K0HB:

Yes, I have read a couple of books on the subject--most of the authors
strike me as being rather weak in math and especially in the area of
probability and statistics--quite possibly lotus-blossom-eaters.

First, just for starters, to get all the necessary elements formed into
the complex amino acids to create the RNA is preposterous--let alone the
actual creation of the RNA (and this would only be a virus--unable to
replicate on its own.) Next, to get a complex DNA structure would be
another extraordinary event, for the proper structure (organism) to be
present and form around the DNA AND be able to use the DNA would be
another extraordinary event, for this organism to be able to replicate
would be one more extraordinary event, for just one of these single celled
organisms to go "multi-cellular" would be one more extraordinary event,
then for each cell to develop specialized functions--another extraordinary
event, for them to form complete organs handling a specific
function--another extraordinary event.... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO GO
RIGHT ON UP TO WHERE THE ORGANISM IS CAPABLE OF SELF-REALIZATION, COMPLEX
THOUGHT AND CONSIDERS ITSELF TO HAVE A SPIRIT!

.... as you can quickly see, this chain of impossible, seemingly endlessly
numbered and impossible links of extraordinary events to have all
occurred, all at just the right time, all in just the proper order is just
too mathematically impossible to have any believe but those willing to
believe the most preposterous impossibility which could ever be devised...
in plain english--IT IS IMPOSSIBLE--END OF STORY!

Those books on the subject, start quickly to, toss around these CHAINS of
extraordinary events without the slightest considerations to the
mathematical possibilities, which end up being NON-EXISTENT!

I had the fortune to have a mathematics professor who I worked with at the
university, who obtained a grant and was into computing these
possibilities, he WAS an atheist... and that is a true story!

In fact, it was this professor who first told me to look either for angels
or aliens--before he finally settled on the angels (intelligence NOT from
a mud puddle as you could ever find upon an earth-like planet)...

I just flat do not know what to think, it is all too impossible...
perhaps the answers are out there...
X-Files-theme-plays-in-the-background

.... or, perhaps there is a very simple explanation we just have not
thought of--yet... any guess is as valid as another...

John

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:03:50 +0000, KØHB wrote:


"John Smith" wrote


If I was forced to guess, a beginning without the intervention of an
intelligence with a plan I would venture is impossible, someone obviously
"made" us...


Are you from Kansas?

Evolution is (in my mind) too fuzzy a term, because it has become popularized to
imply a lock-step progression from "lower to higher". I subscribe to the basic
premise ("natural selection") but I believe it to be a stochastic process in
which some randomly scattered "lucky breaks" occured. For a good read, go to a
good university library and check out "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins
(Oxford) and "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies (University of Adelaide).

73, de Hans, K0HB

"John Smith" wrote

In fact, it was this professor who first told me to look either for angels
or aliens--before he finally settled on the angels (intelligence NOT from
a mud puddle as you could ever find upon an earth-like planet)...

The only thing that I can think of which is more impossible to believe than "mud
became man" is angels that just "were".

73, de Hans, K0HB

K0HB:

Yes, well, enigmas which run in circles, that is all there is...

John

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 05:12:40 +0000, KØHB wrote:


"John Smith" wrote

In fact, it was this professor who first told me to look either for angels
or aliens--before he finally settled on the angels (intelligence NOT from
a mud puddle as you could ever find upon an earth-like planet)...

The only thing that I can think of which is more impossible to believe than "mud
became man" is angels that just "were".

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"John Smith" wrote


In fact, it was this professor who first told me to look either for angels
or aliens--before he finally settled on the angels (intelligence NOT from
a mud puddle as you could ever find upon an earth-like planet)...


The only thing that I can think of which is more impossible to believe than "mud
became man" is angels that just "were".

73, de Hans, K0HB





So where did all the matter in the universe orginially come from? If it
had no beginning, the it just "was". If it did indeed have a beginning,
the what was before that?

"Cmdr Buzz corey" wrote

So where did all the matter in the universe orginially come from? If it had no
beginning, the it just "was". If it did indeed have a beginning, the what was
before that?

Since there was no universe, there was no time. If there was no time, there
obviously was no "before".

K0HB:

There is no such thing as time... time is something humans make up to
deal with their universe--there is only movement...

John

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:52:35 +0000, KØHB wrote:


"Cmdr Buzz corey" wrote

So where did all the matter in the universe orginially come from? If it had no
beginning, the it just "was". If it did indeed have a beginning, the what was
before that?

Since there was no universe, there was no time. If there was no time, there
obviously was no "before".

John Smith wrote:

K0HB:

There is no such thing as time... time is something humans make up to
deal with their universe--there is only movement...


Read the Book "The End of Time". Cecil W5DXP turned me on to that.

Frankly, I don't quite buy the idea. The author throws away a lot of
concepts we have today that are explainable within the context of what
we already know. IOW, simple answers exist for things that he invents a
new universe for. Occams razor thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak.

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:
"Cmdr Buzz corey" wrote


So where did all the matter in the universe orginially come from? If it had no
beginning, the it just "was". If it did indeed have a beginning, the what was
before that?


Since there was no universe, there was no time. If there was no time, there
obviously was no "before".





If there were no time, then there could never have been anything, since
it would take even the smallest fraction of time for the "big bang" to
begin.

Give up on the argument for time. We measure time by the spinning of the
earth. Our most accurate way of measuring time is an atomic clock, it
measures how many atomic particles are given of by a decaying sample of
radioactive material, when so many particles have been lost--we say a
certain amount of time has passed--rather crude really.

We have even developed convoluted methods to use light as a clock,
however, under different conditions (gravity for one) or though different
materials not even light always travels at the same speed, and theoretical
physicists already know light may move at, at least slightly different
speeds in different parts of the universe.

Anyway, what all these methods have in common are movement, even the
atomic particles moving away from the radioactive sample. If you attempt
to capture time in a bottle you only end up with a moving object in that
bottle...

.... there is absolutely no such thing as time, it is a figment of our
imagination which allows you to get to work on "time"--time is very
useful--but time is not real ...

John

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:44:19 -0700, Cmdr Buzz corey wrote:

KØHB wrote:
"Cmdr Buzz corey" wrote


So where did all the matter in the universe orginially come from? If it had no
beginning, the it just "was". If it did indeed have a beginning, the what was
before that?


Since there was no universe, there was no time. If there was no time, there
obviously was no "before".





If there were no time, then there could never have been anything, since
it would take even the smallest fraction of time for the "big bang" to
begin.

KØHB wrote:

"Cmdr Buzz corey" wrote


So where did all the matter in the universe orginially come from? If it had no
beginning, the it just "was". If it did indeed have a beginning, the what was
before that?


Since there was no universe, there was no time. If there was no time, there
obviously was no "before".


That is beginning to sound like "faith" Hans! (ducking and running)

Unfortunately, we can't just go on that idea. There are plenty enough
possibilites for what happened before the "Big Bang".

For a singularity (Big Bang precipitating event) to exist, there needs
to be something for it to exist *from*. Unless you propose the mother of
all zero point energy events. Of course, there must be something to have
a ZPE event from!

But there is always something.


Turtles all the way down!


- Mike KB3EIA -