Forum:Why to life for a worthless dust particle?

"I received this Time Cube-like spam message earlier this morning. I thought it would draw a laugh or two here on the Wiki. 15:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)"

Merry Christmas! There are two different opinions regarding to the emergence of this world, some people think this world with all live and all events would be a tiny part of the logical causal chain which started with the big bang, the others are convinced of it, that it is finally the fault of Adam and Eve because they have not observed the one holy law of God: "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her . . ." According to this the big bang etc would be a willfully deception of God, because without the doubt in God it wouldn't be possible to test the faith and unbelief of mankind and the sense of this world would get lost. In contrast to the religious view, a causal chain out of cause and effect can not have a beginning respectively not emerge out of nothing, this contradicts to the laws of science, therewith there's not only no cause before or for the big bang, but also no energy which would have been necessary for the big bang, even not a tiny disbalance between anything. If two fingers are pressed together, is nothing between them or rather no matter, of course the universe, the human himself and the bright world which surrounds the human not emerged out of the completely harmless nothing between two fingers or without God, this are simply stories which were invented by some humans and which are believed by children, if they are told to them early enough, in the first states of the USA such stories were deleted already successfully from the curriculum, so that they weren't taught any more to the children in the schools. Depriving children of their believe and religion is a serious crime, it's in the hands of our generation to stop the systematic and unfair education of many million children to the unbelieve! If the big bang could have happened without God, practically everything could have emerged out of this, but this universe was build exactly so, that the suppositions for live are given, for example without voltage no brainwaves could flow, without radiation this world would be dark and ice-cold, without atoms and the possibility to build molecules live would be impossible, the same would be without many other chemical properties and reactions or without elements like oxygen or carbon or hydrogen or. . ., also the lost of time or movement or space or matter or the three states of matter or physical energy or chemical energy or different agencies or continuity or. . . would make live finally impossible. Without intelligence something absolute senseless would have emerged out of the big bang or out of nothing, but of course no live. Yes, the frightening recognition is, that the universe was constructed deliberately exactly so, that the suppositions for live and higher live are given! For the alleged chemical evolution of live, a first living and survivable unicellular organism would have been necessary, but a just 10 ?m large cell, a very complex, perfectly compound, three-dimensional puzzle or a survivable machine out of at least 10 quadrillion pieces (16 g/mol), atoms of different kind and attribute, impossibly could be washed together in an unrealistic puddle out of cytoplasm, be bound together in the same second by many different chemical processes into a flexible unit and get enliven also in the same moment, to start to breathe, to eat, to grow. . . and to produce randomly complete and living self-copies, which will grow up some day to intelligent structured humans. If we are honest we must admit, that even not only one single dead DNA strand could be washed together in a liquid or the belonging to copysystems, already the DNA strands of the first survivable cell must randomly have conformed exactly to the cell construction, beside this DNA strands are written in a very high programming language, until today nobody can understand how or by which encoding systems this codes get transcribed into commands, movements and material constructions. Also for all the different cell organelles or sub-systems of the first survivable cell must have been directly there the belonging to copysystems or already the first cell division would have been impossible, but how high must be the technology of a material system which could copy itself, try to build a computer which could copy itself! The functions of cells partially happen on the molecular and atomic level, if the dateless old atoms, out of which we and the cells are set together, would be as big as table tennis balls, an average human brain with exactly 1374 g would take in one time the whole planet earth with its diameter of 12700 km (the average molecular mass of cerebral tissue is 13,5 g/mol, the volume of a table tennis ball is 33,5 cm^3), it's a wonder that a grown machine of such complexity ever could function without going defect. If the 10 quadrillion atoms of a 10 ?m large unicellular organism would be as big as table tennis balls, this unicellular organism would take in the whole city Tokyo by a hight of more than 500 meters. If God would build a machine out of 10 quadrillion atoms of different kind and attribute, this machine wouldn't die any more after its commissioning, because it really would start to breathe, to eat, to grow, to move. . . to survive independently in its world and to divide itself many trillion times, to conquer the planet and to travel to the moon. If God would construct a machine with such properties, it would be so small, that we even couldn't see it with our multicellular eyes. We have got no idea about the intelligence of God, the creator out of nothing, but surly it's not grateful to use the by God constructed brain to say, that a dirty puddle was the inventor of live. A just 10 ?m large unicellular organism is a very complex, perfectly compound, three-dimensional puzzle out of at least 10 quadrillion pieces of different kind and attribute, but a chemical evolution even wouldn't be able to wash correctly together a DNA string or a two-dimensional computer program character string out of 1000 signs, which is written with only 10 different letters, because with every sign, which will be attached after the first sign, the probability that the program was written correctly sinks by the factor 10, so the probability that a computer program out of 1000 signs will be written correctly by random or will be washed together in a dirty puddle is 10^1000 (a 1 with one thousand 0). In contrast to this, today we know, that the whole universe contains less than 10^100 atoms totally and that it is less than 10^18 seconds old. If the universe would be 100 times smaller or younger, the chance that the chemical evolution really happened would be 100 times less, if the 1000 sign computer program would be 100 times shorter, the chance that the chemical evolution really happened would be 100 times bigger, so we can stroke out the zeros: 10^1000 - 10^100 - 10^18 = 10^882. We have reduced the whole universe to one atom and an age of one second through only 118 letters! So the iron proof for the absolute impossibility of a chemical evolution was written down! The live in this world seems to be real, but its existence is only a wonder, so are we the causal chain out of nothing, a network in the dark which thinks about itself or are we made by an unimaginable high intelligence? Some humans will be happy for 100 years and some will be sad for 100 years, but when this life ends will the eternity begin, so why to life for a worthless dust particle when it comes about the entire universe. This email was sent over an anonym remailer string and can't be answered.

Moved

 * Heh. I think they're getting very, very, confused with what "g / mol" means... Perhaps they mean the average mass of every atom in cerebral tissue, but I don't think it'd be that high considering you'd have more hydrogen which would drag it down probably below 12 (12 being carbon) and the heavier metals used in the centre of enzymes are really just trace amounts. Oxygen might bring it back up... hmm, an interesting calculation to do, but totally irrelevant to anything I can think of. It's definitely got something very confused somewhere. 15:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * please don't use the forum talk namespace. -- Nx  / talk 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why, but I figure it messes up with the "last post" thing. 10:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't show up on the index, it doesn't show up on forum-related recent changes. And it's kinda pointless, since the forum namespace is already for talk. I wouldn't have even created the forum talk namespace, except I have to (otherwise the talk page link will lead to mainspace pages titled Forum talk:something). I wanted to hide the talk tab on the forum namespace, but I am not allowed to do that. -- Nx  / talk 10:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if it'd be more appropriate for things like this, where you're commenting on something long, but I suppose moving it down here is fine. The talk pages may become useful in some way so I wouldn't try too hard to hide or delete them. Perhaps as an archive or where to move spam/trollish messages so that they don't intrude on the rest of the forum (with out the deletions or censorship that would violate site policy). 19:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Using the existing archive system is better because it stays in the same namespace, and it gets searched by the search box on the forum -- Nx  / talk 19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm just making random suggestions about what to do with something that we have and can't get rid of. But until that purpose can be found, it's just wasting data space. 19:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)