#81 The Definition of Impossible

We have all heard the expression that “anything could happen” and we typically accept the proposition without thinking about it too deeply. If you then add in the concept of huge amounts of time or even infinity, well then “anything could happen.” This is typically part of the argument for evolution.

I want to take a deeper look at what might really be possible and what is in reality impossible by trying to construct a useful definition of what is impossible.

I give credit for this idea to a mathematician named William Dembski in his book, The Design Revolution. He clearly put a lot of deep thought into what is possible and what is impossible and why.

He devises a number which he calls a “universal probability limit.” This is a number limit that no reasonable person, certainly no person of science or math, could ever argue with. The number is 10¹⁵⁰. The working definition is that if the likelihood of some event is less than one in 10¹⁵⁰, it is beyond the universal limit and will never happen and could never happen.

I am henceforth going to call that number “the definition of impossible.”

Where this number comes from is very important. First you take the number of all the protons, electrons, and neutrons in the universe. That is 10⁸⁰. Next you multiply that number by the number of seconds since the universe started at the “Big Bang.” That is 4.0 x 10¹⁷ seconds. Now, lastly, you multiply that by what is theoretically the smallest unit of time, the Planck Unit. There are 10⁴³ Planck units in a second.

You have to practically be a PhD in mathematics to understand a Planck unit, but look that up if you are interested. It’s something like the time it takes the speed of light to pass a proton.

Now if we multiply those three numbers together, we get 10⁸⁰ x 4.0 x 10¹⁷ x 10⁴³ or approximately 10¹⁴⁰. Just for good measure, let’s multiply this by ten billion more and we get the number 10¹⁵⁰. This is how Dembski got the “universal probability limit” or what I’m calling the “definition of impossible.”   

If the likelihood of an event is 1 in 10¹⁵⁰, or anywhere close, and especially anywhere exceeding that, then it is impossible.

Let’s take a fairly simple example of coin flipping. There are only two possibilities for random flipping of a coin, either heads or tails. 

What is the possibility that you can flip the coin and it will land on heads 1,000 times in a row? It would be ½ x ½ x ½ ….on and on up to 1,000. There is one chance in 2¹⁰⁰⁰. That converts to one chance in 10³⁰¹.

1000 coins

The conclusion is that it is impossible if we use the “definition” we just established.

So think of it this way. Even if you had one person for every proton, electron, and neutron in the whole universe and they were flipping coins AND they could do 1,000 flips every Planck unit of time since the beginning of the universe, they wouldn’t even come close to an outcome of all heads. They have hardly gotten started. Conclusion, it’s impossible. The chances are just too small for it ever to happen by accident.

We now have a more realistic understanding of “anything can happen.” Actually, as you can see for yourself, it can’t.

Did I lose you? Let’s go one more simple step and see if that helps. Suppose instead of flipping a coin, you are rolling a die that has six sides and want to get the side with the “one” mark on it to come up 1,000 times in a row. 

You can see that is way “harder” than getting 1,000 heads in coin flipping. It’s way more impossible, right?

Getting a “one” would be 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6 … on and on up to 1,000. This is a much, much bigger number, i.e. 6¹⁰⁰⁰. Totally impossible. Are you with me?

And now the final point to show that life did not happen by accident. It is totally impossible to a much, much greater degree than flipping coins or rolling dice.

There are 20 to 22 different so-called “standard” amino acids required by all life forms, even the very simplest living cell [1]. 

And those amino acids have to be perfectly arranged in a long chain in an exact order to make a functioning protein [2]. (See my Proof for God #74 Proteins [3].)

The really simple proteins are made up of 300 amino acids in a precise order. Once the long chain is created, then it folds over and over again on itself in another exact pattern. Then proteins interact with other proteins.

So the number of possible arrangements for the very simplest protein are 20³⁰⁰. In a human being the average functional protein has about 450 amino acids, again in a very precise order. That would be one out of 20⁴⁵⁰ random possibilities. That’s the average human protein, but the number of amino acids in a single protein can go as high as 34,350 according to one source.[4][5]

The human body contains approximately 100,000 different, unique proteins [6] but there are estimates up to 2 million [7]. Every different protein has a precise arrangement of the 20 amino acids.

By the definition of impossible that I have established, even one single protein is impossible to occur randomly. But we know there are 100,000 or more different proteins in the human body.

Sample protein arrangements

The most abundant life source on earth, blue-green algae, is also one of the simplest. However, as simple as it is, it still requires about 2,000 genes that each produce different proteins [8]. Any single protein is impossible by randomness and blue-green algae requires 2,000 proteins.

Life is not an accident. The simplest life form could not have occurred randomly. We have shown that it is impossible. We have shown it is orders of magnitude more impossible than 1,000 heads in a row by flipping coins.

There must be God.

------------------------------------

[1] Amino Acid article in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

[2] Protein article in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein

[3] Stephens, Jim, Proof for God #74 Proteins, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/12/74-proteins.html

[4] Proteins, http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Proteins.html

[5] Another source said 26,926. http://www.wisegeek.org/how-many-proteins-exist.htm

[6] Proteins, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/protein.html

[7] How Many Proteins Exist, http://www.wisegeek.org/how-many-proteins-exist.htm

[8] Ell, Douglas, Counting To God, AttitudeMedia, 2014, page 106.

#80 Four Fundamental Forces

Scientists say that in the whole vast universe that there are exactly four types of forces. Yes, only four. Pretty amazing since the universe is so unimaginably huge. Over 13.7 billion years old and estimated to be at least 156 billion light years across (NASA says no one knows), and all that running on only 4 forces.

This discussion will examine these forces and argue that they must have all had their origin BEFORE the universe began and OUTSIDE OF the universe. Therefore, this discussion will attempt to show that there must be God because these forces exist and came from some source greater than the universe.

The four types of forces are (1) gravity, (2) electromagnetic forces, and two forces inside of atoms, (3) the strong nuclear force and (4) the weak nuclear force. [1]

                                                 Chart of the forces. [2]

Gravity you are familiar with. It holds everything together. There is no known limit to how far it reaches. How much you weigh is a measure of the force of gravity between the earth and your body. The strength of gravity between the Earth and Moon is estimated at 70 million trillion pounds. If you had to replace it with a long steel pole, you would have to get a pole that is 531 miles in diameter. Think about that! It’s hard to even imagine an invisible force that strong. Another amazing thing about gravity is that it is impossible to make a shield against it. Gravity is felt completely right through any known object.

Electromagnetic force is the force that exists between all particles with an electric charge. It is the basis for about every modern invention and convenience in life. It’s hard to think of anything we use that did not have electricity involved in its creation. Also the very energy that makes up your body and the nerve impulses that move everything, including your heart and brain are all electromagnetic.

The strong nuclear force holds everything together in the nucleus of atoms, the protons and neutrons. It dominates in nuclear reactions and decaying. Relatively speaking it is the strongest of all the forces, however, it only operates over a very short distance within atoms. The weak nuclear force is responsible for certain types of nuclear decay of particles.

Note the very, very precise differences in strength between the forces. If any of them were to vary by the tiniest of strengths, the whole universe would fall apart.

Let’s ask where did these four forces come from and when. Is the Theory of Evolution any help? Absolutely not. It doesn't even get a chance to apply until life has already started and gotten to the stage where it can successfully reproduce using DNA.

Did these four forces come about after the origin of the universe? Nope. Most scientists accept the “Big Bang” as the starting point of the universe. But without the four forces, there could be no universe. Therefore, the four forces had to exist before the universe when there was nothing. We could try to say they came about at the same instant as the universe exploded into being, but we still have to conclude that the four forces were “there” somehow BEFORE the explosion.

Gerald Schroeder, doctorate in physics from MIT, points out these facts in a video. [3]

Omnipresent is a word usually used in the theological context, as in God is omnipresent. Note that the four forces all could be said to be omnipresent. There is no known place in the universe where they don’t operate. They are absolutely everywhere, except possibly a vacuum where there are no particles, but even in a vacuum, gravity could still be there. The four forces are not physical or material, but they operate ON the physical.

All the four forces are also invisible. We can experience or see the effects of the forces but we cannot see the forces themselves. The universe contains time, space, and matter. The four forces are “outside” of time, space, and matter, which is very hard to comprehend since we are “inside”. They operate “on” or “over” the universe, but are not affected by the universe.

I could also make a case that the four forces are “all powerful.” No matter what you do, you cannot break or change the forces, go around the forces, or get outside of the forces. We are, in a way, “dominated” by the four forces. We are subjects to the Laws of Nature that exist. But that’s a good thing. Without them we’d be dead.

How about eternal? Are the four forces eternal? It’s more than likely that they are not going to change as long at the universe continues to exist and they’ve certainly been existing since before the universe. That’s about as eternal as you can get by definition. That’s a very god-like characteristic.

How about infinite? The strong and weak nuclear forces operate over very short distances. But scientists believe that gravity and electromagnetic forces are infinite.

God is often called “unchanging” or “immutable”. Are the four forces “unchanging?” BINGO.

We could even say that the four forces are “just” and “fair”. Everyone is treated equally. You cannot get any more fair than that.

I have been describing some of the laws of physics that are outside the realm of materialism and beyond the universe. I believe that you cannot explain these fundamental forces without resorting to there being a creative designer as the cause. The essence of all things is not within this material universe.

There must be God.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Science Notes: Fundamental Forces of Nature, http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s3/06forces.shtml

[2] Hyperphysics, website hosted by Georgia State University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

[3] Gerald Schroeder, Science Has Finally Proven that Scientifically, There is a God, http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/science-has-finally-proven-that-scientifically-there-is-a-god/

Gerald Schroeder holds a doctorate in physics from MIT and has been on staff at the Weizmann Institute of Science, the Volcani Research Institute, the Hebrew University. In this video he gives an incredible explanation on the existence of G-d based on the laws of physics and nature. It all makes sense. You just need to follow his train of thought.

#79 The Heart

Here is a major miracle that you experience every second of your life…your heart.

About 3 to 4 weeks after the sperm and egg united and got started to make you, there were a couple of blood vessels that suddenly started pulsing in a very regular beat. Those vessels grow together, enlarge, and twist around each other to form your heart in only about 2 weeks. A swirling pattern of muscles forms around a bulge which splits into the 4 chambers of the heart. It continues to beat about every second for the rest of your life.

In the womb, the heart is responsible for the very development of that fetus into you. 

The average heart is about 10 ounces and the size of a fist. Through an amazing process the electric pulses (red lines below) cause the top part of the heart to beat first, followed by the lower part. 

It beats an average of 72 times a minute. It beats 1,000 times in 14 minutes. It beats 10,000 times every 2.3 hours. It beats 103,680 times a day, every day, your whole life. It beats a million times in less than 10 days. That’s a pretty amazing muscle.

The average heart pumps about 2.4 ounces of blood (.073 liters) each heartbeat. It pumps about 1.3 gallons of blood (5 liters) per minute. That is 1,900 gallons a day (7,200 liters). That would fill an Olympic sized swimming pool in a year. It would fill a couple super size oil tankers in your lifetime.

All the veins in your body are dumping blood into your heart which sends it to the lungs to pick up oxygen before sending it back out through arteries to capillaries and every cell of your body. The blood takes nourishment to your cells and withdraws waste products. There are 60,000 miles of blood vessels in your body. End to end they would reach around the world at the Equator 2.5 times.

That’s not all. That’s just the very basics. Modern research is learning a lot more about the heart.

For example, there is more information being carried by your nervous system from your heart up to your brain than from the brain down to the heart. Some research is even showing your heart perceives things milliseconds before your brain does.

The energy field of the heart can actually now be measured up to 8 feet away from your body. Other people are constantly picking up on that energy intuitively and being affected by it. We influence each other on an invisible energy level. Our hearts to a much larger extent than we realize effect our emotions, our physical bodies, our relationships, and our health. [1]

"The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field in the body. The electrical field as measured in an electrocardiogram (ECG) is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the brain waves recorded in an electroencephalogram (EEG). The magnetic component of the heart’s field… is around 5,000 times stronger than that produced by the brain"[2]

Although our hearts are nearly autonomous, there are still nerves that run from our brain to the heart that can speed it up or slow it down according to what is going on in our consciousness. Is that really a lucky accident?

When people get a new heart through a heart transplant, they find themselves with habits and memories from the previous owner of the heart. Research is showing that there are sections of memory cells in the heart exactly like the memory cells in the brain.

If you believe that all of this came about by accident through mutations and natural selection over many, many generations, how did it happen? Did the beating start first in some random muscles and then many generations later a heart accidentally formed? Or did the heart accidentally form and then some generations later it started beating accidentally in exactly the pattern necessary to push the blood in the right directions. 

When did the valves and the chambers inside the heart form? Even if the heart was beating and pushing blood in the right directions, where did it push the blood before the arteries, veins, and capillaries were accidentally mutated into place which must have taken many generations? 

Blood is made in the marrow of our bones. When did blood accidentally start being produced? How did the hemoglobin cells that carry oxygen evolve over many generations? Toxins are cleaned from the blood by the liver. Food and water are inserted into the blood stream by the intestines to be sent to every cell of the body. When did the lungs get accidentally connected to the heart arteries so they could start supplying oxygen that the cells needed (before they all died)?

I’m having an impossible time seeing how small changes over many generations could accidentally put all these complicated systems into place. Oxygen, food, and water are essential for life to exist from the very first cell and the systems need to be in place at the beginning of the very first organism. Waste products and CO₂  need to be removed in the very beginning. The very first human cannot live without all these systems in place right at the start. You can’t wait generations for them to develop by mutations one at a time.

All cultures have expressions like “from the bottom of my heart” and “follow your heart.” Our very existence is a miracle and at the center of it all is the biggest miracle of all, our heart. It is our constant, trusted and faithful companion. “Be true to your heart” because it is being true to you. It is symbolic of something much bigger than yourself. It is symbolic of your Creator and the essence of your creation.

It’s not in your brain, it’s in your heart where you will find that there must be God. 

------------------------------

[1] McCraty, Rollin, Ph.D., The Energetic Heart: Bioelectromagnetic Interactions Within and Between People, 2003, Institute of HeartMath, http://www.heartmath.org

[2] McCraty, Rollin, Ph.D., The Energetic Heart: Bioelectromagnetic Interactions Within and Between People, 2003, Institute of HeartMath, http://www.heartmath.org

#78 Icons of Evolution

Suppose you are a high school or college science student and you walk into class on the first day. They hand you a brand new science book. You open it up, but inside is the text book from 50 years ago. The President of the United States is Lyndon Johnson. No Internet, no cellphones, VCR’s are not available yet, DVD’s not invented. A minicomputer cost $18,000. There are no personal computers.

How much credibility would you place on the material in that textbook?

What if I told you that current science books are still publishing the same information as 50 years ago about the Theory of Evolution, without any updating with new research? The truth is some of the information has been known to be false for 50 years and yet it has never been removed. One drawing that was known to be false 100 years ago (Haeckel’s embryo drawings) is still being included as truthful. Young minds of today are not being told the accurate scientific truth. Why not?

This Proof for God is going to talk about the explosive truth contained in a book titled, “Icons of Evolution” by Jonathan Wells [1]. This is not a religious book. It’s a science book about truth. Textbooks in school are supposed to tell the truth, right? Taxpayers are footing the bill to have their kids educated not indoctrinated. We should be collectively outraged if Dr. Wells is correct, and he thoroughly documents that he is.

Copyright Icons of Evolution, Page 249

In the back of the book, the author analyzes 10 popular high school textbooks and lays out a clear procedure for giving out grades on the scientific accuracy of the material covering the Theory of Evolution. Seven of the 10 textbooks rated an “F”. 2 graded out at “D-“. One got a “D+”. This is sickening.

Dr. Wells even called them “massive distortions and even some faked evidence.” [2] The book states, “An ‘F’ indicates that the textbook uncritically relies on logical fallacy, dogmatically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence.” [3]

The book was published in 2002 and to be fair, some of those textbook publishers have probably altered their publications. Nonetheless, we now have a great grading system thanks to Dr. Wells in order to judge the truth or falsity of a lot the material that we learned as kids that supposedly proved evolution was true. Wells spends a chapter each on 10 different examples used in textbooks which are false or misleading at best. If you have kids, I hope you will enlighten them about their 50 year old text books.

The worst lie is Heackel’s drawings from back at the time of Darwin. He tried to show that embryos of many very different species are very similar and thus closely related in an evolutionary tree of life. Even 100 years ago it became known that he faked the drawings and that the real embryos are not that similar.

People who have indoctrination in mind understand very well the purpose of having an “icon” or picture that people can easily relate to and thus swallow a complicated concept uncritically. True seekers of truth, which is the supposed calling of scientists, would have protested these drawings for the last 100 years and they would not be in textbooks today. But people with an agenda always bend an inconvenient truth to fit their own ideas. They make a drawing and claim it as fact when it is not.

Here are the 10 “Icons of Evolution” from the book of the same name. All of them are massive distortions or deliberate falsifications. See if you remember any of them from your science classes.

Icon 1: The Miller-Urey Experiment. This experiment in 1952 supposedly showed how life could have originated in an early earth gas mixture that was struck by lightning. Scientists as early as 1960 began to doubt that the elements in the test tube were the actual elements on the earth at the time of the origin of life. Even if the elements were correct, all it did was create a small number out of the many amino acids required for life. That is still light years away from creating a protein. Hundreds of various proteins are required in order for even a single cell to exist.

Icon 2: Darwin's Tree of Life. It supposedly showed how all life originated from a single cell and branched off into all forms of life in later generations. No fossil evidence has ever been found to support Darwin’s tree of life and over 99% of the fossils we now have were discovered since Darwin. It’s a drawing from his imagination. He made it up.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 3: Homology in Vertebrate Limbs. Because the combinations of bones of various animals seem to be similar and used similarly, this supposedly proves they all descended from a common ancestor. This is obviously a logical fallacy and doesn’t prove anything about ancestry. Cars looks similar but they don’t reproduce, they are created by intelligence. Bats and whales have the same ability of echolocation, but do they come from the same ancestors? No one thinks that.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 4: Haeckel's Embryos. Already I discussed how this has been a known fake for 100 years and yet we can’t get rid of it. In the picture above is Haeckel's fakes on the first line and the actual embryo on the middle line.

Icon 5: Archaeopteryx-The Missing Link This fossil was first discovered in 1861 and was touted as the missing link between reptiles and birds, thus proving evolution. There should be millions of missing links but people were satisfied enough to believe in evolution once they could point to this one fossil. Actually a total of 8 of them were found, parts of them anyway, and they were even called “holy relics” and “unimpeachable evidence” by evolutionists. Most paleontologists today, however, do not believe it is the ancestor of any modern birds. There went the missing link.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 6: Peppered Moths. This supposedly showed how moths “evolved” because the darker ones would get eaten less if the trees they landed on were dark trees. Changing color may be an adaptation, but it is not evolution. It was also discovered that the original researcher faked his data by gluing the moths on the trees. They don’t really land on those trees.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 7: Darwin's Finches. The beaks of finches got bigger in dry seasons when food was less plentiful. This supposedly showed evolution, but it doesn’t because when the rains return, the beaks return to a smaller size. Even if there were permanent change, they are still finches. That’s not evolution.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 8: Four-Winged Fruit Flies. Intelligent scientists in a laboratory bred fruit flies so two small appendages grew into the size of extra wings. You can’t prove evolution by applying intelligent breeding. Fruit flies in the wild never develop extra wings. Even for the ones in the lab, the wings were useless and would have been selected out by natural selection as a disadvantage.

Icon 9: Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution. This goes all the way back to a drawing from Othniel Marsh in 1880 supposedly showing the straight-line evolution of small horse fossils to large modern day horses. It turns out the fossil record is not a straight line and it really can’t be used as evidence for or against evolution or intelligent design either.

Copyright

Jody F. Sjogren 2000

Icon 10: From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon. This drawing/icon is especially caught up in the minds of people for several generations. There is no scientific evidence behind this drawing at all. My Proof #1 Male and Female [4] is all about the impossibility of this drawing because it does not show women evolving simultaneously. My Proof #64 on Missing Links [5] goes into the fact that there is no fossil evidence for anything between the chimpanzee and the man.

If the Theory of Evolution rests on these icons for its evidence, it should have been in the dust bin of history already 50 years ago. They are just pictures and drawings. There is no science here.

If this is all the evidence they have for evolution, if this is the best they can do, then game over right now.

A number of evolutionist believers reviewed Dr. Wells book and called him essentially ignorant, stupid, or wicked. He responds to them very adequately in my opinion with scientific evidence. If you are interested in all the arguments, please go to his response: "Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution". [6]

Once people realize they have been duped by clever marketing using false icons and rabid character assassination of anyone trying to teach the truth, then the Theory of Evolution will be quickly shown to be like the Emperor’s new clothes, nothing there.

The only ultimate explanation of it all is going to turn out that life came from a non-material, very intelligent source.

There must be God.
-------------------------------------------------------
[1] Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong, 2002, Regnery Publishing. Articles by Jonathan Wells, http://www.iconsofevolution.com/articles.php3

[2] Wells, Jonathan, Survival of the Fakest, Discovery Institute, appeared The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

[3] Wells, Jonathan, Survival of the Fakest, Discovery Institute, appeared The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

[4] Stephens, James, Proof for God #1 Male and Female, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2012/05/male-and-female.html

[5] Stephens, James, Proof for God #64 Missing Links, http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/07/64-missing-links.html

[6] Wells, Jonathan, Critics Rave Over Icons of Evolution: A Response to Published Reviews, Discovery Institute, June 12, 2002, http://www.discovery.org/a/1180

#77 God of the Gaps

If you start to share with people some of the recent scientific evidence that points to God or a master designer, you may hear the rebuttal from someone that your evidence is just a “God of the gaps” explanation. It might even be said with some condescension.

There is no need to fear the “God of the gaps” slur and I’ll tell you why. But first, what is “God of the gaps.” The term was actually invented by Christian theologians who were trying to identify a certain strategy for proving that God exists which they assumed is doomed to failure.

If you try to argue for God scientifically by saying that scientists have no answer for something, therefore it must be God behind it, eventually science may discover a materialist process that explains it. If they do, then God is pushed out. Centuries ago, people did not understand thunder and lightning and concluded that it must be the gods fighting in the heavens. Once thunder and lightning were understood, poof, no more gods.

200 years ago, people assumed there must be God because the world was so complex and highly organized that only design could explain it. Then Darwin came along with a materialistic based theory that sounded pretty logical and scientific, and poof, many people who didn’t want a master designer anymore could base their rejection of God on evolution theory and so-called science, developing their faith that it could all happen randomly.

"Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." That makes perfect sense to a believer, but to a God-denier and even your average scientist that is a “God of the gaps” statement. They have faith in a different place. They believe that scientists will eventually discover how life started and additionally of course there will be no need for God.

If you are a believer, you will be happy to hear this news. Over the last 50 years of research you would think that the “gaps” would be disappearing one by one and that scientists are slowly proving the case for the materialists. That’s even the way the materialists might be preaching it.

However, actually the “gaps” are getting bigger and bigger. What once seemed to be a small “gap” in materialistic explanations has often, after newer research, turned out to be an even more complex and complicated problem to explain materialistically. Also new “gaps” are being discovered all the time which scientists cannot explain. The evidence for a master designer is getting stronger, not weaker.

Here is a totally mind blowing fact I heard just today. I’m sure it’s going to be very controversial for years to come. It is totally beyond my understanding of how such a calculation could have been made, so I’m only reporting this new research. Here it is. Astrophysicists at UCLA have calculated that the total density of the mass of all the particles in the whole universe is so absolutely precise that changing the density by a single grain of sand would have caused the whole universe to cease to exist. Read that again, will you. Here is the reference.[1] My mind is blown thinking about it. That’s a pretty big “gap” to explain without a designer. Below is a chart. The density of the universe was so precise at one nanosecond after the Big Bang (447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016 gm/cc) that a variation of 0.2 grams would mean no universe. 0.2 grams more and the universe would have imploded after 15 billion years or 0.2 grams less and there would be no stars or planets, just dust.

“Thus the density 1 ns after the Big Bang was set to an accuracy of better than 1 part in 2235 sextillion (i.e. 10(exp 21)). Even earlier it was set to an accuracy better than 1 part in 10(exp59)!” [2]

Here is a different example in another field. Biologists thought for a long time that most of the DNA was useless, left over mistakes along the evolutionary trail. They called it “Junk DNA”. Maybe you have heard about it. But have you heard the latest? They have found that there is no such thing as “Junk DNA.” In fact, all the DNA seems to be used in the best, most efficient way possible to create living beings. They further discovered that some DNA does even double duty in two different processes. One amazing section does triple duty. A new “gap” was discovered. A really big one for evolutionary biologists! There is no known materialistic explanation for this type of DNA evolving because it performs two essential processes for life.

The “gap” for a materialistic explanation for the formation of a single living cell is growing bigger also. The odds of a single functional protein happening randomly are put at 1 in 10(exp180). Scientists currently estimate that 265 to 350 proteins are the minimum requirement for life [3], but more likely at least 500 to 1,500. Still those estimates are only for parasites that live off other living cells. So the estimate for a self-existing and reproducing cell is probably between 1,500 and 1,900 genes for making proteins. So the odds of producing just the proteins for life by random chance are now something like 1 chance in 10(exp 40,000). [4]

Gaps are not disappearing as predicted. They are getting wider. And new gaps are being discovered all the time. Take another example of astrophysics. My last Proof #76, 200 Parameters for Life, lists a few examples from the 200 known requirements for a planet to be hospitable for life. It was first thought there were only 2. It’s a known fact that 200 number will never decrease. Most likely it will continue to grow. These are not “gaps” anymore. They are proven facts. Calculations against natural forces alone creating a habitable planet like ours have been increasing. Hugh Ross optimistically put the odds at 1 chance in 10(exp215) [5]. Remember there are only 10(exp80) atoms in the universe. [6]

All the evidence in the world will not convince some people who don’t want to be convinced. But when the evidence becomes so overwhelming, what can you say about the person who won’t accept it?

Here is an example that I’m borrowing from Richard Swinburne.[7] There was a man who was kidnapped by a terrorist who was intent on killing him. The terrorist rigged up ten machines from a casino that are used for shuffling cards and dealing out one at a time. Each machine had a regular deck of 52 playing cards to shuffle. The terrorist set explosives all around the man and he calibrated each machine so that it would send a signal to set off the bombs if any card were drawn except the ace of hearts. Only one card from out of 52 in each machine would save his life, the ace of hearts. And all 10 machines had to produce an ace of hearts. If any machine dealt a different card, he would die. The terrorist goes a long way away and activates the shuffling machines. No explosion. He comes back to the room and there is the man safely alive and each machine has dealt an ace of hearts. The man totally cannot believe his good fortune. He is alive. How could it have happened? Was it an act of God? The odds of his survival were impossible. He had one chance in 52x52x52x52x52x52x52x52x52x52 = approx. one chance in 144,555,000,000,000,000. He states to the terrorist that surely there is a God or this could not have happened. The kidnapper says that there is nothing remarkable or surprising about this at all. It happened. He would not be alive to observe it if it hadn’t. No big deal. Any other result and he would be dead and not able to see it.

The mathematical calculation of the odds of our being alive in this universe is far, far less likely than the man surviving the bombs above. To those denying a God, our existence is no big deal. The only reality to consider is physical matter. They have decided that science must be limited to material processes only and they have faith it will eventually find all the answers there.

Whether they realize it or not, their beliefs and assumptions are based on faith. Faith in miracles unexplainable by current science and often violating the well known laws of nature identified so far. As each new “gap” in materialistic explanations is discovered, it makes the odds of us being here by accident less and less likely.

There must be God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Fine tuned density of Universe at time of Big Bang, http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#FO

[2] Fine tuned density of Universe at time of Big Bang, http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#FO

[3] Science Daily, Scientists Find Smallest Number Of Genes Needed For Organism's Survival, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm

[4] Williams, Peter S., The Big Bad Wolf, Theism and the Foundations of Intelligent Design, http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=53&mode=detail

[5] Boyle, Tim, Does Life Exist On Any Other Planet In The Universe? Another Look At SETI, http://www.konkyo.org/English/DoesLifeExistOnAnyOtherPlanetInTheUniverseAnotherLookAtSETI

[6] Villanueva, John Carl, How Many Atoms Are There in the Universe?, http://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/

[7] Swinburne, Richard, "The Argument from Design", http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/swinburne-design.pdf

#76 - 200 Parameters for Life

As scientists learn more and more about the world around us and the universe, they are learning how incredibly synchronized, interconnected, and interdependent every little aspect is.

In fact, some are saying that according to the laws of physics and chemistry, we shouldn’t even be here.

In 1966, astronomer and famous promoter of science, Carl Sagan announced that there were two requirements for life to be possible on a planet. He said you had to have a certain type of star like our Sun and you had to have your planet a certain distance from the star. Given there were 10(exp 27) stars in the universe that would mean there were about 10(exp 24) planets where life could exist. Surely we were not the only life. Our planet was just a “pale blue dot”, tiny, and insignificant. Humans were insignificant in any scheme of things.

But since that time, scientists have kept discovering more and more parameters that are requirements for life to come into existence. The number of parameters required went up to 10, then 20, then 50. One Christian apologist, Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has compiled 200 parameters [1] that must be met by any planet that could possibly support life such as us. That was over 10 years ago.

What started out as 10(exp24) possible planets for life, kept shrinking and shrinking and shrinking until it hit zero, zip, nada. Then it kept right on going! In other words, the probability that any planet at all, even ours, could exist and support life became more and more impossible. We shouldn’t even be here!

Check out these two links for long lists of the necessary parameters along with detailed explanations.

Does Life Exist On Any Other Planet In The Universe? Another Look At SETI
http://www.konkyo.org/English/DoesLifeExistOnAnyOtherPlanetInTheUniverseAnotherLookAtSETI

Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth (Updated June 2004). (Lists 154 parameters necessary.)
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2004/06/07/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-updated-june-2004

Let me give you some examples. It turns out that not any old galaxy could allow life to exist. Actually it will have to be a spiral galaxy. It will have to be a certain size, not too big, and not too small. It will have to be a certain age, not too old and not too young. These facts would eliminate an estimated 90% of galaxies as candidates for a planet that could support life.

Next, some more parameters about the necessary star were discovered for life to be supported. It would have to be situated in the right location in the galaxy. It has to be located in a narrow region between the spiral arms of the spiral galaxy. If it is too close to the center, it will be destroyed because it will travel too fast and run into one of the spiral arms. If it is too far away, it will travel too slow and be destroyed as well. It can’t be in one of the spiral arms either.

There is a nice name given to all these amazing coincidences: the “Goldilocks” parameters, as in “not too hot, and not too cold, just right.”

The star has to be a single star. 75% of the stars in our galaxy are double stars or multiples. So they get eliminated. A planet can’t exist for long unless the star is single due to the irregular gravity. Also, the star has to be the right size, and the right mass, and the right age. It can’t be too hot or too cold. It can’t burn erratically and send off varying amounts of energy. The star has to be formed at just the right time in the history of the galaxy or the right chemicals for life won’t exist.

The planet that can support life must be in a very narrow zone around the star. It can’t be too close or it will get sucked in or burned up. It can’t be too far away or it will be too cold. It also has to be tipped on its axis approximately 23 degrees to allow for seasons and the right climate for life to grow in a large habitable zone.

Since life first began on earth, the sun’s luminosity has increased about 15%. Normally this would destroy all living things, but because life was growing and absorbing CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it was perfectly synchronized. Life was able to flourish. A very life supporting temperature has been maintained as life developed and exactly because that life was developing. It never got too cold or too hot. Going too far in either direction would have started a chain reaction leading to destruction of life.

Most stars as they revolve around the center of their galaxy also oscillate up and down. This is bad for life because the center of a galaxy sends off lots of radiation. It is extremely fortunate for us that there are lots of cosmic dust clouds to shield our sun from the radiation coming from the center of the Milky Way and also that our sun does not oscillate up and down too much. If it did, we’d die from radiation.

Obviously we need lots of water for life. If the earth moved just 2% closer or farther from the sun, there would be no more water.

The gravitational pull of the earth is exactly right for keeping water vapor trapped, but also amazingly and precisely right for letting methane and ammonia escape from the earth. These gases would be deadly. A few percentage points change in that and we all die.

The earth rotates on its axis every 24 hours. This is perfect. Any slower and we would be frozen or toasted, depending on which side you were on. Any faster and the winds would blow us away.

The earth is tilted on its axis 23.4 degrees. This is again perfect. More tilt and the climate would go crazy. Less tilt and the amount of livable space would be very small.

I wrote a whole proof for God on the unique qualities of our Moon. [2] It has many, many significant parameters that are just right. For example, if it was not a an abnormally large size for a moon or the exact distance which it is, we’d all be dead.

Did you know that you owe your life to the planet Jupiter? It is estimated that Earth would be struck by large meteors 1,000 times more often if not for Jupiter, obviously resulting in huge catastrophes and death. Jupiter is just the right size and in the right position to protect the Earth. If it were bigger, it would suck us away from the sun. If it were smaller, it would not shield us as well. Jupiter and Saturn have very nice smooth orbits which is to our benefit. If their orbits were a little more erratic, they’d pull us out of our orbit and you guessed it, we’d die.

All the gases in our atmosphere, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. seem to be in exactly the right proportions to sustain life. A little more oxygen and we could never put out all the fires.

The Earth has so many “Goldilocks” parameters that it is really mind boggling. The tectonic plates are necessary. The molten core is necessary for life. The earthquakes are necessary. The correct ratio between oceans and land masses is necessary.

This goes on and on and on. Up to 200 parameters have been identified already and that was 10 years ago. I’d be willing to bet that in the future even more parameters are going to be discovered, thus making it more impossible that we are alive by accident. If you want to get into more of the details, I highly encourage you to go to the two webpages I have referenced above or other resources that exist. Here is a third from the Wall Street Journal in December, 2014: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God. [3]

So you can decide for yourself of course what you are going to believe, but you certainly have to admit that the odds of all these factors occurring so that life could emerge are almost infinitesimally small. Dr. Hugh Ross put the odds at 1 in 10(exp 42). There are an estimated 10(exp 27) stars in the whole universe. Let me write those odds out for you; 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. He also said that was an optimistic estimate because he was generous when assigning the odds to each parameter.

Could we really be that lucky? Here’s my conclusion.

There must be God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Hugh Ross, PhD., Fine-Tuning For Life On Earth (Updated June 2004), https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2004/06/07/fine-tuning-for-life-on-earth-updated-june-2004 

[2] Jim Stephens, Proof for God #49, The Moon. http://101proofsforgod.blogspot.com/2014/01/49-moon.html

[3] Eric Metaxas, Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God, Wall Street Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568