don’t think God is exclusive to any specific religion and  is present in all religions.  It is not my intent to prove that God exists but rather to ask the Atheist to prove that He doesn’t.

What follows is my simple comparison of the Bible’s description of the creation to what science currently believes.  The important thing here is that while the Bible requires faith it is the same for science because neither can prove their positions.

God--the Bible – and Science

The atheist doesn’t believe in God but he believes in science and challenges those who believe in God to prove He doesn’t exist.  But when challenged to prove that God doesn’t exist the atheist cannot offer any scientific proof.  In fact Richard Dawkins – the High Priest of Darwinism – when challenged to explain how the complex DNA and RNA molecules came into existence as a random event he admitted he could not explain it.  Instead he said “it must have happened because we are here.”  The idiocy of this statement is lost on the atheist whose faith is in science.  But to believe that some random combination of chemicals could produce these complex molecules would lead to the logical conclusion that they could have just as easily combined into a birthday cake.  So it seems that science requires the same level of faith as faith in God requires.

Allowing for some poetic license it seems that the Bible describes the Big Bang or “First Cause” pretty well.  The Bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth and the Earth was without form and void..  Science tells us that all energy was created with the Big Bang and was a swirling incredibly hot cloud of particles that eventually coalesced into the stars and the earth.  Then God separated the waters from the waters and divided the waters from under the firmament from those above the firmament.   According to what science believes the energies released began to coalesce into mass laden molecules and ultimately into the stars and planets.  Given some latitude for poetic license the Biblical description of the second day seems to track science.

On the third day God gathered together the waters into one place and let the dry land appear and the seas.  This seems to track the scientific belief that the Earth was formed out of the swirling mass of particles into our planet which was  incredibly hot and surrounded by gas.  As the Earth cooled the gases cooled and formed the seas and atmosphere.  The Bible and science seem to agree up to this point but then the sequence of events begins to diverge.  The Bible claims the next step was the creation of grass and trees  but the fossil record shows no plant life of any kind in the Cambrian or Pre-Cambrian beyond something akin to pond scum.  The Cambrian fossil record shows an abundance of sea life but grasses and plant life first appear in the Ordovician period.   In fact the sequence of events between the Bible and the fossil record greatly differ from this point on, but it is the sequence not the actual events.  The Sun and the Moon are created after the Earth but science claims that the Sun was created first and the Moon after the Earth.  The first life appears in the Cambrian Seas and the Bible and science agree on this point but the Bible claims that flying fowl were created at the same time but once again the fossil record doesn’t show any flying animal until much later. 

This brings us to the sixth day which roughly equates to the Devonian period when land animals first appear.  The Bible lumps the rest of creation into this sixth day ranging from the creation of the first land animals to the creation of man.   The fossil record shows the evolutionary history of the Earth in much more detail than the Bible but roughly they parallel the development of life on Earth.    The huge difference comes with the creation of man.  The Bible is very clear that God created man in His image while the scientists point to the fossil record that shows a path from primitive apes to modern man.  This fossil record for mankind has some questionable entries and assumptions but even so the record is very clear that man did not appear fully formed as we know him today.  To accept the Biblical explanation would require God to look somewhat like Michelangelo’s version of God which would mean that God is tangible, Heaven is tangible or at least a physical place, and that Hell exists.  Furthermore, once God is accepted as real then Satan must be real as well.  

Since the Bible was written people have believed that if God created man in his image that when they look into the mirror they see an image similar to God.  But science tells us that everything in the universe is energy and that the Big Bang created all of that energy.  That would lead to the conclusion that God is energy and that when He created man he created man as an energetic image – which we know as our soul.  Our physical bodies are mere shells – containers for our souls while we serve our time on Earth.  Certainly it would be asking too much for science to accept this explanation because it would require accepting God, but viewing man ‘s soul as the image of God then the creation story in Genesis seems to closely parallel the scientific view of the creation.

As I said at the outset these are just my opinions and I have no proof of anything.  I simply looked at the Bible and compared it to various scientific articles and descriptions and found what I saw as parallels.  You may or may not agree.

Faith Based Science

The debate regarding God’s existence has been raging for centuries but recently the Atheists seem to have seized the initiative as their numbers increase.  Of course the challenge the Atheists present to the Theist is to prove that God exists.  That proof must stand the test of the scientific process in order to be proof.  What has been missing is the challenge to the Atheist to prove God doesn’t exist using the scientific method.  Naturally neither side has been able to show convincing proof so the debate rages on.  But recently this debate has become more strident as the Atheists present scientific findings on Evolution, First Cause, and the Origin of Life.  All of these theories – which is what they are – presented as facts even though the “facts” are actually presumptions, assumptions, opinions, and guesses. .  The era of Faith Based Science is upon us.

 The foundation of the debate on God is the Origin of Life.  Exactly how did life begin?  For the Theist the answer is God – in fact for the Theist God created the Heavens and the Earth and the question is answered.  For the Atheist that is no answer at all because it cannot be demonstrated (or duplicated) by science and to accept God as the answer is to avoid answering the question and represents intellectual laziness if not outright stupidity.  But the scientists are faced with this fundamental problem which fails the scientific test of being demonstrable and repeatable.  The challenge is for the scientist is to demonstrate how life evolved from inorganic matter. 

Essentially the scientific position is that life on Earth began as a random event triggered by some unknown process or combination of events resulting in self replicating molecule.  To date experiments using inorganic components have succeeded in creating organic molecules from inorganic materials but have failed to yield a living organism.  Complicating the matter is the materials used in creating the organic molecules are toxic to life or the resultant molecules are toxic to life.  But there is an even more difficult scientific hurdle to overcome and that is the fact that the probability of DNA being randomly generated is so great as to be impossible.  Recognizing that life being created as a random event or even a series of random events is so improbable the “scientists” have postulated a new theory called “Panspermia”.  Essentially this theory states that life on Earth was introduced via a meteorite that carried life to Earth.  Of course this really doesn’t answer the question because we still don’t know how life began.  The obvious conclusion is that scientists really don’t know how life began but they know God wasn’t involved.

If science can’t really offer any scientific proof about the Origin of Life what about the origin of the universe – the “First Cause” or Big Bang.  Science can trace the universe and everything in it back to the first nanosecond.—the instant of creation.  Of course the problem is what was there before the moment of creation?  For those who believe in God, the answer is God but that isn’t acceptable to the scientist because it cannot be proved via science.  The problem lies with space itself since it was the Big Bang that created space meaning there was not place for that bundle of energy to exist prior to the creation of the space in which it could exist. 

To solve this problem scientifically scientists have postulated various possibilities, none involving God.  Several theories have been postulated but none have been accepted as the probable one. Essentially the scientists agree that none of their theories can be tested or proved but they argue that that’s the best they can do.  The best answer they have come up with so far is that the universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum.  Once you have absorbed this description and examine it critically it does raise some questions.  It assumes that this quantum vacuum that the entire world of quantum particles and interactions already exists.  Please not that the particles have mass and thus must have some space in which to exist.  All of these particles are composed of energy and a zero energy quantum state is impossible.  Scientists like Hawkings and other scientists claim that the universe emerged out of quantum nothingness. They are making a claim that does not meet the scientific test much less a logical one.  But those who deny God but believe in science accept this because they have faith in science.  And brings us to the third problem faced by science – Evolution.

Evolution is a much thornier problem because there is so much fossil evidence supporting it.  Scientists can trace life back millions of years and show the march from sea to land to the air.  They have created charts and diagrams showing how one animal or group of animals has descended from a common ancestor.  Unfortunately many of the examples used are actually simply examples of environmental adaptation and not speciation.  Commonly there are gaps of millions of years and the fossil record does not preserve these speciation events so these connections are assumed.  The major assumption is that these ‘assumed” lineages are that these intermediate fossils exist at the proper point and thus the transitions are plausible. 

The speciation events are virtually impossible to document and even within the Cenozoic these are hard to document.  In fact if the specimens are separated by more than 100,000 years the fossil record cannot show anything about how a species arose.  In effect all of the claims and charts showing the relationships between species during the Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic eras are assumptions and not demonstrable facts.  The Cenozoic is more recent but even here where the fossil record is more complete the evolutionary changes are incomplete and the transitions between species are estimated but not fully documented in the fossil record.

This almost total lack of evidence regarding speciation leads to the problem of evolution over long periods versus the problem that some species just suddenly appear in the fossil record with no precursors.  This has led to the theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium” which claims that some speciation events occur over very short periods of 20,000 years but no more than 80,000.  The problem is that there is really very little evidence to separate the adaptation of a species to its environment and the separation of one species into a totally new one.

While the scientists claim they have the answers to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and evolution, the reality is these are just claims largely unsupported by facts.  In fact the scientific answers to these questions are filled with words like, believed to be, estimated, and probably.  The logical conclusion is that science and scientists rely on faith in science but that faith is really no different than religious faith.