Your quote: 'RNA molecules have also been created (through natural mutation and imposed selection) that can create new nucleotides (the raw ingredients for the creation of more RNA)'
But I said No-one really has a real clue how to make DNA, RNA, organic function proteins, etc from raw INERT, INORGANIC substances [let alone how random processes could do it]... IMO your above quote just basically confirms what I said!
Tell me You're NOT really trying to compare say carbon crystal lattices of diamond, to the formation of DNA & RNA molecules &/or active functional proteins in biological cells & the molecular machines of biological cells, are you [just because both diamond & organic-cells are carbon based]???
They've been making man-made diamonds that look just like 'natural' diamond for decades now, yet NO-One even has a real clue how to make DNA, RNA, functional proteins, etc from scratch, using just raw, inert, inorganic materials!!!
The Old 'Waste-Space' Claim. The main issue w folks like you who insist the Universe is full of so-called 'wasted space' is, you all 'ASSume' to know what you could NOT possibly know- what's the optimum matter-space configuration for life besides this one which we do know for Sure DOES Indeed WORK!!
Astrophysicist Luke Barnes said he once had a debate w vocal atheist Jerry Coyne, who asked Barnes 'If the Universe is so fined-tuned why doesn't the Universe have top ranked beach front type real-estate every-where'?? Barnes response was if that were so then the Universe's average mass-density would be about that of water, but if that were so the Universe would have begun to COLLAPSE In on itself within days [DUHH]!!
Just how far do you want to take this [not so] 'Clever' 'Wasted-Space' argument?? IE: Take our Solar-System- One could argue it too seems full of 'wasted space', since only Earth has a bio-sphere. Now Earth's radius is 4000mi vs Earth's distance from the Sun = 93 Million mi [= 1 AU]- thus within 1 AU the ratio of space devoid of life is [2.3(10^4)]^2 = 5.3(10^8) Xs greater than that containing life [& that’s just figuring within Earth’s own orbital plane]! Then consider our Solar System's total radius is at-least 30 AU [or even more]- so you should multiply that 5(10^8) by a factor of 1000. So from a very simplistic strict-materialist view-point this too would seem like a whole lotta of so-called 'wasted' empty space.
- So why not just move Earth closer to the Sun to say approx Venus' orbit [that would save space], & in process move Us right out the Sun's HZ / Goldilocks Zone, insuring that Earth would end-up just like Venus- w an aver surface temp of 860*F [= 650*F above the boiling point of water]!! Wow what a more 'efficient & effective use of space'- NOT!!
Or the structure of atoms also might seem full of 'wasted space', cause it's overwhelmingly EMPTY Space [total atomic volume approx (10^13)Xs more than the volume of atomic nuclei which have 99.94% of atoms' mass].
Even on Earth itself one might claim there's a whole lotta 'wasted' space. Again Earth's radius is 4000 miles yet the shell that has any life at-all is NO-more than 10 - 15 miles thick [includes the lower atmosphere plus the ocean depths]. Then consider that despite the over-population hype- all 7.2 billion humans could 'theoretically' fit inside of Texas & the population density would = that of NYC- without even having to use 2, 3, 4, etc... story bldgs. FYI: TX is just 1/13 of the US' land-mass & the US is about 1/3 of N.America's land-mass, while N.America is just 1 of 7 continents [ranked 3rd out of those 7]. That means from an overly simplistically narrow-mathematical view-point one might argue Earth is UNDER-Populated by at-least some 200Xs - 300Xs- if NOT even more so!! Yet many/most of your ilk who claim the Universe is full of 'empty wasted space', also INSIST that Earth is already far too OVER-Populated- Humm...
- In fact an entire continent, Antarctica [which is bigger than both Europe &/or Australia], is almost devoid of large complex life-forms such that it has NO Reptiles, Mammals, trees & flowering plants at-all!! This also is almost [but not quite] so for the World's largest island, Greenland, which [like Antarctica] over +90% of its landmass is covered in ice over +1 miles thick!! Again from a very simplistic strict-materialist view 'what a waste of space'!! Yet many/most of your ilk, also tell us that if Antarctica's & Greenland's Ice sheets [which together hold over +90% of Earth's entire fresh-water supply] were to suddenly melt, much/most of Earth's coastal & island areas would be totally submerged [sea-level would rise by at-least 100 meters or more]- & thus basically threaten to wipe out civilization as we know it!!
So what if we filled all of that vast empty space in atoms & the Universe as a whole in w mass what would happen? Well according to modern science & physics everything would just COLLAPSE into a massive BLACK-HOLE- IE: the entire Universe would just be one HUGE Black-Hole- collapsing to a point singularity!!! That's really a quite 'efficient & effective' use of space Huhh??? NOT- Duhh!!! But again according to Dr Barnes even if the Universe's average mass-density = water's it would still collapse, just not quite as fast & dramatically!!
So IMO- If you & your ilk can't come up w a more 'efficient' less wasteful space-matter configuration for the Universe that would work better than the one we Know for SURE Does Actually WORK, & then PROVE that yours would indeed work better... IMO you-all are just ARROGANTLY talking out you-all's 'backsides'!!!
-
-
PS: I've already commented enough about this so-called 'Multiverse' BS- masquerading as a 'real' Science{fictional} 'theory' [see my previous comments]!
PS-2: Strict-Materialistic Atheists try to have it both ways re this so-called 'Empty Wasted Space'. On one hand they insist that all the empty space w NO life means there's no God... -Yet- Then they hype-up every exoplanet discovery as being so-called 'earth-like' & teaming w life, w many claiming there are Billions of so-called 'earth-like' planets w ET type civilizations in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone. Then they also claim this means there's no God. So this is just the old lame-game of 'Heads I Win, but Tails You Loose'!
IMO this LAME Ole [tho you-all think it's 'clever'] 'Empty Wasted Space' {non}'Argument' Does NOT / Can NOT disprove God's existence, & neither would more discoveries of so-called 'earth-like' [NOT!] exoplanets- even 'IF' there are any w ET on them [IMO a Mighty BIG IF]!!
Don't even try to put words in my mouth!! I'm NO fan of Ken Ham & I'm NOT a YEC. Does it sound like I have NO interest in / know nothing of science?? I said specifically that IMO searching for Nether Worldly 'multiverses' & 'Ghostly' gravity waves from 15 Billion yrs ago, is NO where near as urgent a priority as eliminating hunger & poverty; universal access to clean water, sanitation, electricity, health-care, education, etc; addressing & resolving the ongoing crises at Fukushima & Chernobyl; etc...
Then you made that 'wise crack' that maybe only Christians' & People of Faith's $$$ should go to pay for that. to which I responded that cuts both ways...
- Now are we going to have a serious dialog, or are you going to to keep trying to make these snide little 'wise-cracks'??!
PS: If Ken Ham hustled up the $$$ for his [attempt] to 'recreate' a full-scale model of Noah's Ark by His OWN efforts &/or w His OWN $$$, & then opened it to the public & some folks freely choose to go there; IMO that's their choice to make, just as it's my [& your] choice NOT to go there!! I think that's called 'Freedom of Expression' & 'Freedom of Choice', whether I [or you] agree w what Ham's expressing or NOT!!
PS-2: Most Churches are built w $$$ donated by their church-members. While most of these BICEP2 / 3 type projects, including Hubble, Kepler's exoplanet search, etc... are funded w Public Tax $$$!! IMO if church-members choose to donate their $$$ to build a church, that's their choice [It's called 'Freedom of Religious Expression']. But IMO the public has both the right to know & also should have some say-so re: how their Tax $$$ is spent, what it's spent on & to what purpose!!
From Einstein's special relativity equations: Mv = mv/[√1-(v^2/C^2) ] - So M = m / [√1-(v^2/C^2) ] - Where M = relativistic mass, m = rest mass, v = effective velocity, & C = the speed of light. You don't have to be a mathematician nor astrophysicist to see as v approaches C, M effectively BLOWS-Up to INFINITE Mass, which is IMPOSSIBLE!! And if v 'theoretically' went well beyond C you'd get some 'imaginary' quantity, which God only knows what that would mean & how'd that could possibly work in the real-world!!
Playing around w 'clever' sounding semantics IE: SPACE can expand faster than C, when Einstein's space / time / matter-energy continuum says that all 3's existence are CO-Dependent on each other, NOT Independent from one another [means you can NOT have one absent to other 2]- may sound 'clever' to you, but I ain't buying it!! Plus at the initial instant of the 'Big-Bang', sub-atomic particles had NOT even formed yet let alone 'objects', there was only LIGHT Energy initially!! So what you're effectively saying re 'inflation' is that initially Light [then] traveled much faster than Light [now]- Humm... 'Brilliant'- NOT!!
'Galaxies BEYOND the Cosmic Horizon...' - If they're Beyond the cosmic Horizon, How can we possibly even see them- especially if they're moving AWAY FROM Us even faster than light itself??? That means that they'll ALWAYS be BEYOND the Cosmic Horizon, which means we'd NEVER be able to see them- DUHH!!
No comments:
Post a Comment