Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

You live by Logic & Reason? LOL! You have no Idea

April 15, 2013

There is no such thing as a belief based entirely on logical reasoning. Its a simple fact that the human mind though, wonderfully complex and powerful, is still ill-equipped and incapable of apprehending truth in its absolute naked glory.

Give me a guy who claims to follow logic and reason religiously and I’ll turn him into a heretical intellectual hypocrite in a minute. (Which also brings us to another question: is being intelligent and learned means being logical and rational about the way we approach our belief?) Thus we are all forced to commit to our prejudices (the ignorant or emotional) or assumptions in answering to ourselves the fundamental questions – which is in every sense intellectual heresy. Pure rationalist or logical thought is an ideal unavailable to the human mind because of its inherent inability to completely grasp fundamental concepts of cosmology, and ontology. However it is able to imagine – but that is not enough to answer the tough questions.

The real question is are we consistent in our philosophies and ideas when we when we make those assumptions be it secular or religious – is it reasonable? Is it necessary? Its a matter of committing the least errors and being right most number of times in general. But it is human nature that once it commits itself to a certain path there will be many unanswered questions that we stumble upon for which we are at a lost to explain because it does not appeal to logic and reason.

One interesting point in question here is the big bang theory which was proven by electromagnetic radiation analysis. This was traced back to the point of singularity and what happened at the exact point and what existed before it. But that is not all – the real conundrum here is that this primordial cosmic explosion not only created space and the elements therein, it also created time. We don’t even have a proper definition or explanation for time. So if this is true – and I think it is – when we talk about what existed before the big bang what are we really talking about? Because time was never a factor before time was created!!  So is it really a sequence of causal events? But if time was not there what was the measure of that sequence? What is sequence?

Thus it is impossible to achieve pure logic and pure reason because it assumes forth from pure truth which can never be known.

As such No one can claim to be above the other because no one knows where they stand in the first place and as such truth cannot be known – we don’t know what (ideas and the minds that hold them) is above or what is below. But we know one thing – we are ignorant and we have no way of knowing what we know is the truth because our understanding is limited by our mortal senses. We are simply not equipped to do know that. We also know that those who have knowledge and hold and process it with humility, sincerity and rigid honesty to the self and others are the truly learned who are on the right track to knowing and are nearest to truth and are a cut above the rest. Even to know the level of our own ignorance is impossible – if we don’t even know how wrong can we be, isn’t it just plain haughty arrogance to even proceed to measure how right we are? When the foundations of knowledge are weak, when reason cannot with absolute certainty encompass the knowledge that we hold, then sincere searching inquisitiveness, a curious mind thirsting to know and utter humility is the only way to go. We have to know what we are talking about before we actually talk about it to others to justify our stand on what we believe in.

We always make the mistake of giving credence to intellectual charlatans who appeal to our prejudices and whose works support our own assumptions thereby perpetuating our own false knowledge. Suspension of judgment or not commiting oneself to any theory, hypotheses or belief because truth cannot be known is a failure in human purpose – a hedonistic intellectual laziness that contributes in the negation of the human spirit. To partially borrow a military jingle, we are born to know who we and where we come from and what we are doing here where we are headed for. To limit our purpose to the four corners of the physical world is to justify the denial of the human spirit, cheapen the human intellectual capacity and blaspheme the purpose of our origin – for it is highly improbable that we are here by chance in a purposeless universe that happened to exist by some freakish, random cosmological explosion.

Laws of physics mentioned in the quran

September 10, 2008

The physical laws – including the derivation of the speed of light in the quran mentioned way before science discovered it.

Really interesting stuff- follow the ling

Sex Change operations : IT’S IN THE GENES STUPID

August 21, 2008

The inane logic of modern jurisprudence


Are there legal mechanisms to deal with anomalies produced by the ever changing realities of life? Recently a 34 year old “man”, Thomas Beatty,  from USA, Oregon, gave birth to a baby via artificial insemination. His female partner was unable to produce any offspring “he” decided to spring into action. As recently as the 1980s, human attributes such as sex and race are immutable. But that has all changed with the law now recognising sex change operations made via approved means as valid.


Now the problem is if the woman transforms into a “man”, and decides to give birth, it exposes some flaws in our legal philosophy of recognising such perverted social tendencies that still forms a minority within a small minority in our societies.  At the moment there is no legal mechanism to properly deal with such anomalies.


If a legal male gives birth –will the birth certificate then reflect the father as the one who gave birth? It doesn’t sound right from the start – the law on this needs a re-think – all the way to the drawing board because to deal with the unforeseen anomalies, on an ad hoc basis, produced as a result recognising something that is largely unacceptable and that which flies in the face of hard practical realities or even scoffed at in our society (here in Singapore) is not really the way to go.


In Singapore the gender change sought by persons undergoing sex change operations done via approved means enjoy full legal recognition. The folly of the authorities everywhere is in their failure in understanding of the simple fact  that gender in human beings is something more visceral than their cosmetic physiological alteration would want us to believe.


The nature of gender in humans is more in the programming contained within the genes than anything else. This is what creates that fine balance in us in our hormones combined with the psycho-physiological make-up of our bodies that makes us a man or a woman. The fundamental core of our gender is in our genetic make-up. And the authorities should come to such understanding before going free and easy with the law regarding sex change operations.


The alteration or addition in sex-change operations, such as artificial breasts and penises, are even non-functioning to begin with. The surgically rendered “vagina” is just a freaking little hole for crying out loud. How on earth does that make a man into a woman?


While the person may psychologically feel like the opposite gender, he or she is essentially still the same sex as he or she was before.


The authorities may have to face the embarrassing prospect of having to deal with, as they say in computer terminology, an “unhandled error” caused by their folly in being overly eager to recognise some medical procedure still in it’s infancy as a revolutionary technological triumph, that hardly even addresses an iota of an issue of truly being male or female. This freak result is largely due to the fault of the various rights movement originating in the west . And as with all unhandled errors – it exposes the weakness in the underlying program and it ends up screwing up the whole bloody system that treats the ensuing problems in piecemeal fashion while largely ignoring or being oblivious of the underlying fundamental fault.

In this case the “error” at a fundamental level and the implication could go much deeper than we thought. It exposes a flaw in the western philosophy and socio-political thought. The fundamental philosophy of absolute individual freedom of thought and action has brought about a situation where it produced a truly fucked up situation where everybody is supposed to respect every individual’s personal choice, no matter how screwed up the philosophy is, no matter how it screws up the larger society no matter what problem it causes to the various cultures in existence.


The force of a responsible democratic society and it’s laws, they believe, will weed out such behaviour to the dustbins of history. But it did not happen because the problem with western democracy is that it failed to anticipate the lopsided exception of lobby groups in the system that wield power and influence that is disproportionate to their number. And as such they are able to influence policy decisions at a political level without really getting into the political hotseats.


Trans-gender surgery as transforming one into an opposite sex is no more real than a fake Rolex being a real Rolex. Mere cosmetic similarity does not makee something the real Mcoy. Sex change operations as we see today don’t cause gender transmutations for the simple fact that the sexual organ(s) that went through the knife are non-functional. The issue of human sexual distinction is more visceral than that.

The fact that the law recognises this as real is laughable because it ignores the underlying scientific realities that glaringly screams otherwise.

Beautiful Poem to ponder in Contemplation of the Infinite

September 26, 2007

There is no secular definition for the word soul. The deepest recesses of the self are unknown to conscious awareness and yet we talk like we understand. In the quran it is written that nothing of the soul is known save a little.

The problem with the current secular oriented culture that tends to rob and deny the spiritual and non-material dimension of human existence. The ghost behind the machine, the will behind the volition, the very voice within our thoughts. It may seem odd that the current MTV culture is developed in such a way that life is lived in a superficial way and thoughts and actions are appraised by it’s causes and effects on the material self. What is unknown and not privy to objective materialist observation is deemed as hocus-pocus-fairy-tale stuff by secular materialism. And yet there is no denying since einstein that man has vastly underestimated the reality before him. Theoretical science (or even metaphysics) is beginning to sound more and more like religious dogma with hardly any consensus among the groups in the scientific commnity as to which is the way to go. Intellectual reach is limited by perceptual limitations and now we have infinitely more questions than we have answers for. Despite the complexities of the reality before us, the secular scholars find intellectual gratification in arrogantly holding on to simplistic answers. The m-theory, the multiverse theory, the theory of evolution gratify the base curiosities of the infinite complexities of reality.

This poem below is by a 19th century poet Khalil Gibran and he succintly puts the authors humble understanding of reality as nothing more than calculated speculation before an infinitely enigmatic reality.


By Kahlil Gibran
(1883 – 1931)

And a man said, Speak to us of Self-Knowledge.
And he answered saying:
Your hearts know in silence the secrets of the days and the nights.
But your ears thirst for the sound of your heart’s knowledge.
You would know in words that which you have always known in thought.
You would touch with your fingers the naked body of your dreams.

And it is well you should.
The hidden well-spring of your soul must needs rise and run murmuring to the sea;
And the treasure of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes.
But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure;
And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.
For self is a sea boundless and measureless.

Say not, “I have found the truth,” but rather, “I have found a truth.”
Say not, “I have found the path of the soul.” Say rather, “I have met the soul walking upon my path.”
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals.

Most Scientific discoveries could be nothing more than puerile nonsense

August 26, 2007

Einstien once was known to have remarked :

One thing I have learnt in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have”

If we think that science has answered all our questions we are dead wrong. If reality is a baby – the scientific sperm has not even met it’s egg yet. And yet we have secular fundamentalists – most notably the evolutionists – making fantastic and cocksure claims about their findings and then foiting it down society as gospel truth in complex pseudo-scientific lingo. I once had an argument with at least two of my blog’s commentors about the veracity of science vis-a-vis reality and they was so sure that the “scientific method” would suffice as a surefire check against any kind of scientific claim or proposition. These are the same guys who happen to believe in the theory of evolution as the gospel truth. But alas – very little could be proven of such claims that seems to even fly in the face of secular science’s much vaunted methodolgies. These guys need to get a grip of themselves. They must understand that believeing in science as an answer to the fundamental existential questions is nothing better than to believe that God created the universe in 6 days and also Created Adam – the first Human being. I mean the whole creationist story may seem like a cheap B-grade fairy tale, but the arrogance and evagelical zeal with which otherwise intelligent scientists and scientific theorists promote the various scientific theories and publish their findings as gospel truth is cheap b-grade porn. It’s obscene. It has no scientific basis to start with and yet we are supposed to believe in it as truth. To these guys I have nothing more than pity. I post this video from youtube where Ali-G trashes guys who think they know it all. If einstein was right – we know next to nothing

watch this – LOL

The Perfect Freak : The Darwinian Human Ape

June 4, 2007

A protein Molecule

Protein Hi great Gramps!

Thanks gramps (above) – this is just a tribute to you because without you I would not have been formed – By the way I am also a product of millions of years of freak and anomalous molecular mutations which somehow or rather perfected me to the form that which I am now. So now am I a freak out of you or are you a freak preceding me?  This freaks me out alright but anyway the most important thing  is that the real ugly freaks (you know those green-purple monsters with eyes in their backsides and tentacles comin out of their noses that came out of chance mutation) died out due to natural selection. The perfected freaks like us humans and our later gramps, the monkeys (but of course now we respectfully call them the “great apes”) survived because the freak mutations somehow or rather turned out right despite the relatively short age of the earth (the mother of our greatest gramps) for such processes to miraculously happen despite being mathematically impossible. Wow, I’m a perfect freak who came from a long line of freaks and flukes like you who inturn were formed because of chance happenings within the universe! I wonder sometimes gramps, what chance event caused the big bang to happen?

This is only part of the evolution theory, which is a whole philosophical movement, that is conveniently and rather “unscientifically” used to fill the rather impossible intellectual gaps faced by secular-science and it’s proponents to complete an “objective” explanation of the origin of material existence of the universe. The theory of evolution is an ideological necessity arbitrarily constructed to justify a secular-materialist approach towards science and the search for truth. In other words, where secular-materialist science cannot complete the circle of knowledge, pseudo-scientific constructs like Evolution fill the gaps as neat and conveiently packaged explanations. If theistic creationism sounds like a some cheap B-grade fantasy flick so badly written that it makes “little red riding hood” look like rocket science then I have no pejorative offensive enough to describe the rationalisation behind the theory of evolution.

Why is this is a load of bull – well lets take a look just at the objective math of just one section of this philosophy of evolution alone (taken from this website by Harun Yahya’s “The Atlas Of Creation”)



The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin’s day and at the time, ascribing life to “coincidences and natural conditions” was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough.

The technology of the 20th century has delved into the tiniest particles of life and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialised cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that “The most elementary type of cell constitutes a ‘mechanism’ unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man.”105

A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.

The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence “by chance” under the conditions of the primordial earth. To give another example, the probability of forming of a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing-house.

The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.106 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and therefore it must definitely have been “created”.

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the “irreducible complexity” in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

Proteins Challenge Chance


So much for the cell, but the theory of evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called “amino acids” that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of proteins, as will be discussed later.)

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is “1 in 10300“. The probability of this “1” to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as “zero probability”).

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word “impossible” is insufficient to describe the true situation.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 “types” of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is “as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes”.107 However, instead of accepting the other explanation, which is creation, they go on defending this impossibility.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.” 108

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small “that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids.”109

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers the question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.110

The chemical structure of even a single cythochrome-C protein (above left) is too complex to be accounted for in terms of chance—so much so, in fact, that the Turkish evolutionist biologist professor Ali Demirsoy admits that the chance formation of a single cythochrome-C sequence “as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes.”

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times “more impossible” for some one million of those proteins to come together properly by chance and make up a complete cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell). The number that was found was 1 over 1040.000.111 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.112

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.113

The reason Hoyle used the term “psychological” is the self-conditioning of evolutionists not to accept that life could have been created. The rejection of God’s existence is their main goal. For this reason alone, they go on defending irrational theories which they at the same time acknowledge to be impossible.

Left-handed Proteins

In nature, there are two different types of amino acids, called “left-handed” and “right-handed”. The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person’s right and left hands.

Let us now examine in detail why the evolutionist scenario regarding the formation of proteins is impossible.

Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. In addition to these requirements, each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left-handed. There are two different types of amino acids-as of all organic molecules-called “left-handed” and “right-handed”. The difference between them is the mirror-symmetry between their three dimensional structures, which is similar to that of a person’s right and left hands.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution.

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to “coincidence” even worse. In order for a “meaningful” protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognise that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

The Brittanica Science Encyclopaedia, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all the living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.114

If a coin always turns up heads when tossed a million times, is it more logical to attribute that to chance, or else to accept that there is conscious intervention going on? The answer should be obvious. However, obvious though it may be, evolutionists still take refuge in coincidence, simply because they do not want to accept the existence of “conscious intervention”.

A situation similar to the left-handedness of amino acids also exists with respect to nucleotides, the smallest units of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. In contrast to proteins, in which only left-handed amino acids are chosen, in the case of the nucleic acids, the preferred forms of their nucleotide components are always right-handed. This is another fact that can never be explained by coincidence.

In conclusion, it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the probabilities we have examined that the origin of life cannot be explained by chance. If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average-sized protein consisting of 400 amino acids being selected only from left-handed amino acids, we come up with a probability of 1 in 2400, or 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remember that the number of electrons in the universe is estimated at 1079, which although vast, is a much smaller number. The probability of these amino acids forming the required sequence and functional form would generate much larger numbers. If we add these probabilities to each other, and if we go on to work out the probabilities of even higher numbers and types of proteins, the calculations become inconceivable.

Correct Bond is Vital

The amino acid molecules that make up proteins must be linked to each other in a so-called “peptide bond”, which is only one of the many possible types of bonds found in nature. Otherwise, the resulting amino acid chains would be useless, and no proteins would be formed.

The difficulties the theory of evolution is unable to overcome with regard to the development of a single protein are not limited to those we have recounted so far. It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only in certain ways. Such a bond is called a “peptide bond”. Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those-and only those-amino acids which are joined by “peptide” bonds.

A comparison will clarify this point. Suppose that all the parts of a car were complete and correctly assembled, with the sole exception that one of the wheels was fastened in place not with the usual nuts and bolts, but with a piece of wire, in such a way that its hub faced the ground. It would be impossible for such a car to move even the shortest distance, no matter how complex its technology or how powerful its engine. At first glance, everything would seem to be in the right place, but the faulty attachment of even one wheel would make the entire car useless. In the same way, in a protein molecule the joining of even one amino acid to another with a bond other than a peptide bond would make the entire molecule useless.

Research has shown that amino acids combining at random combine with a peptide bond only 50% of the time, and that the rest of the time different bonds that are not present in proteins emerge. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined to others only with a peptide bond, in the same way that it likewise must be chosen only from among left-handed forms.

This probability of this happening is the same as the probability of each protein’s being left-handed. That is, when we consider a protein made up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combining among themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 in 2399.

Zero Probability

As can be seen below, the probability of formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids is “1” over a number formed by placing 950 zeros next to 1, which is a number incomprehensible for the human mind. This is a probability only on paper. Practically speaking, there is zero chance of its actually happening. As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a “0” probability of occurring.

A probability of “1 over 10950” is far beyond the limits of this definition.

While the improbability of the formation of a protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids reaches such an extent, we can further proceed to push the limits of the mind with higher levels of improbability. In the “haemoglobin” molecule, which is a vital protein, there are 574 amino acids, which is more than the amino acids making up the protein mentioned above. Now consider this: in only one out of the billions of red blood cells in your body, there are “280,000,000” (280 million) haemoglobin molecules.

The supposed age of the earth is not sufficient to allow the formation of even a single protein by a “trial and error” method, let alone that of a red blood cell. Even if we suppose that amino acids have combined and decomposed by a “trial and error” method without losing any time since the formation of the earth, in order to form a single protein molecule, the time that would be required for something with a probability of 10950 to happen would still hugely exceed the estimated age of the earth.

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that evolution falls into a terrible abyss of improbability even when it comes to the formation of a single protein.

Is There a Trial and Error Mechanism in Nature?

Finally, we may conclude with a very important point in relation to the basic logic of probability calculations, of which we have already seen some examples. We indicated that the probability calculations made above reach astronomical levels, and that these astronomical odds have no chance of actually happening. However, there is a much more important and damaging fact facing evolutionists here. This is that under natural conditions, no period of trial and error can even start, despite the astronomical odds, because there is no trial-and-error mechanism in nature from which proteins could emerge.

The probability of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability of all of the amino acids it contains being only left-handed and being combined with only peptide bonds is “1” over 10950. We can write this number which is formed by putting 950 zeros next to 1 as follows:10950 =

The Probability of a Protein Being Formed by Chance is Zero

There are 3 basic conditions for the formation of a useful protein:

First condition: that all the amino acids in the protein chain are of the right type and in the right sequence

Second condition: that all the amino acids in the chain are left-handed

Third condition: that all of these amino acids are united between them by forming a chemical bond called “peptide bond”.

In order for a protein to be formed by chance, all three basic conditions must exist simultaneously. The probability of the formation of a protein by chance is equal to the multiplication of the probabilities of the realisation of each of these conditions.

For instance, for an average molecule comprising of 500 amino acids:

1- The probability of the amino acids being in the right sequence:

There are 20 types of amino acids used in the composition of proteins. According to this:

– The probability of each amino acid being chosen correctly among these 20 types

= 1/20
– The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time = 1/20500= 1/10650
=1 chance in 10650

2- The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:

– The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed = 1/2

– The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time

= 1/2500 = 1/10150
  = 1 chance in 10150

3- The probability of the amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”:

Amino acids can combine with each other with different kinds of chemical bonds. In order for a useful protein to be formed, all the amino acids in the chain must have been combined with a special chemical bond called a “peptide bond”. It is calculated that the probability of the amino acids being combined not with another chemical bond but by a peptide bond is 50%. In relation to this:

– The probability of two amino acids being combined with a “peptide bond”

= 1/2
– The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2499 = 1/10150
= 1 chance in 10150

TOTAL PROBABILITY = 1/10650 X 1/10150 X 1/10150 = 1/10950
  = 1 chance in 10950


The calculations we give on page across to demonstrate the probability of the formation of a protein molecule with 500 amino acids are valid only for an ideal trial-and-error environment, which does not actually exist in real life. That is, the probability of obtaining a useful protein is “1” in 10950 only if we suppose that there exists an imaginary mechanism in which an invisible hand joins 500 amino acids at random and then, seeing that this is not the right combination, disentangles them one by one, and arranges them again in a different order, and so on. In each trial, the amino acids would have to be separated one by one, and be arranged in a new order. The synthesis should be stopped after the 500th amino acid has been added, and it must be ensured that not even one extra amino acid is involved. The trial should then be stopped to see whether or not a functional protein has yet been formed, and, in the event of failure, everything should be split up again and then tested for another sequence. Additionally, in each trial, not even one extraneous substance should be allowed to become involved. It is also imperative that the chain formed during the trial should not be separated and destroyed before reaching the 499th link. These conditions mean that the probabilities we have mentioned above can only operate in a controlled environment where there is a conscious mechanism directing the beginning, the end, and each intermediate stage of the process, and where only “the correct selection of the amino acids” is left uncontrolled. It is clearly impossible for such an environment to exist under natural conditions. Therefore the formation of a protein in the natural environment is logically and technically impossible. In fact, to talk of the probabilities of such an event is quite unscientific.

Since some people are unable to take a broad view of these matters, but approach them from a superficial viewpoint and assume protein formation to be a simple chemical reaction, they may make unrealistic deductions such as “amino acids combine by way of reaction and then form proteins”. However, accidental chemical reactions taking place in an inanimate structure can only lead to simple and primitive changes. The number of these is predetermined and limited. For a somewhat more complex chemical material, huge factories, chemical plants, and laboratories have to be involved. Medicines and many other chemical materials that we use in our daily life are made in just this way. Proteins have much more complex structures than these chemicals produced by industry. Therefore, it is impossible for proteins, each of which is a wonder of creation, in which every part takes its place in a fixed order, to originate as a result of haphazard chemical reactions.

Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously “by accident”. Even so, evolution again has no answers, because in order for this protein to survive, it would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical compounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.

Why God Doesn’t Show up

May 29, 2007

This is the second response to salahudin on the above

 I’m sorry I did not get to your initial question. I was specifically addressing to your “are you kidding me” part. But it’s response also covers my larger point that science as we know it today though complex as it seems, is simply not sophisticated enough to answer or (by extension) ask questions relating to a non-material transcendental reality. I will explain why this renders moot the question of “Why Doesn’t God show himself.”

With the options that are before me at the moment, namely the choice of theistic and atheistic belief systems, science falls flat like last years soda when it comes to the hard questions. It is particularly telling of human cognitive weakness and the failure by secularists to understand the level of their cluelessness to the question of the nature reality. Stephen Hawkings was attributed to have said :
“The greatest enemy to knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”.

Stephen Hawking also wrote that , “the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,” The instant of creation remains a scientific mystery.
So if science is telling us about the big bang and that which preceded it – the scientists are making it up – pure and simple. Something akin to the santa claus and the tooth fairy hocus pocus but masquerading as sure knowledge.

As far as the ontological or existential questions of the universe is concerned, science may well be barking up the wrong tree together with it’s adherents.

So what would god look like if he were to show up? Obviously science cannot answer that because it blinds itself to explaining observable phenomena with fantastic theories.
Coming back, what kind of image would satisfy your notion of “God”? Would a humongous ethereal being descending from the heavens with huge white wings with a magic wand claiming to be God satisfy you? Or do you want some guy claiming to be God and curing the sick with the name Jesus to appear? Or would you dismiss him as some sort of an illusionist? What exactly do you expect to see when you talk about god never showing up? What really is your idea of “God”, the existence of which you deny? What do you want to see?
It’s pretty hard to fathom your question alone because it lacks some idea on your part as to what should constitute a “God” as the theist would like to have you believe in. Before you deny, you should know that which you deny in all reasonableness.

As far as my position is concerned, science has proven to be grossly incomplete as something that one can totally believe in. This leaves me a relatively far superior and sensible choice of subscribing myself to believing in an all-powerful transcendental reality that is responsible for all creation.

In short I’d rather be deluded by the God Delusion than be “stupidified” by science.

The reason being that the concept of an imperfect human understanding and apprehension of reality directly resulting from sensory and perceptive limitations makes it impossible to fathom a transcendental reality. Science can’t even fathom the nature of the Universe – what else the question of God? Humans are simply not equipped to apprehend and understand the true nature of reality.

So allegations of perceived delusions about God and the associated flaws in theo-centric belief systems, really exist in the human mind not in God. The mind is unable to apprehend such a reality and it’s flawed understanding, of what little it knows, tends to see something that is right as something that is wrong no matter how it sees it. This is because it’s fundamental principles, assumptions are flawed due to sensory and perceptive limitations. The concept of God is reality in supreme perfection but the understanding of humans of such a concept – both theists and secularists alike – is not.
As such proponents of secular materialistic beliefs should concentrate on perfecting their understanding of reality before they find fault with theists.

So the flaw really is in man’s ability to see “God” than it is in the fact that he exists. Just because you can’t see him does not mean that he does not exist. Just because the frog in the well cannot apprehend nor comprehend my existence does not simply negate that fact that I exist. And by virtue of the fact that the frog in the well cannot understand the fact of my existence automatically throws it’s understanding of my purpose into dreadful error if it ever gets to such a question.
Such an understanding of transcendental perfection of ideas is akin to the Socratic idea of the existence of transcendental perfection of forms as seen in it’s relative representations in the material world.
So to the question of did God create man or did man create god – the answer is the latter. It is man’s imperfect idea of God that gets represented here because of his limitations in his ability to perceive, comprehend, understand and communicate a transcendental reality which renders impossible the scientific quest for knowing the reality of God.

The microsope and the telescope can only see so far and beyond which is calculated speculation and further beyond still is absolute nonsense – such as the wild theories of the multiverse, the foggy abstractions of the M-theory and the propositions of the Anthropic principle.
So to belittle something based on ill-conceived notions, half-baked constructs without having the ability to fully appreciate the mind’s limitations is fatal for secular philosophy. That is why ideas of people like Richard Dawkins can be confined to the dustbins of science as constructs more deluded than their alleged delusions against a belief in God.

My answer to you is :
1) The asker of the question of “Why God doesn’t show up” is unsure as to what he means when he speaks of a God. What is really meant in the question is unclear? What kind of idea does the asker want to be represented with so that (hypothetically speaking) you can identify God when he does show up? What standards do we apply? Material standards (which is grossly inadequate) or metaphysical standards (which is grossly unsubstantiable nor comprehensible)?
2) Material science has been reduced to the theoretical and abstract mathematical realm of Quantum physics and cosmic science has been reduced to vague theories because up to a certain point material observations have become impossible in the infinitesimal and the overawing at the infinitude. How can one expect to “see” God when one can’t even see or know what is before him to fully understand it? The fact that important unanswered questions exist, points to a failure in understanding of the nature of reality. Without these answers being in order one simply cannot proceed from such a stance to judge the question of an all-powerful transcendental reality simply because when the basics are flawed the answers will be skewed. How does one expect to behold and apprehend the infinite with the limited self when his knowledge is imperfect?
The atheists’ question of “Why God doesn’t show up” not only shows a lack of appreciation of the concept of an all-powerful transcendental reality (i.e “God”) as it is understood, but also a failure to acknowledge the necessary flaws proceeding from human perceptive and sensory limitations.

So the question by virtue of these reasons is rendered moot at the very least.

Response to Salahudin on Why Doesn’t God show himself.

May 28, 2007

This is in respose to this piece by slahudin

As we can see from the pie chart (taken from about 84% of the world is religious. Theism vis-a-vis non-theism – the majority of the world believes in God. The secularists are a minority in the world today and yet they consider theocentric-belief as some kind of hocus pocus – Santa claus and the toothfairy notwithstanding.

It would be interesting to note that some of the greatest mind that are involved in revolutionising science – such as Einstein, Isaac Newton, Johann Karl Friedrich, Copernicus, Kepler and Galeleo – were believers in God. These guys were responsible for the great development of modern science as it is now and these guys thought there was an all-powerful being. I bet my last buck that they thought deeper than alot of secular scientists out there because it is far too easier to consume knowledge than it is to create it.

I consider the question of why it is more sensible to believe in a God than not, a no brainer. Science has opened up a cosmic can of worms in it’s bold quest for truth and lays there defeated by the mysteries of reality. Just to cite a few examples that science has not resolved by it’s own scientific standards :

*Why does some matter have mass while others don’t?

* Why the forces of physics (electo-magnetic, weak, strong and gravity) cannot be mathematically unified into one single expression even though they behave in the same way?

*If the theory of evolution is right what process in the so-called primordial soup triggered the animation of inanimate matter?

* What is time?

* Did time predate matter or co-existent with matter?

*What existed or happened at time zero of the big bang?

*What necessary cause caused the big bang? 

* Why only 30% of the universe can be materially accounted for while the rest of the 70% “matter” (so-called “Dark Matter”) cannot be observed?

* What is a black hole and how does it function

*Why do we sleep and what is the explanation for the loss of consciousness of the self?

* Why do we yawn?

* Why and how do we dream?

* What is the ghost behind the brain?

* What causes the effect of gravity?

* Why are there no intermediate species between the evolutionary “monkies”

*What happened to the neanderthals?

And the list just goes on. It just doesn’t end. Alot of these questions are explained away by preposterous presumptions. For example to the question of how the every parameter of the universe turned out just right that it did not collapse under it’s own weight? The answer is : The Multiverse – a theory where every possible permutation of matter is expressed in every way. This is a stupidity of convenience – because secularists just can’t answer why the universe turned out so right that made earth and all the life within it possible. Instead of finding a cause, they came up with an easy catch-all. This theory is also known as the “last refuge of the desparate atheist”. In other words – deny God at all costs – even rationality. The best of this is that they can’t answer why mater must express in all it’s possible ways to make the multiverse theory stick. They don’t even know what system can support a Multiverse. Theory after theory after theory and no answers.

Salahudin, this is the secular equivalent of the theistic Santa Claus and tooth fairy that you were referring to.

It is still true that science can tell you how something works but never why. That is the challenge for science – by it’s own standards. It cannot answer questions at a certain depth of knowledge.  And it has failed – extremely miserably. And nowadays they pass of vague “theories” as knowledge. I’m sorry Salahudin, It’s more sensible to believe in God – secular materialist answers are at the least – grossly incomplete.

If truth in this chart is denied – then 84% of the world are idiots.

The Impossible Universe, the impossible Human being

May 24, 2007

It seems now that the existence of the universe and all that is within it is balanced on a knife’s edge. Every particle – from it’s properties to it’s characteristic is a carefully calibrated manifestation of the physical reality that we live in and observe today. The parameters for the universe to exist are calibrated so so finely that an infinitessimal adjustment anyway would have produced some destructively unimaginable reality that would have precluded not only the existence of life but also (and more importantly so) the very matter itself. The diverse expressions of matter in the observable universe – both in the microcosm and macrocosm have been a product of the existence of right conditions that coincided with the right properties (existent in the force or “thing” that was responsible for the appearance of matter). Sort of like “pre-matter”. If existence of matter is seen as a progression that proceeded forth from nothingness, the most fundamental “pre-matter” that I can think of is the photon. And this has been proven, that matter could be converted into energy (i.e. photons) and vice versa.

The confluence of fundamental  matter as they have been calibrated was an impossible co-incidence and this seems to be THE question foremost in the minds of theoretical physicists today.

It was indeed an impossible co-incidence that from the point of singularity the universe expanded containing the right amount of mass with the right amonut of force to facilitate the creations of electrons and nuclei (i.e protons and neutrons).

It was an impossible coincidence that when the universe cooled, the electrons with their charge at the right amount coincided with the nuclei matter to form atoms, such as hydrogen

The universe continued to expand and cool down that further facilitated the creation of basic elements. The way the atoms were married to express themselves only in a limited way amidst the infinite possible permutations is a mystery.

These molecules coincided to form complex bodies such as gases and cosmic dust that inturn coincided to form stars and galaxies. Some of the stellar systems coincidentally formed planets.

And as you may have it, and by a huge stroke of luck, the planet in one such system, formed with the right constitution, with the right tilt, at the right distance from it’s star, with it’s right size and density managed to somehow contain a system that could be hospitable for organic materials to form.

And by a huge impossible co-incidence through a marriage of a variety of chemical reactions that took place in the primordial soup of primitive earth, the right amount of DNA coincided with the right amino acids at the right amount to form the first proteins and thus the first inkling of primitive life. Surprizingly this first life created in this primordial soup survived to replicate itself to transform into other simple organisms.

How life happened is a catch-22 mystery because for proteins to develop they need the encoded information from the DNA but DNA cannot replicate without catalytic proteins. But chance happenings are a wonderful gift to humanity to just explain away just about anything.

These organisms via a subtly slow process called evolution managed to diversify itself through freak mutations into a myriad of life forms in a surprizingly self sustaining environment conducive for such a process to happen.

And through these mutations came animals and through them came the monkey. And this monkey evolved in many stages into a much smarter monkey more informally (and rather unscientifically so!) referred to as the Human being.

This massive coincidence that dates back to the big bang itself, just to create smart monkeys to ask existential questions in a lonely outpost called the earth takes a huge quantum leap of faith to believe let alone think it.

The impossibility just for the universe to exist, let alone the existence of human beings requires a faith that is far more irrational than it is to believe in an intelligent omnipotent being that had a hand in such a creation. The Universe as it is now is so irrationally impossible that something just had to interfere and calibrate the fundamental particles and it’s attendant forces to facilitate the creation of the universe and life itself.

The theory of evolution as a catch all answer to existential questions is nothing but an irrational and totally preposterous idea that is an absolute insult to the mind that has the chutzpah to think it. To believe in secular justifications that seeks to easily explain away through suspiciously simple theories coated with complex scientific explanations based on wildly improbable assumptions requires a faith that is a billion times more than it is required to believe in an intelligent all-powerful being. In other words one need to make a conscious effort at stupidity to believe the trash the secular materialists dish out as valid scientific explanations just to exclude an intelligent calibrator that a majority of us in this world refer to as God.

I think the advancements in science has made it impossible for a secularists to exist becasue he is constantly being frustrated to come up with new theories to explain away the signs that point in the opposite direction of his line of thinking to a point that he has to disregard known truths and accept abject nonsense as truth. The worst of it is that he sells it as something valid and worthy of embracing. I’m sorry man, I don’t want to make an effort to be stupid just so you can say I’m a clever monkey. No thank you.

Evolution, Shmevolution and other pseudo-sciences

February 13, 2007

Even though the work of the synthetic theoristswho through the usage of Darwin’s theory of natural selectionare claiming that evolution of chance and genetic mutations do take place as an explanation for biological origins of the earth. But the net emerging result of a totally ordered, functional and environmentally germane creature out of these chance events points nonetheless to a mind that works behind the mechanisms that want a certain occurrence to take place in order to lead to a certain conclusion.

The fact that everything works in a chance fashion could never satisfy the existence of definite mechanisms that could be specifically interpreted into functional laws that control these chances. We have the laws of thermodynamics, the strong, weak,gravitational and electromagnetic forces. Every celestial body, organism, molecule atoms and sub-atomic particles seem to follow such laws without which knowledge of the universe that we live could not be achieved by man. Studying and determining these laws enables man to have a platform to base his assumptions on to proceed to a deeper understanding and knowledge. It gives a sharp incisive edge to simplifying the arduous process of investigation into the unknown. There are two conundrums that evolutionists are caught without an explanation and they are threateningly sticky.

One is that the evolutionists are at a loss to explain why, after the formation and cooling of the planet, life seemed to have formed pretty quickly to be deemed plausible for evolution to be allowed it’s process which literally takes eons just to make an intra-species jumplet alone and inter-species one.

From the first basic biological life appeared on earth and started replicating itself to form manit all happened too fast that the only probable speculation for the evolutionists on this is that it must have come from outer space. But even then we are just talking loose theories here and therethey are yet to be documented or substantiated for the formation of reasonably acceptable premises for the evolutionary theory to stick.

The various links to the nebulous idea of evolution are indeed weak and wanting.

The second is that interspecies progression seemed too sudden to be deemed gradual. The evolutionary process is fundamentally slow and gradated given the nature of the biological process,  molecular structure and it’s properties. If variations in genetic mutations were sudden and marked it implies a certain design or control by a higher intelligence. Because for the genetic mutations that cause fundamental biological variations to make radically different species (considering the complexity of the bio-genetic and bio-chemical structure and function of all hydrocarbon life forms) it reasonably carries the assumption that “something” extraneous knew where the make the changes to cause a certain transformational effect.

To think that we came from a single primordial photon in the point of singularity to a fully functional human being just via extra-ordinarily abnormal mutations alone is indeed a tough theory to fathom – let alone accept – by any stretch of imagination.

The advancement of the Darwinian observations by secular materialist scientists to the end to declare that humans are nothing more than highly developed monkeys negates and robs the soul and the spirit of being human. The sum of the sacred human is definitely more than it’s parts and if this needs to be questioned the secular materialists need to come up with a better theory that is more scientific and logical than the flimsy theory of evolution which for me is as scientific as tarot cards being picked up by an “evolutionary” parrot.