Can physics prove if God exists? - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210301-how-physics-could-prove-god-exists?ocid=global_future_rss

Subject: Re: [ 你為何不跳樓 ? ] --- 重播. 唉~~~
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:01:42 -0600
From: "SHAM, On-Hay Jeffrey" <jeffsham@telusplanet.net>
Organization: StarZine Interactive
Newsgroups: starforum.talk.religion.christian

Dear all,

        It's actually very interesting to read all of the arguements
presented here.
        To be fair, I should state that Science could never 'prove' the
existence of God; but neither could it 'prove' the absence of God. Science
is limited into the context of testing HOW the material world works and
everything inside co-ordinates that leads to a holistic phenomenon that we
could witness. For the WHY questions, they are mainly dealt with Theologists
and Philosophers. And of course, don't think that Theologists and
Philosophers are not scientific because this is not true for a century. All
disciplines, including Science, in academics go to philosophy. That's why
the highest level is Ph.D, which means Doctor of Philosophy. And in fact,
Christian theology has long been providing useful insights to Philosophy. We
shall neither discriminate Christianity. Indeed, as a Biological Science
student, I can tell you that Evolutionism is just one small theory among the
broad fields of Biology. We should attend to it but avoid to expand it too
far away.
        In fact, scientists are now exploring the origin of Life on the
molecular levels, mainly because of the advance of Biochemistry and
Genetics. These fields provide new informations and basis to examine whether
evolution 'works' or 'doesn't work'. (Whether it's right or not should be on
the basis of whether it works or not) However, there seems to be evidence
that Biochemistry and Genetics reveal to them some molecular interactions
which ultimately cast doubt to the evolution theory. Please be with me for a
while for I am going to let you know what they are. The knowledge involved
may be a bit challenging to you people but I believe that you can
understand:
        1) How cell membranes form?
            All of us know oil cannot mix with water. Cell membranes have
the property of oil. According to the evolution, lifes were originated
undersea. This question of how cell formed underwater is a crucial one then?
If you have a bit of biology, you know that cell membrane is a phospholipid,
which has a head compatible to water and a tail incompatible to water but
oil. But cell membranes are unique that they are composed of two of these
lipids so that the tails would seal up each other only expose the head parts
to the water enclosed in the cell and the water outside the cell.
Experiments show that cell membranes could possibly formed but not easily.
        2) Ok, the membrane is done. So what next? This is an even harder
question: How is it going to enclose a protein that works for cell?
            Proteins are biological building blocks and agents. They are the
assembly line of the cell. If they are absent or malfunction, the whole cell
screw up totally. That's the basis of cancer. Cancer is a whole bunch of
malfunction cells. That suggests the kinds of proteins and their proper
co-ordination are critical factors. Then we must ask the following question:
how does a 'healthy' working protein form?? Proteins must have precise
arrangement of amino acids. If the arrangement is not right, the whole
protein either doesn't work or work as something else. In our cells, this
arrangement is instructed by DNA. But back in those times, there're not DNA
formed?! For a cell to at least work, there must be at least a cell membrane
formed and enclosed enough amount of amino acids(which is huge)
simultaneously. For a cell to proliferate, there must be a cell membrane
formed and enclosed enough amount of amino acids plus a huge amount of DNA
which works simultaneously. The probability for both is almost zero.
        3) Can a working protein possibly form naturally?
            There are two convincing facts that a protein cannot form
naturally by itself:
            (i) Inside a lab, scientists can synthesize a protein with
precise conditions and procedures. But amino acids, which builds up
proteins, could not be formed by crushing each other. If you know a bit of
Chemistry, molecules could have different configuration, i.e. chemical bonds
bind in different positions. Amino acids for living cell are unique. Their
chemical bonds are all in a position that scientists designate them as
L-form. But by nature itself, if with the right condition, amino acids
formed must have 50% L-form and 50% D-form. Even in the lab, scientists
cannot synthesize amino acids with L-form only. They must later filter out
all the D-form so as to make proteins compatible to life. There's never a
good answer to solve why living systems could completely adopt L-form amino
acids. Evolution is a theory that highlights randonism. Randomism makes
non-working proteins!!
            (ii) According to 2nd law of thermodynamics, spontaneous
processes are characterized by the conversion of order to chaos. In other
words, for a ordered molecule (protein), there must be energy to sustain it.
Otherwise, it would break down (amino acids). Scientists can drift two amino
acids together but energy must be provided. By nature itself, there wouldn't
be enough energy to hold two amino acids together for long. In my medical
physics course note, there is a funny comics to describe the absurdity of
it. The first picture said, "3,562,392,027 years ago, two amino acids drift
together" The second picture said, "6 seconds later, they drift apart" The
third, "482,674,115 years later, two amino acids drift together"
        4) DNA must be inherited faithfully from one generation to another.
            Genetics has discovered a fact that a slight alteration of DNA
molecules could lead to disasters to a living species but almost never
improve the productivity of it. Cancer could sometimes be traced to genetic
factors: Mutated DNA to badly structured proteins to cell malfunctioning to
bad cells outracing good cells. According to this new light, evolution has
suffered from a full blow because, for a species to evolve from one species
to another higher species, there must be a lot of DNA mutation plus some
other additional DNA. Then this evidence almost ripped evolutionism away.
        5) What would evolutionists say about it?
            Time. The only explanation that may be convincing is Time. Since
the probability of materials evolving to a single cell and a single cell
evolving to higher species are as low as zero. The only explanation is to
let Time reigns. That's why evolutionists like to state which species was
evolved some billions of billions of years ago. The method that they applied
scientifically the time span is the Carbon 14 method. Carbon 14 method
examine the decaying status of the carbon in a fossil to infer the time when
the carbon was not decayed yet.
        6) Is Carbon 14 method valid?
            Yes, Carbon 14 method is valid. Nevertheless, it's valid only to
a limit of 10,000 years. For anything older than this time limit, the data
would not be accurate. That's why there're variations in calculating
species' years even among scientists.

        As you may see, evolution is not the perfect explanation to the
ecosystem of the Earth. And Science is not supposed to be a discipline that
discuss supernatural beings, e.g. God, in its context. What I know is that a
recent survey in US was done on many Nobel Price Winners about their view on
the existance of God. Most of them said that they believe in God. Many
specifically state the God whom Christian believe. Some state that they
believe in the existence of God but are not sure who He is. It's because
there're still a lot of phenomena that Science could not explain WHY and,
unless there're supernatural intervention, they are not possible by nature
itself.
        Hope that this will help you all to clarify some stuffs. And go on
the journey of exploring the world!! We're in the process of learning. Some
run fasting. Some need help. Avoid judging others.

Yours truly,
Jeffrey Sham
University of Alberta 3rd yr. Physiology and Developmental Biology.
Edmonton, Canada

田雞 <no@no.com> wrote in message news:375E92E3.F2BF9939@no.com...
> 插句咀.
>
> Carfield Yim:
>
> "進化論" 呢個名, 在字面睇, 好易誤解.......
>
> 有些人只睇字面, 以為所有物種都在 "進化",
>
> 所有"器官/技能"都在"進化".
>
> 事實上, 只是 "物競天擇".
>
> 若一個器官/技能, 對該生物無用, 無太大幫助,
> 好自然地, 變異後消失了該"器官/技能", 亦對其無太大影響.
> 所以, 個"種"也繼續留存.
>
> >>If so, then the process of 進化論 is a continuous change, right?
>
> "continuous change".  Just Change. 無指定 "Change"o既方向.
> may be better, may be worse.
>
> 所謂 "Better", 是指 更適合該生活環境.
> 所謂 "Worse", 是指 更不適合該生活環境.
>
> 閣下以為自己 "高於其他生物".
>
> 但正確些來說, 應是"人類"這個物種, 普遍能夠適合生存於"現在的地球環境".
>
> 我曾睇過一個關於生命起源的特輯.  這裡暫且不提起源的問題.
> 我提出的 Case, 是關於....... 在火山口附近的 "熱水泉".
>
> 這些"熱水泉" 是不停噴出蒸氣的.  泉水是不停沸騰的.
>
> 水泉內部溫度 (只深入地面少許) 高達 150C 以上.
> 化學成份,(環境) 也很惡劣.
>
> 但 ------ 在水內找到大量微生物.  正常地生存 !!!!
>
>
> 這顯示了什麼呢 ?
>
> 我可以說, 在上述環境內, "人類"這物種, 並比不上一隻"微生物" !!!
>
> 因為適應不來.   你懂思想, 懂創作又如何 ?? 150C, 一半也死了.
>
> 所以, 請勿誤解, 以為 "進化" 是代表  "向好的方向"進發.
>
> 事實上, 是物競天擇, 留下適應得較好的.
>
>
> >>And if we are 進化 from monkey, then we should better than monkey,
> >>why do we have some weakness over monkey? (like no hair to protect our
> >>body, and the monkey can use their foot like their hand)
>
> 所以, 你這段文字, 可能是出於誤解.
>
> "monkey" : "有毛" 可能對他們的生活有幫助. 所以, "有毛"的品種愈佔愈多.
>
> "human": 懂得用其他方法代替"毛".  "有毛"的品種, 與 "冇毛" 的, 分別不大.
>
> 至於為何 "human" 冇毛呢 ?.............可能你冇罷.
> 你搵個多毛佬睇睇...... 同 monkey 差不多. 哈哈.
>
>
>
> Carfield Yim wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I really weak in BIO,
> > but while is it relate to 進化論?
> > Will we have mutation when the external environment change?
> > If we have mutation when the environment change, then will it affect our
> > off-spring?
> > If so, then the process of 進化論 is a continuous change, right?
> > Then how can human have some discrete different with other animal? (like
> > making tools, creating new idea?)
> > And if we are 進化 from monkey, then we should better than monkey,
> > why do we have some weakness over monkey? (like no hair to protect our
> > body, and the monkey can use their foot like their hand)
> >
> > I really weak in BIO, please explain more, thx
> > though I am a christian, I hope that this can be discuss in a more
science
> > way.
> > If you only think that I am non-sense without any point, please post a
new
> > message to said, don't reply it.
> >
> > If you my grammar is really too bad,  it is because I am working so I
don't
> > have too much time for typing Chinese
> > and proof read my English. I am really sorry to this.
> >
> > "小思~iVytSoi~" wrote:
> >
> > > 我剛剛考完CE。
> > > 以我的理解，
> > > "MUTATION"是指細胞分裂時的基因突變，
> > > 不一定是性細胞的，更不一定是"受精卵"。
> > >
> > > 你所說的應該是"independent assortment"吧...
> > >
> > > Carfield Yim wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Really very less, I only attend the CE Bio, only remember mutation
is
> > > > 受精卯的異變,
> > > > Is it right?
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 我在等死的日子　死期：八月十日
> > > 我的急救site--http://start.at/firstaid
> > > students新蒲點--news://168.70.249.143/cyber-x.student
>
