Book of Signs Foundation » Truthseekers

A Problem Question for Atheists

obaloch — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 05:47:12 +0000

Here is an interesting problem question for agnostics and Atheists. Refuting venter creating synthetic life.

No related posts.

The Brain and God

obaloch — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:04:19 +0000

There is no muscle in the brain. It has no function other than communication. It is composed entirely of nerves. And that is all that nerves do: they communicate. It is common knowledge that this communication done through electrical signals.

Electrical signals travel through your optic nerve carrying information that describes what you are seeing. Signals travel through your olfactory nerve carrying information about what you are smelling. Electrical signals traverse trillions of neurons for the purpose of creating thought and reason.

One set of signals may communicate that you are smelling wood smoke, another communicates that you are smelling burning rubber. The same is true for your eyes. Certain signals mean blue while others communicate the color red with a slight overtone of maroon. All of these perceptions are nothing more than electrical signals sent along nerves from the sensory organ.

There is one set of signals for colors, another for sounds, another for touch, another for smell, another for sight or for reason or emotion, others for other intrabrain communications and others for the operation of your body. These signals are codes and these codes have never been deciphered.

These codes are so complex and so beautifully designed that they accurately convey every color that you have ever seen in the form of electrical impulses, and every smell that you have ever smelled, every touch that you have ever experienced and every thought and emotion that you have ever had.

These codes are entirely non-physical; they are pure logic.

Each one of billions of nerve cells creates the precise amount of electricity that it uses to transfer its particular code. The nerve cells create the electrical signals that they use by sending sodium and potassium ions in and out of the cell wall at rates varying up to 1000 changes per second.In 1/1000 of a second, the cell changes from a negative charge to a positive charge and then back again. In this way, nerve cells “hum” with electricity.

It is in the pattern and the speed of the hum that the brain transfers data and creates thought. This is the way that brain cells communicate – by codes conveyed through electrical signals that have no physical resemblance whatever to that which they convey. Every sight, sound, touch, emotion, reaction, every memory and every thought in the history of mankind is a code.

If these nerve cells occurred by chance, then billions of cells have, by accidental mutations, were somehow arranged and organized be able as a whole to assimilate and to apply the non-physical codes. Each cell was, by accident, assigned a duty and purpose in the context of all of the billions of others. And how many different encoded expressions are there in vision? There is at least one for every color that man can see. And man can see millions of colors.

It is insufficient to explain this by saying that millions or hypothesized accidents just happened to accurately organize the cells in a brain. The argument is ludicrous.

Circuits in the Brain and Creation Design

obaloch — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:00:23 +0000

The brain of a human contains a network of organized and interconnected nerve cells that is so vast, it cannot even conceive of the number. This fully organized network consists of cells communicates with other cells in order to create thought, love, emotions, touch, regulate an incomprehensibly complex body, perceive through senses and perform uncounted other functions.

Each of these nerve cells is electrical. Each has a particular purpose and each has been microscopically placed into its own particular position in this vast network. And each one is electrically connected to all of the other cells.

The regulation of these connections is so precise that the cells contain timing devices to slow down some impulses by millionths of a second so that they may reach the destination at exactly the proper time.

The number of these organized electrical is much larger than the number of individual neurons because each neuron may have thousands of connections.

The number of connections in the human brain is approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000.

Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis(Adler & Adler, 1985), p 330.

The amount of wiring for these connections is approximately 100,000 kilometers (50,000 miles) or slightly more that two circumfrences of the earth:

“In the human brain, for example, the total length of wiring is about 10⁸ meters and it has to be packed into a volume of avout 1.5 liters.
. . .

“Using the criterion of joules per operation, the brain is about 7 or 8 orders of magnitude more power efficient than the best of the silicon chips. A direct consequence of their energy efficiency is that brains can perform many more operations per second than even the newest supercomputers. The fastest digital computers are capable of around 10⁹ operations per second; the brain of the common housefly, for example, performs about 10¹¹ operations per second when merely resting.”

Churchland, Patricia S. and Sejnowski, Terrence J., The Computational Brain (MIT Press, 1992) p. 9.

Each of these connections works in cooperation with the other 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections. Not one of these connections acts on its own; each one acts in concert with the others; they are all organized.

To understand the size of this vast network of electrical connections, one must first comprehend the size of the number 1,000,000,000,000,000.

Imagine an immense forest that stretches over half the United States, a single forest that covers one million square miles. Each square mile contains 10,000 trees and each tree contains 100,000 leaves. Imagine the vast number of trees in such a forest. The number of organized electrical connections in your brain is approximately equal to the number of leaves on those trees. See Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p 330.

Now imagine that all of those leaves are connected to each other by wires and each leaf produces the precise amount of electricity necessary for it to function in this massive network and produce thought. That is the brain of a human. What is the rate of evolution necessary to evolve such a brain?

There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 minutes in 2 billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections in the brain.. In order to evolve that many connections, evolution must produce by sheer accident approximately one organized, perfected, in place and fully functional connections every minutefor 2 billion years* (the amount of time that evolutionary science claims for the existence of life). Since all of the connections are interrelated, each new neuron must somehow anticipate the arrival of new neurons with regard to timing, function and essentially all that it does, because they all work together as one whole. Evolution is grossly in adequate to account for this complexity, because evolution accounts for intelligence by alleging small incremental changes in intellect over the course of generations, not hours or minutes.

And this calculation assumes that each one of the new neurons and new connections is perfected, organized and in place ab initio. If one applies the real theory of evolution and assumes that these developing neurons are initially imperfect and improved over time, then the rate of change and evolution must increase exponentially. Evolution now requires new neurons and connections at hundreds or perhaps thousands per hour, or millions per generation.

And even if such a rate of evolving changes could be shown (and it can’t), one is still left with the impossible hurdle of showing how the neurons of a brain accidentally created the non-physical code necessary to communicate between themselves.

Purkinje cells located in the cerebellum each receive 100,000 separate and distinct inputs from other cells, each receiving 100,000 separate electrical codes. See S. Raymon y Cajal, Histologie du Systeme Nerveux de l’Homme et des Vertegres. Paris: Maloine, 1909-1911; reprinted, Madrid: C.S.I.C., 1972.

There are billions upon billions of Purkinje cells in a brain. Just imagine what a task it would be to organize and connect billions of Purkinje cells together for the purpose of creating thought.

Evolutionary science cannot understand how they work, much less duplicate them, and yet it explains their existence away by referring to extremely fortunate accidents and survival of the fittest.

“The theory still remains that accidental changes over millions of years has somehow produced a larger brain to survive and be fit. No one can explain exactly how this occurred.”

Thompson, Richard F., Localization of the Essential Memory Trace Circuit for a Learned Response, Brain Structure, Learning, and Memory, Ed. Davis, Joel L., Newburgh, Robert W. and Wegman, Edward J. (Westview Press; Frederick A. Pareger, 1988), p. 69.

Chances of Evolution Only

obaloch — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:56:08 +0000

Evolution preaches that nothing except random chance in connection with survival of the fittest produced the human brain. Since survival of the fittest does nothing but remove changes that had been created by chance, it is chance and chance alone that is supposed to create the changes in the first place.

What are the odds that all of the connections of the brain (and this is a look at the connections only and not the nerve cells themselves) occurred by chance? There is a mathematical formula that calculates the odds of different arrangements.

Consider a deck of cards. Three of the 52 cards can be arranged in only 6 different ways. So, for 3 cards, the chances are one in 6 that any one arrangement would occur by accident.

When a 4th card is added, there are 4 new arrangements for each one of all of the other arrangements. So, to find the number of arrangements, multiply the new number of cards by the number of previous arrangements. So, when the 4th card is added, multiply 4 (the new number of cards) times 6 (the previous number of arrangements) and the result is the number of arrangements for 4 cards. So, when the 4th card is added, the number of possible arrangements becomes 24 and the chance of any one arrangement occurring by accident is 1 in 24.

To get the new number of arrangements for each new card, multiply the total number of cards by the number of prior arrangements. This is a commonly known mathematical forum la.

For four cards, the formula is 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24. Try it! You can arrange only 4 cards in 24 separate ways.

If there were 5 cards, then the chances of a particular arrangement by chance are 1 in 120 (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5).

We suggest that you see the bottom to see how this works, otherwise you find it difficult to believe what follows. Because when you get to the 20th card, there are more different combinations of cards than there are seconds in two billion years.

If there were 6 cards then the chances are 1 in 720 (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6), because there are now 6 new arrangements for each of the prior arrangements.

If there were 7 cards, then the chances are 1 in 5040 (1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7). If 8 cards, then one in 40300.

With 9 there are 362,880, with 10 there are 3,628,800, with 11 there are 39,916,800, with 12 there are 479,001,600, with 13 there are 6,227,020,800, with 14 there are 87,178,291,200, with 15 there are 1,307,674,368,000, with 16 there are 20,922,789,888,000, with 17 there are 355,687,428,096,000, with 18 there are 6,402,373,705,728,000, with 19 there are 121,645,100,408,832,000, and with 20 there are 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 random combinations.

There are only 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years. So, with the random combinations of just 20 cards, one has already surpassed the number of seconds in two billion years by more than two thousand times. That is, the number of random combinations of just 20 cards is more than two thousand times the number of seconds in two billion years.

NEUROLOGICAL CONNECTIONS IN THE BRAIN OF A HUMAN

When one considers that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 cards in the “deck” of neurological connections in a human brain, it is easy to see that it is simply impossible for them to have formed by means of random accidents, no matter what natural forces may have been present.

Suppose these neurological connections evolved perfectly, with no mistakes whatever. Suppose they were simply “produced” in an assembly line with no evolution necessary. How long would it take to evolve a brain? If they were all “produced” on a regular basis with no mistakes, no survival of the fittest and without the need of generations that slowly bettered themselves, if they were simply produced perfectly formed and perfectly installed, how long would it take? If they had only 2 billion years to do it, then at the rate of one every ten seconds at the end of 2 billion years, they would be 18 billion years behind schedule.

There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 seconds in two billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 neurological connections – this would require a rate of evolution of approximately one fully perfected connection per second for two billion years. And is hardly even the beginning, because at the same time one would have to evolve a non-physical digital (?) code that describes not only millions upon millions of separate colors, but also every sensation, emotion and thought of man.

The chances of both the accidental creation of the neurons and the arrangement of them are even greater, because the connections and the circuitry must be coincident. They must happen at the same time for every connection and the timing and firing of each neuron must be honed to a perfection down to the nanosecond. The creation of this circuitry involves the creation of exactly the correct electrical current mechanism, creation of the appropriate code used to communicate with other cells, the appropriate size and placement of the neuron (some neurons stretch from the head the toes), the appropriate insulation of the neurological channels, the proper timing mechanisms and unnumbered other characteristics that are properly arranged and organized down to the molecular level and below.

DNA

An occurrence that has more than one chance in 10⁵⁰, it has a statistically zero chance of actually occurring.

“Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10⁵⁰ has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence.”

I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 205 (as quoted in Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook(Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 260

In order to circumvent the problem of statistical zero, evolutionists often argue that “Given enough time, anything can happen.” This is not a rational argument. It proves nothing. It is a reference to practically infinite periods of time that lie beyond statistical zero.

“A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of avoiding the conclusion that the probability of a self-producing state is zero … When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, the concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything … ”

P.T. Mora, The Folly of Probability, as quoted inOrigins 13(2):98-104 (1986) Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Lind University, 1986. Emphasis supplied.

In fact the chances of the chance formation of just DNA – much less all of the applications of DNA – are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero. R.L. Wysong concludes that the chances of forming a strand of human DNA without intelligent design is one in 10⁸⁹¹⁹⁰.

“This means that 10⁸⁹¹⁹⁰ DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 10⁸⁹¹⁹⁰ DNAs would weigh 10⁸⁹¹⁴⁷ more than the earth … A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed.

R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in The Evolution Handbook(Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261.

But evolutionists argue that there are a multitude of factors that effect and direct changes in species, and the world is a dynamic and changing environment with innumerable forces that cannot be predicted. The world is not a closed system, a beaker with billions amino acids floating around in it.

This argument is impotent to contest the statistical facts. Because no matter what grandiose theories are proposed, ultimately the sequence of the DNA molecule had to have been worked out and installed by chance and elements until the proper sequence was produced. And there are 10⁸⁹¹⁹⁰ random possibilities to be addressed before arriving there.

CARDS

It is common knowledge that there are approximately 3,000,000,000 neucleotides in human DNA. These neucleotides have been compared to letters in a 24 letter alphabet. If each playing card contained a letter and 3,000,000,000 playing cards were stacked on top of each other, they would comprise a deck of cards that is approximately 910 miles long. [assuming a deck of cards is an inch high, 3,000,000,000 inches / 52 cards = 57,692,307 inches of cards / 12 = 4,807,692 feet of cards / 5280 = 910 miles of cards].

Evolutionists want you to believe that this deck was shuffled by the forces of nature and dying animals so often that finally the letters of each card spelled out the correct chemical formulae for 100,000 (some have estimated 2 million) human proteins – including correctly placed separators that mark where the formula for one protein ends and the next one begins.

God or no God, that argument is ridiculous.

________________________

Billions and billions of accidents do not even come close to account for what is now common scientific knowledge. One can believe that this occurred by accident only if one has previously determined thatunder no circumstances would one admit the possibility of the existence of God.

But, of course, that is exactly what evolutionists do – they predetermine that under no circumstance will they ever admit the possibility of a Creator, even if there is no evidence for evolution at all.

“Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory … we would still be justified in preferring it over rival theories [creationism].”

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (NY Norton, 1986), 287, emphasis in the original.

The basis for conclusions of this nature is obviously not observed facts. It is a predetermined theological conviction in the garb of science that will not be swayed with any observation whatever, not even if the chemical formulae for 100,000 proteins were found to be inscribed into the arrangement of the atoms of a molecule …

Evolution did not occur. There is a Creator.

Chances

Three cards can be arranged in 6 different ways or sequences:

A K Q

A Q K

K A Q

K Q A

Q A K

Q K A

Four cards can be arranged in 24 different ways:

A K Q J

A K J Q

A Q K J

A Q J K

A J K Q

A J Q K

K A Q J

K A J Q

K Q A J

K Q J A

K J A Q

K J Q A

Q A K J

Q A J K

Q K A J

Q K J A

Q J A K

Q J K A

J A K Q

J A Q K

J K A Q

J K Q A

J Q A K

J Q K A

Five cards can be arranged in 120 different ways:

A K Q J 10

A K J Q 10

A Q K J 10

A Q J K 10

A J K Q 10

A J Q K 10

A K Q 10 J

A K J 10 Q

A Q K 10 J

A Q J 10 K

A J K 10 Q

A J Q 10 K

A K 10 Q J

A K 10 J Q

A Q 10 K J

A Q 10 J K

A J 10 K Q

A J 10 Q K

A 10 K Q J

A 10 K J Q

A 10 Q K J

A 10 Q J K

A 10 J K Q

A 10 J Q K

K A Q J 10

K A J Q 10

K Q A J 10

K Q J A 10

K J A Q 10

K J Q A 10

K A Q 10 J

K A J 10 Q

K Q A 10 J

K Q J 10 A

K J A 10 Q

K J Q 10 A

K A 10 Q J

K A 10 J Q

K Q 10 A J

K Q 10 J A

K J 10 A Q

K J 10 Q A

K 10 A Q J

K 10 A J Q

K 10 Q A J

K 10 Q J A

K 10 J A Q

K 10 J Q A

Q A K J 10

Q A J K 10

Q K A J 10

Q K J A 10

Q J A K 10

Q J K A 10

Q A K 10 J

Q A J 10 K

Q K A 10 J

Q K J 10 A

Q J A 10 K

Q J K 10 A

Q A 10 K J

Q A 10 J K

Q K 10 A J

Q K 10 J A

Q J 10 A K

Q J 10 K A

Q 10 A K J

Q 10 A J K

Q 10 K A J

Q 10 K J A

Q 10 J A K

Q 10 J K A

J A K Q 10

J A Q K 10

J K A Q 10

J K Q A 10

J Q A K 10

J Q K A 10

J A K 10 Q

J A Q 10 K

J K A 10 Q

J K Q 10 A

J Q A 10 K

J Q K 10 A

J A 10 K Q

J A 10 Q K

J K 10 A Q

J K 10 Q A

J Q 10 A K

J Q 10 K A

J 10 A K Q

J 10 A Q K

J 10 K A Q

J 10 K Q A

J 10 Q A K

J 10 Q K A

10 A K Q J

10 A Q K J

10 K A Q J

10 K Q A J

10 Q A K J

10 Q K A J

10 A K J Q

10 A Q J K

10 K A J Q

10 K Q J A

10 Q A J K

10 Q K J A

10 A J K Q

10 A J Q K

10 K J A Q

10 K J Q A

10 Q J A K

10 Q J K A

10 J A K Q

10 J A Q K

10 J K A Q

10 J K Q A

10 J Q A K

10 J Q K A

Circuits in the Brain and Creation Design

Fibonacci Numbers in Nature & God

obaloch — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:53:50 +0000

Probably most of us have never taken the time to examine very carefully the number or arrangement of petals on a flower. If we were to do so, several things would become apparent. First, we would find that the number of petals on a flower is often one of the Fibonacci numbers. One-petalled … white calla lily
and two-petalled flowers are not common. euphorbia
Three petals are more common. trillium
There are hundreds of species, both wild and cultivated, with five petals. columbine
Eight-petalled flowers are not so common as five-petalled, but there are quite a number of well-known species with eight. bloodroot
Thirteen, … black-eyed susan
twenty-one and thirty-four petals are also quite common. The outer ring of ray florets in the daisy family illustrate the Fibonacci sequence extremely well. Daisies with 13, 21, 34, 55 or 89 petals are quite common. shasta daisy with 21 petals
Ordinary field daisies have 34 petals … a fact to be taken in consideration when playing “she loves me, she loves me not”. In saying that daisies have 34 petals, one is generalizing about the species – but any individual member of the species may deviate from this general pattern. There is more likelihood of a possible under development than over-development, so that 33 is more common than 35.

Naturally Occurring Fractals & Creation Design

obaloch — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:48:42 +0000

Naturally Occurring Fractals
(including plants, rivers, galaxies, clouds, weather, population patterns, stocks, video feedback, crystal growth, etc.)

The geometry of Fractals brings us a new appreciation for the natural world
and the patterns we observe in it.
Many things previously called chaos are now known to follow subtle subtle fractal laws of behavior. So many things turned out to be fractal that the word “chaos” itself (in operational science) had redefined, or actually for the FIRST time Formally Defined as following inherently unpredictable yet generally deterministic rules based on nonlinear iterative equations. Fractals are unpredictable in specific details yet deterministic when viewed as a total pattern – in many ways this reflects what we observe in the small details & total pattern of life in all it’s physical and mental varieties, too ….

The fact is the closer we look, the less chaos is observed, and more order is seen in the most basic natural patterns

FRACTAL FERN: One very simple way to understand fractals and the meaning of “lteration” is to examine a simple recursive operation that produces a fractal fern thru a “chaos game’ of generating random numbers and then placing them on a grid.

fter a few dozen repetitions or ITERATIONS the shape we would recognize as a Perfect Fern appears from the abstract world of math. How and Why can this be?

The answer to why is that it Simply IS – and it’s quite surprising too!
Answering How is that nature always follows the simplest & most efficient path. Fractals are maps of the simplest paths sliding up the scale of Dimensions (from 2-D to 3-D and so on). So maybe it’s simply an artifact of nature’s elegance that we find exact correspondences between these inherently existing mathematical forms and natural patterns, and even living creatures of many types.

Fractals in nature are ubiquitous – clouds, plants, galaxies, shells and more.

Laws of the Universe and God

obaloch — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:24:49 +0000

“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.”

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time, Bantam Press, London: 1988, p. 121-125

Fine Tuned Universe

obaloch — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:20:58 +0000

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun’s orbit
density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
¹²C to ¹⁶O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for ⁴He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
decay rate of ⁸Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Illustrated Guide To the Journey of The Soul

obaloch — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:03:30 +0000

No related posts.

Commonly Misunderstood Qur’anic Texts

obaloch — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 11:15:36 +0000

Dr. Jamal Badawi has been without doubt one of the best known Muslim speakers in the West for the last two decades. Dr. Badawi is a professor of economics, at St. Mary’s University, Canada. Dr. Jamal Badawi’s books on Islam and Muslim-Christian issues are quite popular. He is one of the most effective Dawah speakers and has hundreds of lectures and debates on tapes, as well as books and leaflets on various topics.