Acest site s-a nascut din dorinta si dor; dorinta de a fi de folos si dorul dupa oamenii cu care impartasim comuniunea de limba si credinta. Va invit sa treceti dincolo de aceasta prima pagina introductiva si sa descoperiti pe site o seama de materiale pe care vi le punem la dispozitie.

Montag, 8. Oktober 2012

Evolution Impossible (BOOK EXCERPT, PT 1)

Evolution Impossible (BOOK EXCERPT, PT 1)

In the new book Evolution Impossible scientist Dr. John F. Ashton, the Adjunct Professor of Biomedical Sciences at Victoria University, in Melbourne, Australia, provides 12 reasons why evolution fails to explain how life began.
The following book excerpt come from the chapter "The Big-Bang Theory Is Not Supported by Observed Data."

Our planet is a truly remarkable environment, different from any other planet in our solar system or from anything so far observed in nearby space. The size of the sun and our distance from it means that the earth’s temperature is in the range that allows for life. The abundance of water, oxygen, and carbon, as well as many other factors, has made our planet seemingly perfect for life. In fact, some astronomers have referred to it as the “Goldilocks” planet.
Life as we know it is based on the element carbon, which has particular properties, including the ability to bond with up to four other atoms or chains of atoms. This enables carbon atoms to form the backbone of the multitude of polymer biomolecules that make the structures of our cells, their enzymes, and other essential molecules, including the genetic code itself.
There is a relatively large amount of carbon in our universe. Scientists have proposed that carbon and other elements formed as a result of nuclear synthesis from lighter atomic particles in stars. The famous Cambridge University astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle studied the reactions necessary to produce carbon, and calculated the energy levels in the carbon atom. He concluded that in order for carbon to have its unique chemical properties, its energy levels had to be so finely tuned that the probability that they could have been generated by blind forces of nature was utterly minuscule. He wrote that a common sense interpretation of the scientific data suggests that some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom.
Hoyle also recognized that it was even more ridiculous to suppose that carbon atoms could come together to form life-sustaining biopolymers as a result of random chaotic processes. He and fellow mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated that the chances that carbon atoms could form the number of enzymes for the simplest life — all forming together at the right time — diminished progressively so that even if the whole universe was soup, it would still be improbable.
It was Hoyle’s view that rather than accept the unimaginably small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, one would be less likely to be wrong to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.
How the life-forming elements of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen came into existence together with the other elements is usually explained in most college and university science classes in terms of “the big-bang theory.” This name was originally coined by Hoyle, who actually rejected the theory.
The big-bang theory is an incredible construct of still unproven astronomical assumptions, contrived to provide a natural explanation as to how the universe came to be. So let us now consider an overview of the commonly taught “hot big-bang theory.”
It is initially important to note there is a common misconception as to what the big-bang theory portrays. Many people, including some scientists and astronomers, understand the theory to describe the scenario of “something” (scientifically referred to as a “singularity”) with extreme properties such as infinite heat and infinite density, suddenly appearing in the vacuum of empty space and rapidly expanding in three-dimensional space. As this expanding energy/matter cooled, the galaxies and stars formed like islands in this space we know as the universe. However, the big-bang theory is actually even more contrived in that the theory proposes that space itself expanded in a fourth dimensional “hyperspace.” This picture is difficult for most of us to grasp — but an analogy would be the expansion of a balloon as it is being inflated. If we drew little circles on the surface of the balloon, as it expanded the little circles would expand and also move farther apart from each other. In this case, we have a two-dimensional surface of the balloon expanding in three-dimensional space. An important observation is that the surface of the balloon has no center. The big-bang theory, by having three-dimensional space expanding in hyperspace (which incidentally has never been observed or detected and is simply a made-up assumption), implies that the universe would have no edge and therefore no center. This assumption, known as the cosmological principle or Copernican principle, was needed to develop a theory in which the universe has no center and would look spherically symmetrical wherever an observer was in the universe.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen