For Clearer views: Check our premises.

This is our continuing project: The search for happiness, destiny and how to rescue souls. "A look at life". Enjoy.

Some of the following content will have a deeper context after reading Contemplate the Universe, Beyond the veil, The Touch, Destiny calls and Afterglow.

Our reminder again, just like someone looking at the last few pages of a book, we may catch the flame, but have missed the fireworks in between. So make sure to take a look at some of the previous content of this website, if you've jumped straight to this page. We've covered a bit of ground.

 

After that, it appears that it is almost essential to look at the half hour tutorial on the Central Dogma of Biology, which we have placed on Page 13 of this website. If we start mentioning, "turbines", that's where to look.

Henri

---

 

We have been caught up again, rewriting previous content, to make it look like a word processor lined things up. But no, we are celebrating the English language, where we use the words, thought, though and through, more often. We are in the middle of our online book, "Beyond the veil" and the chapter "Family time". I've noticed in a lot of them, I had family as two syllables, but I've changed that to read them with three syllables.

---

 

Looks like we're going to revisit the role our media play in the origins debate.

---

---

 

Using the quotes from the bottom of the previous page.

---

---

---

 

So that was the composite on our G TE BE I said I'd have a go at. Not the way I thought it would go. For the main GTB bubbles, I linked three of the levels, each time, to make our grand theory into a loop. In the above, I looked at the six spaces between the seven levels to set context. Continued reformatting is going okay.

 

---

---

---

 

It's a big day for me today, because I have just decided to stop rewrites, but who knows what the future holds. I have decided to stop at 505 bubbles. I passed two psychological barriers. One was 490. As in, seven times seventy. And the other was 500. 505 has been an interesting number for me for ages, possibly because of digital displays.

Whenever I occasionally see it's five past five, on the clock, I stop myself to wonder, "Who's in trouble?" As in, SOS. So I decided to stop at that number. Who knows who's in trouble. Maybe someone, maybe everyone, maybe the Universe, maybe science. Get the idea.

I have been writing poems on origins for twenty years now, and some of the recent rewrites were right from way back then. That was really enjoyable, for me, watching them transform into our new, mathematical format. Not that good recognizing all my mistakes. What's the go for tomorrow? A lot of proof reading. Keep the dream alive. Henri.

---

 

I just had a go at converting the ten bubbles on the Beatitudes, which I started writing at the end of 2016. I've decided to put them in the appendix of "New Future". Sort of, like, the technical stuff in the appendix.

I'm still proof reading the text. Just now, I went through and changed the word, "spiritual" to read as four syllables, instead of the three syllables if we slur the word, and through our website. "in" to "is", "quality" to "qualify", twelve syllables to ten syllables, etc. And wow, "thought", "through" and "though". All good.

---

 

I'll make a few comments on "Through the wormhole" with Morgan Freeman, because I've seen some of the content now. A few parts of some episodes, not an entire episode. But for someone who has been checking out that scene for years, it's all good stuff, but a lot of it is boring because, a lot of it is science history, talking to the players, Noble prize winners, with some good speculations tossed in, but nothing new for me.

I wrote at the start of page 34 that I am of the opinion Stephen Hawking thinks Richard Dawkins has biology covered, and Richard Dawkins thinks Stephen Hawking has cosmology covered. We can make that into a general statement, and say Biologists think Cosmologists have Big Bang theory covered and Cosmologists think Biologists have standard evolution theory covered.

But this is what is the go with books like Stephen Hawking's, "The grand design" and shows like "Through the wormhole": They are attempting to address the topics around how we go from Nothing, to a person contemplating about how we came from Nothing. That is the short version of what they are trying to say. But they fall an eternity short of addressing those topics, if all they discuss is Big Bang, inflation, string theory, and related topics and the pioneers associated with that.

I realize that is an extremely simplistic way of putting things, but so much is left unsaid if one only mentions, that's all, going from Nothing to something, and doesn't discuss it from a skeptical aspect, but continues on as if we were discussing washing the car. Besides discussing the person contemplating, that is one of the most profound concepts to confront humanity, and they, sort of, ignore it. This topic has been put into bubbles multiple times on this website.

If I wanted to mention the upside of "Through the wormhole", it would be how the show presents the opposing views on time, space and a variety of related topics. These views show that no one theory is able to explain the extremely complex Universe we contemplate. What do we say about time? They all could be right. I noticed Morgan Freeman gave a version of "Who made God?" at the start. The secret sign. And yes, He's serious, straight face, with the occasional wicked smile.

To set perspective on that, I have just watched, "Furthest" on the ABC, on our virus stay at home. If you ever watch the show, you will get a feel for why I became engrossed with science, as a young person. What's the go? It's the toys, the technology, the tangible, and the voyage of discovery, using the equipment, to do what humans were always meant to do. Discover our surrounding, and beyond.

I'm still continuing with the proof reads and edits of "New Future", this includes approximately 150 new bubbles, 150 from Contemplate the Universe, 200 from Beyond the veil, and a small number from before CTU. Henri. 29/3/2020.

---

 

When we contemplate the person contemplating, we look at the Universe, look at the biology, and then look at the contemplating. All those are bottomless topics. Since the TV focuses on the Universe, and how cute the babies are, I'll make some comments on biology again, without the big words, to give a description of how life works, and give some perspective on the Universe and the contemplating. More details are on page 13 of our website.

As stated many times before, when describing biology, it's extremely complicated, with exceptions everywhere, and interconnections everywhere. With that in mind, let’s have a go. We are made of proteins, and DNA is the data and control to make proteins. When a signal is received, from inside or outside the cell, the system prompts the information retrieval systems to start. Thousands of reading heads, which run up and down the double helix molecule, are activated.

When the information is retrieved, a single stranded molecule is produced, which contains the data and control. This molecule is processed to retrieve the data, which is used as the input to the machine that makes the precursors to proteins, and they go to another machine, which transforms them into the needed protein. Other systems then take over to transfer those new proteins to where they are needed. Multiple, integrated, and parallel, support processes assist this process.

That short description is nowhere near string theory, or the thrill of the chase, but must be accounted for when we are presenting our views on the nature of reality. Any version of origins, which leave that out, has a major, gaping hole, in that version, if they are implying that they are addressing our contemplating about how nothing made everything.

On the virus, we encourage you to live one day at a time, stay patient, look after each other as much as possible, and make sure to reach out if not coping. Henri.

---

 

Just a bit more on those previous comments. We could propose the general statement that when evolutionists present their case, they never present an integrated overview of their general theory. If one is a cosmologist, they ignore biology and consciousness, biologists ignore Big Bang theory, and philosophers in science don't get into the details of any of those.

We could try some fun and attempt to expand the BBC Earth quote for them we gave a few pages back. I just went hunting. Here it is. (Page 35, 12/12/2019). "Step by step, worms became fish, fish came onto land and developed four legs, those four-legged animals grew hair and, eventually, some of them started walking around on two legs, called themselves "humans" and discovered evolution". An awesome quote, and yes, we've written a few versions of that, before and after we read it.

If you have been reading some of our content so far, you will probably know what we would write, "Step by step, Nothing did something, to create a Universe, and our planet, where some chemicals and sunlight made some worms, they changed to discover evolution, and then went on to create the technology to blast off into outer space, to continue the journey". A good story, or should I say, a good faery story.

---

 

The other day I decided to check through Paul Davies' book, "The fifth miracle", which has been looking at me, from my bookshelf near my computer. By the marks in the front and through the book, I think I have read it at least twice. It's a fantastic resource for a website like this one, because it presents the standard version of the current ideas on going from Nothing to everything. In his case, from a proto planet, covered with water, to some kind of proto lifeform.

And if Paul was reading this website, he would recognize some of his work. So from our previous comments about Stephen Hawking's book, Stephen was/is not the only one who thinks that gravity is the source of everything we see. Paul has the same views. This quote is already on this website, but we'll quote it again. It's fairly good. Page 41: "The ultimate source of biological information and order is gravitation."

The main thrust of his book is how to go from non-life to life: Normally called "Abiogenesis". I could be wrong, but I don't think he uses the word. He uses the word, "Biogenesis" instead. If you've been following this website, or from general knowledge, it will be known that biogenesis is a normal scientific word meaning that life only comes from pre-existing life.

I searched on biogenesis a few weeks ago, and I just searched on abiogenesis, just now. My uncertainty never dies. But fun for me, it's all good and I do know the difference. The web has a fun image for abiogenesis, from our perspective, with two sequences of events. One is tagged the creationist's sequence: Simple chemicals to bacteria. And the other sequence, named, "Real theory of abiogenesis (Simplified)": Simple chemicals, polymers, replicating polymers, hypercycle, protobiont, bacteria.

I had to check out what protobiont meant. It comes out as a spelling mistake, but it does mean something. But yes, that search, just now, was very funny. Yes, those Creationists don't know what they are doing, and yes, those scientists have the truth, because they have the correct sequence. Written about many times on this website.

But lucky for us, Paul has his definition of what he means by biogenesis. Page XII of the Preface: "This book is about the origin of life, or biogenesis. I should state at the outset that the subject is not my professional field." In the Preface, he uses the word biogenesis about nine times, and there is no doubt that he is writing on the origin of life, OOL. At the end of the Preface, he thanks 33 people, and none of them pulled him up on that glitch. We know biogenesis is not, say again, not, about the origin of life.

What's our opinion on Paul's use of biogenesis, instead of the correct term, abiogenesis? We’ve addressed that topic many times on this website. It relates to public consumption, and relates to scientific spin and wordplay, to assist them in their propaganda wars on the nature of reality. Our confidence is high that he didn't make a mistake, that he knew what he was doing, and 33 other people went along with him.

Yes, we've written about that before: They love to use our words, in this case biogenesis, in their narratives. With the last four, rewritten, bubbles, above, we have started on the next journey into the future, leaving "New Future" behind, for now. More than ten syllables in the lines of the bubble above? Where? Henri.

---

---

---

---

 

Hit the search engines on, "electron transport chain", ETC, and go to images if you don't want to read. You'll see the three stages of the process, generally with the end result being ATP. But check that blobby looking thing next to the ETC. That's the ATP Synthase turbine.

The ETC removes the electron from the Hydrogen atom, so that only the protons are moved to the other side of the membrane. When those protons return through a spout in ATP Synthase, they turn the turbine, exactly like steam drives the turbines in our power stations, or exhaust gasses drive a turbocharger in an engine.

You'll have to look fairly hard to find the word, "Turbine". The ETC processes the Hydrogen, accounting for the proton and electron, so yes, that's two useful subatomic particles used in biology. And when we start looking at the other elements, like we did in "Destiny calls", we start seeing the bottomless wow factors from an awesome, useful Universe. Technical everywhere.

---

---

 

That bubble was prompted after I searched on, "anabolic, catabolic, metabolic", just now, because Paul Davies has a short list, in his book, on what constitutes "life". One of them was metabolism. I remember researching that for, "Destiny calls", I was introduced to a new word, for me, catabolic processes. My search, just now, was able to confirm that metabolism encompasses the two words, 'anabolic: Building up' and 'catabolic: Breaking down'. Both, extremely complicated.

When I went to images, almost all pics had a common feature sitting in between the catabolic and anabolic processes. Surprise, surprise, they don't mention turbines, but the common feature to link the two is ATP.

Some other words used in Paul's list, which I like to claim, are, "Complexity", "Organisation", "Information content", and "Hardware/software". I deliberately selected the ones we emphasize on this website, so we actually claim those words, when we use them in their normal context.

Two comments on those. He gives his example of complexity: A hurricane. And on his use of the word, "software", there is zero chance he is actually writing about real software. His processes from gravitation, his plays on the word, "random", and his interactions between positive and negative energies, will not produce what any normal person considers to be software.

---

 

I'll make some comments on the word, 'grandeur' because the main evolution writers use the word as a secret handshake sign in their books, and the late Professor Stephen Gould has an entire book called, "Life's Grandeur". The use of the word is an acknowledgement to Charles Darwin, who used the word in his concluding remarks for his book, "On the origin of species".

Paul Davies favourably mentions Gould's work in his book, "The fifth miracle". Paul agrees with Stephen that the dominant lifeforms, on the planet, past and present, are the many forms of bacteria, which proliferate in every corner of any part of our biosphere we could mention. And yes, since Paul is looking for the origin, say again, origin, of life, Darwin's "warm little pond" has gone cold, so life arose in some deep ocean vent, or by some extra-terrestrial event.

Paul also recounts Stephen's analogy of the progress of life as a drunkard's stumbling away from a wall, to eventually end up in the gutter. Assuming that the first cell arose from the mix of elements and atomic or cosmic forces. See where I'm going with the word, "grandeur". What's grandeur for Steven Gould? Humans are an anomalous side strain of ocean vent bacteria. Do we see it? No.

So let's set their grandeur and ours next to each other. Theirs: "Nothing evolved into a bug, and that evolved into a human, just like a drunk falling into the gutter". Ours: "Our Creator visited our planet, showed us what it really means to be human, and showed us the meaning of brave".

We see a common feature in Paul's book, when he is searching for the origin of life. He probably spends half of his book describing life. They have to write on something to pad out the content. Other writers do the same, and on TV, with the orchestra to help, it's certainly about describing what life is doing. No talk about something from nothing. So bells should ring when evolutionists use inspiring words for their narratives.

---

 

With our walk down memory lane, and our rewrites, I'll make some comments. A lot of books were read, before and while writing Contemplate the Universe. Those two books I've just mentioned, "The fifth miracle" and "Life's grandeur", were read before we had ever heard of "Intelligent design: ID" or read any of Cornelius Hunter's work. I don't have a copy of "The God delusion" because somebody at work loaned me his copy to read.

Life was progressing okay, while I was finishing Contemplate the Universe, and then the family bought me a tablet, and I discovered ID, and discovered Cornelius Hunter's work. Yes, all those people are professors, and lucky for us, Cornelius is a professor. Does that make all the difference? Maybe. Life was progressing, but wow, the scales fell off completely after we read some Cornelius' articles.

By that time, I had discovered the text editor on by phone. Today, I write new bubbles with the same line lengths on the phone, put them in a word processor, and then back into a text editor for the web. For "New Future", I tried to make the line lengths the same, but the wording is slightly different on the web, to make them look the same. New Future looks okay now, line lengths to within half a comma, and only a few changes for each proof read now.

---

 

I'll start a new page. The general theme will probably be, "New Day", taken from the bubble written, 4/2/2019. From that bubble, why a new day? "Rewrite all those biology text books, because that's machine code in DNA." That makes me think of all those sci-fi movies where some robot 'thinks' it is a real person. And, of course, it makes us reassess the mirror images we are looking at. We will be continuing our rewrites. Catchya. Henri. 7/5/2020

---

---

---

---

---