I know it’s so insignificant it’s not worth it at all, but I always find myself feeling a little bit annoyed when I see things like this. Yes, I’m talking about Facebook- and Instagram-philosophies, where people write short and very powerful sentences about the meaning and problems of life. It’s so common and they are so popular. And I like to shed some light on them. Here’s one for starters:


So much wrong about this.

1. People were not created. A small detail; we can say that maybe we shouldn’t take this literally but I think it tells a lot about this type of thinking. Because when you say that something was created you imply it has some sort of a goal, a higher meaning behind it. We already know about evolution and how it is not goal oriented at all, so why are we still saying that people were created? And especially, why are we saying that people were created for any particular reason?

2. Things were indeed created to be used, that part is correct.

3. Really, this is the reason why the world is in chaos? You don’t even pose the question why things are being loved. You know why? Because this is how we developed through evolution, we feel affection to everything we have. We love our stuff and it’s natural. And yes, most of the time we love people as well. The above text is implying that people are, in fact, not loved, which couldn’t be less true. Everyone loves at least one other person. I know what “love” means in this context; they are trying to say that we should care (love) more for people around us, whether friends or strangers, and the world would be a better place. Totally agreed. BUT.

Originally, why don’t we love people really, I mean, why don’t we love everyone, regardless of who they are? Because we are animals, and because we were NOT created. We developed through evolution, without a reason, without a goal, and in Nature things don’t love each other. They hate each other. Animals, plants, bacteria, everyone hates everyone. That is how nature works. And we should be thankful that the human world does not work like this. I mean, not in its entirety. Sadly, for huge parts of the world, it indeed does work like this. People hate, despise, use and kill other people nearly all the time. But there are at least a few places where we got rid of hatred and we introduced “love” (as in: caring) to our everyday lives. And these are mostly places where people have the opportunity and the ability to compose Facebook- and Instagram-images like this one. People of the developed world. Do you really think that in developed countries like the one you’re most likely seeing that above image from are places where people don’t love each other? That is just selfish and egotistic to think. You can only see and create images and texts like that because you live in a place where people do love each other in the first place. So, let me give you an alternative to the above image. Maybe this will actually convey some truth about the world we live in:

People were born to hate others. Things were created to be used against others and for your own good. People started to love each other. Things were started to be used for other people’s good as well. The reason why the world is in chaos because people were not created, but born from the horrors of Nature. So please, don’t underestimate the power of technology, science and knowledge because that is the only way you can introduce love in the worst parts of our world. Now get up and buy a better book to read.

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Love is the ultimate human failure


Did you know there’s a nerve in the human body that connects your larynx (if I’m right, but this detail is not that relevant) and some other part of your body that is very close to the larynx? But that nerve, instead of going straight to the larynx, does a huge roundabout; it goes down somewhere to your chest, goes around a blood vessel then goes up back to where it started. It is much, much longer than it needs to be. What is even more shocking that this same nerve does the same exact thing in other animals as well, animals as huge as the giraffe for example. So in a giraffe this is an even BIGGER roundabout; it is at least a few metres of extra, unnecessary nerve tissue.

What this curious fact tells us is that we animals are most probably not designed. We can assume a designer would leave us in a perfect state, or at least in a very efficient state, but having a nerve do these kind of roundabouts doesn’t sound efficient at all. What probably happened is that through evolution this unlucky nerve got stuck under that very blood vessel and as it got further away from the original place of the nerve, it took the nerve with itself. It was evolution. Blind, without a clear design.

It’s very interesting how we find ourselves leaving evolution behind. Evolution is very slow and humans are developing in quite a tempo. We walk upright despite the fact that evolution is not supporting humans to walk upright at all. But we don’t give a crap, we want to walk upright so we’ll do that. Nevermind all the back pain later in life.

It is quite obvious that our backs, knees and ankles hurt a lot because we shouldn’t be bipedal at all. Maybe we could be, but evolution didn’t adjust our bodies fast enought to support our walk cycles (yet). So we suffer a lot, almost everyone does.

I have a strange feeling that the human brain is an even more complex organ than the human knee or spine. Actually, I’m quite confident that it is. And I would expect our lovely brains to act strangely on a lot of occasions. Because it’s just amazingly complex and I’m pretty sure it’s not fully, perfectly developed at this point. When our knees can’t take the pressure of human development, how could our brains? I’m pretty sure they can’t. What is my proof that? Love and affection.

Emotions in general. Emotions are very absurd, nearly indescribable things that we all experience. I guess they are brand new, state-of-the-art tools brought to you by evolution to guide you in your everyday life – as an ape or pre-historic human. Fear, terror, sadness, happiness, well-being and love must’ve been very powerful means of helping an individual survive in the horrors of Earth. But nowadays, when we clearly went beyond what evolution intended for us, emotions can harm us as much as they can help us.

I guess the same applied in ancient times as well, but now it’s just so many of us. We have hundreds of friends and relatives and people we interact with all the time, and our brain feels the need to act on every occasion. There’s an emotion for every moment in our life, because our brain just overworks. There’s just so many stimuli and so many things going on, so many things to react to – it’s just mind-blowing. And I think our brains cannot handle this. Take love for example.

What is love, really? A very strong feeling of attachment to another person. What can be the original purpose of this emotion? Probably to make us feel fond of our relatives, our family or tribe members. It was most definitely a very powerful method of creating indestructible bonds between certain people. Mothers and children, siblings, partners. Individuals who were capable of feeling love towards their children or partners had bigger chances of survival. It was a new tool in the survival kit.

But now, even though times have changed, people haven’t. Why not? Because evolution is way slower than our social and cultural development. And I think emotions like love have a big chance of barking up the wrong tree. Nearly everyone had at least one bad experience with love. This strong, indestructible emotion that you just cannot get rid of. No matter how hard you tried, no matter how hard you reasoned with yourself and how hard you tried to bring your intelligence into the game, it just didn’t go away. Why is that? Is that a necessary part of everyday human life? What advantages does it have to have feelings this strong for someone who does not have the same feelings for you? I think I know the answer: it has zero advantages, because at that point your brain is just malfunctioning.

It is simply misfiring an emotion that was built inside you by evolution. I think our brains are not perfect at all. Not at all. And I can see the proof for that in every one of my friends who suffer because of their brains and their emotions. And, as most philosophers, buddhist and intelligent people would say, to change your emotions you have to change your thoughts. Which is a fair point, but I’m sure thoughts have a material origin as well, and that origin is most likely in our brains. And to change our thoughts – it’s easier said than done. Especially when your brain is not actually working properly.

The way our knees and backs don’t work properly under the pressure of human life, I think our brains struggle a lot to comprehend the outside world as well. Just like computers experiencing technical difficulties, our brains can sometimes – or even quite often – develop bugs. Misfiring emotions is the greatest bug of all. It’s a fault in the hardware and in the software of it. The ultimate bug of the human body. We can only hope that with time everything will be mended.

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Heterosexual couples have a monopoly on screwing up their children


In the wake of the comments made by fashion designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana dissing gay marriage and gay parenting, I encountered this article ( where two women who were donor conceived and both grew up in a non-traditional family defended the comments of said designers. As people with actual experience of growing up without fathers or mothers or a real, traditional heterosexual family, I was interested in what they thought and why they agreed with the original comments. I thought I’d share my thoughts with you regarding this matter.

I have to be honest, I was always a heartfelt advocate of gay marriage, gay rights and even gay parenting, mostly because I honestly thought that no disadvantage would rise from the fact that one has to grow up in a non-traditional family setting. Reading about the real life experiences of people who have actually lived in an environment like this, and seeing that they felt the negative effects of said environment, I was surprised. I felt a little bit betrayed even, by all the people I’ve listened to in the past and agreed with regarding this matter. I was facing a dilemma and was considering changing my opinion on the topic. Seeing that people growing up with gay parents are actually confused and can develop social and even psychological disorders could be the final nail in this coffin.

But then I arrived at the obvious point that “Come on, even heterosexual parents are unable to raise their children without problems most of the time”. And however obvious or even unimportant this point sounds, it is actually true, and I think this is the point in this argument. By saying that gay parents cannot raise children without somehow corrupting them, you’re saying that straight couples – by definition – will raise their children to be perfect. And that is clearly not true. Actually, it couldn’t be less true.

Who would argue that most people, even in the most peaceful and friendly families, will eventually develop some sort of social, psychological or mental problem or even disorder? And we all know in our hearts that most families are not peaceful and not without problems. If it would be true that the fact that you grow up with a father and a mother would be enough to turn you into a perfect human being, we would’ve never had our dictators, warmongers, tyrants, murderers, terrorists, rapists, and so on. We would never have any problems at all in our society, or in any society, but this is clearly not the case. Why not? Because I believe that the gender of your parents have nothing to do with the personality you will develop. Or no: of course it does. Everything, literally everything you encounter throughout your life will have an effect on you. The gender of your parents as well, yes. But what I believe is that with good parenting skills you can overcome a lot of these effects.

And that is the point: whether you grow up to be a human being with problems or not is a question of good parenting. And, I believe, it has nothing to do with your gender or the gender of your partner.

Even though I’m a huge advocate of natural sciences and obviously I’m aware of the history of nature, the history of parenting and the history and importance of the existence of genders, I believe that with humans in the “Nature versus Nurture” debate the latter side is winning. And I feel very sorry for the subjects of the aforementioned article, but I must say, I think the only sin their parents and step-parents had was that they lacked good parenting skills.

The title of this article is “Heterosexual couples have a monopoly on screwing up their children”, which is a statement you should find ridiculous and wrong. It is. People in the past did not develop serious problems because their parents were heterosexual. They developed problems for a number of reasons, maybe even including bad parenting. No one would think that just because you are a mother and a father raising a child, that child would have a bigger chance of growing up to be a murderer. Unless you and your partner are very bad parents with your own problems probably tracing back to your own childhood (and a number of other external factors, obviously).

I think the same applies to same-sex couples as well, although I don’t have scientific evidence for that, I’m just trying to use common sense here. The women in the article had problems emerging directly from the fact that they were in a non-traditional family. No one can deny that. But one thing we can question is whether these problems could’ve been avoided or not. And – as you would rightly suspect – I think the answer is yes. With concious, precise, cautious and intelligent parenting all this could’ve been turned around. Because raising children with the least amount of personal, social, mental or psychological problems is not a question of whether they grew up with a mother or not. It is a question whether they were part of a loving, caring and intelligent family. And whether you’re straight, gay or lesbian, you should be able to do that. You just have to work on that.

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why are we religious – A simple approach

In the most scientific sense, life is terrible.


Even this fact, I think, needs to be addressed, because however obvious – or even clichéd – this statement may seem, it holds more truth than one would think. Just think about it for a second: putting aside all the creations of humanity and humankind, all arts and literature, cultural achievements and emotions, we’re left with nature. Nature is a real thing, one can easily imagine what nature really is since one encounters it all the time. To an average human in a modern society nature means the weather, and sometimes (quite often) it emerges in the form of natural disasters. But outside the borders of our great cities and countries, what is nature really? It is almost too obvious to point out, but it has to be done just this one time.

Nature, for most living creatures (in fact, for all of them) means danger. Not just danger, but never-ending suffering, fear and death. This cruelty of life is mostly realized by creatures at a more recent end of evolution: animals, to be precise, who have nervous systems with which they are able to sense, process and – partly – understand the outside world they’re living in. More primitive creatures, luckily for them, are spared of the truth. But for animals life is mostly the following two options: 1. You are a predator. Every time you are hungry you have to chase another creature that is most likely running for its life, so has every reason to run as fast as it can manage. Most of the time, it actually outruns you. Then you are left with nothing for days to come in the most hostile environment imaginable. And next time it won’t get easier. 2. You are running from predators on every occasion they get hungry. No further explanation needed.

And at this point we have to include those unconscious creatures as well – plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses, they all constitute to the great wholeness of life on Earth, and as soon as you enter this world (that is, when you’re born), you realize that life around you wants to devour you. It is exactly like being lowered in a huge bowl of acid – life starts to eat you from every direction, from every single point of space. Bacteria are about to digest you from the outside and if they fail to do that, they invade your body, viruses steal your cells that make up your body, plants and fungi grow around – and sometimes on – you. And we haven’t even started on the elements of nature.

Even though Earth is one of the less horrible places in the Universe (compare it to Venus with its extreme temperatures and – almost literally – mind-blowing winds, or to the vast, cold, icy emptiness of Pluto, or the suffocating, boiling hell of Mercury), one cannot deny the cruelty of earthly nature as well. Terrible storms, hurricanes, floods and drought, it really seems like that even in the absence of life, the planet itself just want to give us a hard time and maybe even kill us.

These are truths that are obvious in a way, though they seem quite distant from us, people of modern societies. Once you’ve been living in a certain environment for a long – a really long – time, everything outside that environment seems unreal. And everything inside that environment seems natural and self-explanatory. It’s just natural that people go to work every day, they suit up, leave their homes, get in their cars or get on the tube and they just ride to work or school. But how unnatural and even absurd this looks when you try to look at it from the outside? What is work really? Does it even exist? Just a few thousand years ago life and existence on Earth didn’t consist of anything that humanity now deems natural and a part of everyday life. What is money? What is a school? What are clothes? Even if just once you try, with your mind, to go back in time, really just a few ten thousand years, and look at the reality of 2015, everything seems absurd and made up. Although I wouldn’t question the legitimacy of money, or schools or workplaces, there are some things that, once I myself “went back in time” and looked at our present from a distance, I realized were annoying side-products of times gone by. Side-products that can prove to be a real burden in modern societies, although that discussion is not the point of my essay. But what I started to realize is why religions exist – and looking at religions from a distance gives you an answer far more simple than you would ever think.

The fact I will never deny is that religion gave humankind the chance to survive on a psychological level. Without religion there’s a possibility, I believe, that humanity would’ve committed some sort of a suicide, because at the dawn of human history, when we were in our infancy without any scientific understanding of the world surrounding us, life was the biggest terror that could ever happen to us. And people break easily under the stress of terror, in fact, I believe that is what people would ever do without help. Given that there is nothing but a human with a modern mind put in the raw reality of nature, that human is destined to break. Mentally or physically first, it doesn’t matter, but that poor soul will go down quickly. You either have a serious nervous breakdown and get into a grave depression thanks to the unbearable reality of life on Earth, or you wind up getting killed and/or eaten, in the cruelest way possible. (on a side note: the story of Christopher McCandless, the guy you know from ‘Into the Wild’ comes to mind, who ventured into the uncontrolled reality of nature and died a most likely painful death after just a few months)

You may point out to me: “That is fine, but if nature is that perilous to humanity, how come we ever survived in the first place?” It’s a legit question that needs to be addressed. I say that no thinking human has any chance of surviving in nature, still we clearly survived – this paradox is easily resolved if you think about natural selection. Giving a personality to evolution just for the sake of simplicity, we have to assume that nature (or evolution, or natural selection, etc.) realized the fatality of Earth and it needed to come up with a solution (well, actually, the human body had to come up with a solution). Every animal and living creature managed to come up with some sort of a solution to escape death, but they only had to deal with the physical reality of life – that is, to avoid death in a literal way. Humans are thinking creatures, and there was a new factor that no creature has ever had to face before: the mental and psychological consequences of a life on Earth. We had to come up with something otherwise we would just be horrifyingly miserable for the rest of our – presumably short – lives. And the reason of our survival so far is that we did manage to come up with a solution after all, and one of those powerful solutions was religion.

You don’t have to do great research in order to realize that every barbaric, primitive civilization that ever lived or even lives today has their own religion or set of myths.  In fact, that is the stereotypical portrayal of primitive, native tribes of forgotten lands: African people with face paints jumping and dancing around a bonfire while a shaman addresses the gods in a state of trance. However stereotypical and clichéd this is, it is nevertheless most likely true that at the dawn of every civilization religion plays a huge part in the everyday life of people. Here I have to be honest: I don’t know much about primitive religions of native tribes of South America, Africa, Asia or Oceania. But I assume that the structure of those religions have a lot in common with religions closest and most familiar to us. If you think about the great religions of our time, what answers do they give to the big questions of life?

Here I would like to quote Sigmund Freud who dealt with the psychology of religions in great detail in his essay The Future of an Illusion (1927). In it, he writes that the task of religion is

a multiple one: man’s badly threatened self-esteem craves consolation, the world and life need to lose their terror, and at the same time humanity’s thirst for knowledge, which is of course driven by the strongest practical interest, craves an answer.

To sum it up, when you think of humans at the dawn of time, they had to face the following realities: 1. They did not know anything about how the world worked or why it worked and existed in the first place. In fact, they had no idea why they themselves existed. 2. They were in constant and utter fear of danger and death that nature and the outside world imposed on them. 3. Because of these, humans felt utterly lost, injured and needed some sort of a consolation. According to Freud, religions serve just the right solutions for these problems.

No wonder that, if you think of Christianity, for example, and stories and writings in the Bible, you encounter chapters and verses about the origins of the world and of life. Furthermore you find verses about how the world works so that all natural phenomena (not just the weather and disasters, but on a cosmological level as well, the passing of the days, years and time in general) are explained. You also find a huge amount of verses about the love of God, an eerily parent-like figure – or, as Freud puts it more precisely, a father-like figure – who gives you shelter and consolation when you are afraid and feel lost in this hostile world. Finally, the Bible is also prepared for harsher times, when no consolation can help, when all really is lost and you are in inescapable danger and suffering. For this occasion, the Bible delivers the promise that after death a life much better awaits you. This is the final blow that even the most miserable humans are unable to resist. The Bible even takes it further: be your earthly suffering greater, afterlife will be even nicer.

And here comes the realization: even I, a child of irreligious parents, lived my life as if religions held some universal truth to themselves. The idea of a God beyond the Big Bang was so obvious, so natural to me that I never really questioned it. Even when you grow up in a family that is totally free of religious education and attitudes, you, as part of the society, accept religions just like that. You do not only accept that they exist but you accept their legitimacy. Furthermore, you are afraid of questioning them on the off chance that there might be a God, and you just don’t want to upset him/her/it (although Christianity, Islam and Judaism clearly speaks of a male God). This is natural because, as stated in the very beginning of my essay, when you live long enough in an environment everything about it becomes obvious and true in itself. But when you start to think outside of this environment, you start to realize how the whole environment is entirely made up. And with religion as well, you cannot help but notice how utterly man-made it seems.

Man-made in the sense that it appeals to human psychological cravings just a little too much. Man-made in the sense that from this fact a lot of contradictions arise. And these contradictions have a very human nature to themselves as well. What you are destined to realize with most – among them the most “famous” – religions is that they are helplessly narcissistic and solipsistic (self-centered, self-absorbed and egotistic). A cruel point that American author Sam Harris makes in his writing Letter to a Christian Nation (2006) is that

It is time we acknowledged how disgraceful it is for the survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs.

Although this point Harris makes can seem arrogant enough, it becomes clear and self-explanatory once you think about the psychological aspects of religions, and how the whole thing plays out in the minds of human beings. You would not deny the fact that humans are quite egotistic – as are, in fact, all creatures on Earth – in the way that without culture and societies the main goal of existence becomes their own survival. This is obvious as animals, plants and all living things in nature are demonstrating spectacular egoism all the time. There’s nothing there for animals other than their own survival (and of course the survival of their children, which is genetically half the survival of themselves – for further explanation I recommend you to read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins). This is what drives them and since we are animals ourselves, it would be a lie to deny that we are egotistic and self-absorbed by nature. And this egoism makes itself plain on the pages of holy books and in the attitude of highly religious people. They pray to the omnipotent supernatural creature beyond time and space who created the cosmos and every particle in it, every living and inanimate thing in it so that they personally can be spared of suffering. If the Christian God truly created man in his own image, one must wonder whether God evolved from animals as well so that he has the same instincts and self-absorbed attitude as one would expect from individuals of the animal kingdom.

This nature of religions becomes clear, of course, if you think of them as entirely man-made. (One other point that I would not want to elaborate on in too much detail, but deserves mentioning nevertheless, is that the big religions of our time are just painfully male-centered. As I pointed out before, God in the three most well-known religions are definitely male, the Christian God created women from the flesh of men, all the apostles and prophets of these religions are males, and you don’t have to read into the holy books of these religions too much to find out that the overall style of writing is just male-centered throughout. One could argue that God is indeed male and that is why nearly all societies in the history of humankind were extremely misogynistic, but I think it is just too obvious that it was the other way around: that misogynistic societies produced male-centered religions.)

In my opinion it is clear, if you look at it from the outside, that religions arose from one single attribution of humanity: fear. The fear of danger and, even more uncomfortably, the fear of death. As humans are most likely the only creatures so far on Earth that realize their own imminent death, no wonder we are also the only creatures to construct religions for ourselves. Fear is one of the most powerful instincts. It is a key to survival. But is religion a key to survival? I truly believe that once it was. As the most emotionally complex beings that ever walked the Earth fear could actually be more harmful to us than helpful. With the help of religion we were able to control our fear and we were able to survive in the infancy of our lifetime. But as we grew up as a civilization, I believe that religion became less and less important. To quote Freud again, a person who leaves religion behind

will be in the same situation as the child who has left the home where it had felt so warm and cosy. But surely infantilism is something that is meant to be overcome? A person cannot remain a child for ever; eventually the child must go out into what has been called ‘hostile life’.

I’m not trying to take the faith of individuals away from them – you can never do that, and I am not at all sure that you should. But I have a fear that the effects of religion on societies is becoming less and less beneficial. I believe it will, after a point, become outright harmful, and even though this is a different discussion entirely, my point in this essay is that, in my opinion, religions are too obviously man-made. And if we come to a point where religions prove to be destructive to human culture and societies (and this has already happened several times in history before), this realization can help us to put them away. As Saint Paul put it – ironically – in 1 Corinthians 13:11 (a verse that is a blunter version of the above quote from Freud):

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Posted in Blog | Leave a comment

A debate on evolution – brought to you by YouTube


An interesting “debate” is unfolding on YouTube under a certain video in the comment sections and I had the privilege to take part in it. Actually, I’ve written some very long comments in response to one of the users there, and I did not want all this to disappear into the nothingness of the YouTube comment sections, so I figured I would just copy-paste those comments – in fact, the whole dialogue – here so that anyone interested can have a look at them. Be warned, the responses are really quite long an tedious… but it’s all for the sake of science 😉

Horace Ball

If I unscrewed your bedroom off its hinges, and laid the door and screws next tot he door frame… you think nature could lift that door and insert the screws back in…I will give nature 674 trillion years to do so…would it? Could it?

Of course not…likewise nature can not make a cell or an eye.”

Gergő Hahn

What does a door and your bedroom have to do with evolution? Of course it can’t be put back together like that, because evolution and nature does not work like that… you clearly don’t understand the basics of the theory of evolution and you clearly do not understand how the world actually works on a very, very long time scale. Actually it’s more simple than you would ever imagine, you just have to be open-minden to take it in.

We don’t have to talk about the Big Bang and how it happened because no one knows at the moment. Just accept that it happened, and what it produced was an awful amount of very small things called particles. Actually those are only small in our comprehension, back in that time, of course, they were the only things in existence, that was the size of everything. Anyway, let’s say that only one type of partice existed, but these particles had certain attitudes that made them able to fuse with other particles and to combine with them, etc. Actually rather quickly these particles began to spread out from the Big Bang into the sphere of space-time, as they spread they bumped into each other and spread even further and two things happened very quickly: “matter” (all the particles) spread out, became less simple, if you like. As you would spread out water on a surface, you had a bowl of water in your hand but now it’s all over the floor creating all sorts of patterns. Once again, this is just a metaphor, of course water does not have anything to do with how the Big Bang works (just like your bedroom and door metaphor does not have anything to do with how nature works).

So, on one hand, matter spread out became “thinner and thinner” and also particles began to collide and started to make up electrons and protons and neutrons and atoms. It’s all made up of the same thing but since you have different amounts of the same thing in different “positions” and order, etc., it makes up all sorts of different, new particles. What you have to understand is that it all began from one single thing that if re-ordered in different ways makes up new particles, atoms, etc. But it’s all from the same thing.

THEN when matter spread out and heat went down gradually, as a result we had a universe with matter in it. Now gravity started to work properly, there was a lot of matter and what does a lot of stuff in one place create? Gravity, I’m sure you know that. Now it’s AUTOMATIC that gravity starts to work and starts to pull matter together. Going back to the water metaphor, we have distant patches of water all over the floor but there are huge bodies, now imagine those huge bodies of water pulling “themselves” together. That’s gravity for you. From the matter, from atoms that were made up of those starting particles, huge balls of matter started to form. Why balls, why spheres? Because the Universe works in every direction, it IS in every direction, all forces like gravity work everywhere and a Universe without a floor and a direction is a universal place where the only acceptable form of existence is to exist as a shpere. I guess this is obvious. You can’t have cubes or pyramids, because of the universal nature of forces everything becomes a ball. So does matter that is affected by gravity, these huge bodies of matter started to gravitate into balls, and if there was a REALLY, really big amount of matter, it became such an enormous ball of matter that in the very centre of it the pressure was big enough to create great heat, and heat created “fire” (just to make it easy to imagine), and it started to burn from the inside and after a while the whole thing started to burn – and viola, you have a star. A fiery ball made up of nothing else but one type of atom (hydrogen). Well, at least in the start it’s only hydrogen. But at great temperatures atoms do uncanny things like fusion and stuff and in the heart of stars other atoms are starting to pop up thanks to natural forces and fusion. More interestingly, if a star explodes these other, very rare atoms that would NEVER be able to be made anywhere else other than inside stars, spread out to the universe! Now after millions and millions (even billions) of years a lot of stars have exploded, the Universe already has a huge amount of all sorts of atoms scattered all over the place!

Actually planets are formed almost exactly like this, but of course they don’t turn into a huge burning ball of hell, they become (through different processes) gas or earthly planets, it all depends on several criteria.

The main thing is there is a pattern. If you have an infinite (or insanely big) space and a lot of the SAME things in it (like, the same particles or the same atoms), and they can freely move around, then they WILL move around freely. Why? Because of the forces of nature, because of gravity, because of motion forces, etc. they bounce around and move around. From order (a lot of matter spread out in a big space homogenously) you get chaos (matter collapsing into stars thanks to gravity, stars exploding, ex-star matter collapsing into planets, etc.). It’s like if you had a fine layer of sand on the floor but it won’t stay like that and it started to form funny objects and little things. It’s exactly the same. This happens because You. Cannot. Stop. The. Forces. Of. The. Universe. From. Being. Active. They are active all the time, and matter has to obey them because matter doesn’t have a mind or a will – it’s just particles. It obeys the laws of the universe.

Actually evolution and the Nature of Earth is surprisingly similar in a way to how the Universe works and how it was formed. You get simple molecules in the ancient oceans of our planet and they start to move around thanks to currents and they meet up and collide and after a while they combine and they form new molecules. These are just chemical reactions, I’m sure you can understand that. But after a while suddenly, as a “miracle” (although I think this expression is very unscientific) a molecule pops up that is able to recreate itself, to COPY itself. It happened, yes. It was very, very unlikely to happen. It was highly improbable. But after millions and maybe even billions of years there was enough variation of molecules to have ONLY one that is able to somehow build up it’s own copy. It’s not magic, it’s pure chemistry. Ask a chemist, he will tell you that it is possible. And that is the starting point of life.

Evolution DOES NOT SAY that if you have doors in a bedroom it will screw itself to the wall after enough time. It’s like saying that if you have a human eye and a skull, after enough amount of time the eye will crawl into the skull. It just bloody won’t because eyes cannot walk!! Just like doors!! But what evolution is REALLY SAYING that if you have a huge amount of molecules of THE SAME KIND after hundreds of millions of years they will DEFINITELY turn into something new, something you haven’t seen before. Because molecules cannot move, but they are rather moved around by the FORCES OF NATURE. It’s all an accident, something nobody asked for. It’s like mold growing in your bathroom, you don’t want it there, it’s not the purpose of your bathroom, but it’s there as a side-effect.

Life is just a side-effect of this universe. But in order for life to be able to exist there has to be certain criteria to be met. Just like in your bathroom, it has to be wet all the time and watery. Then mold pops up. It’s one lucky mold because it started to exist in a bathroom that was perfect for it. And we are one lucky people because our Universe JUST happens to be able to suit life. It’s a fucking huge coincidence and an insanely lucky thing, but here we are nevertheless!

What you need to understand is that you can’t prove or disprove the existence of God. How this all happened, how the Big Bang happened and why is the Universe so finely tuned to life? Maybe it was God who did it. We cannot disprove (or prove) it. It can very well be that God set up everything for this perfect Universe. But what he certainly NEVER did was to create living things. He never started evolution, never took part in it, and never took part in the creation of planets and stars and galaxies, because it all happened on it’s own. God may very well exist and be the designer who set up the Big Bang, but beyond that – he certainly didn’t do anything. So we, and other creatures, are not designed, other than being designed by nature. But that was a blind design. We were most definitely NOT designed by God, if he ever designed anything it was the Big Bang. Although I don’t even believe that, to be honest. But I cannot disprove it, that’s the only thing.

You have to see, we were born through evolution which is an automated process. Just as the formation of the Universe was (and is) an automated process. You. Have. To. Accept. That.

Horace Ball

Very nice response.

My question on the door was a simple yes or no…but obviously you get the point. I will give nature 242 million years….it will never lift up a door, line up the hinges and insert the screws. Since we know that, why would a person of intelligence, like you, think nature can make an elbow, a knee, an eye, a brain…I am certain you get my point.

You claim I do not understand the TOE (theory of evolution) but I do! I have studied your beloved theory for 21 years and debated your best and brightest. My hope is you will present facts and not attacks.

I read your entire post….good work…but have a question….you addressed eyes…please tell me the mechanistic step by step procedure that resulted in eyes….the rods, cones, cornea, lens, iris, eye lids, tear ducts, optic nerve, visual cortex….please tell me how they all “evolved.”

Thank you!

Gergő Hahn

I think you really did not understood the core of what I was saying, because you’re still sticking to the door example. Which is a completely un-evolutionary example. Evolution won’t affect everything. Evolution won’t affect a door, because that door wasn’t part of evolution in the first place. Science isn’t saying that after 500 million years a human-built house could build up on its own, no, evolution deals with organisms. And yes, after 500 million years evolution could turn a species into something else radically, in fact, it WILL do that, it isn’t an option.

I will try to explain the eye for you, though. What you’re missing is that the human eye is a result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, if not more. It’s nearly impossible to explain the whole thing here in the comment sections so that you will deem it satisfactory. Still, I will do my best.

What natural selection is saying that if you have your offspring born it very well may be that it will have some interesting mutations in its body. That mutation will be there because your genes, when “creating” your newborn, made some mistakes in the copying process. They did not copy themselves perfectly: the copy of your genes, just some of them, maybe even just one of them, turned out to be a little bit different from the original. That can have several results. These results can be put in three main categories:

Mutation category 1: there’s a mutation in your child that you won’t even realize is there because it creates no effect. It’s like saying that one of your tiny bones in your feet has a slightly different shape from what is expected in humans, but it has no effect whatsoever on your child’s life and will not have an effect ever in upcoming generations.

Mutation category 2: there’s a mutation in your child that kills your child. Maybe it’s an inherited, fatal disease, or just a very small change, but sooner or later it will have your offspring killed. Maybe the mutation caused a bone to grow in your child’s eye so that it’s born blind – it’s a bad thing, understandably. The “good thing” is that thus this very, very bad mutation will never happen again because the mutated gene dies with your child. Hurray, natural selection saves the day!

Mutation category 3: there’s a mutation in your child that makes your child even better than you and every one of your ancestors were. Imagine a mutation in a gene that makes your child, I don’t know, allergic to too much sugar consumption. I just made this up. Thus your child probably never becomes obese and will never eat too much harmful sugar and he will live for 110 years. In that time he creates a lot of offsprings of his own that HAVE this very beneficial mutated gene in them so every one of his children will live for 110 years and have that many children as well.

I’m sure you understand this, but I needed to point it out. Imagine being a blind, primitive sea creature and having a child that, because of a genetic mutation, has a very weird thing on his head. It’s the simplest mutation you can imagine: your child grew some sort of a tumour on his head. You would think it’s a bad thing, but this tumour for whatever evolutionary reason is made up of very weird cells. Those cells are just like your body cells except that they, very luckily, can absorb light. Because this tumour is on the head of your child, it is connected through other body cells directly to your primitive, primordial brain or nervous system. What this creates is that your child, automatically, starts to actually feel and know where light is coming from. He cannot see light, his body just knows. AND in the meantime several other primitive sea creature offsprings grew other types of tumours on their heads, but they weren’t as effective as this one with the light absorbing ability. It’s really like a mutant power, and only he has this. What I’m trying to prove is that there ARE tons of mutations and only 1 in 1000, or 1 000 000 or 1 000 000 000 has to be a good one. It’s blind (haha) luck, but it’s there. Chance and luck is part of evolution, but the unimaginable improbability of chance is reduced by the amount of time available to evolution (hundreds of millions of years) and the number of living organisms (millions to billions). It’s chance, but not that improbable after all.

Now you have this weird creature with the light detector tumour on its head. After a million generations (and because these primitive organisms don’t live that long, maybe not even for a single year, a million generations is not that much of a time), a new mutation arises. This tumour is growing and the light detecting cells in them grew more sensitive! Incidentally, some other mutations occur where the light cells in these sea creatures grow LESS sensitive. You know what happens after this? The ones who have the more sensitive tumour (MST) start to catch the others with the less sensitive tumour (LST) more easily. Because MSTs can detect light and shades better. You have to be reminded, MSTs and LSTs as well did very well before the time of the tumours. They existed and they produced offsprings, but the ones with the tumours started to be better at eating and hunting others, etc., thus the number of sea creatures with the tumours started to grow. This is natural selection for you.

So, now we have MSTs and LSTs and naturally MSTs start to outgrow LSTs in number. Once again, natural selection is at work, so this is automatic. And after a million generations passing new mutations arise. Now the tumour grow even MORE sensitive (EMST) and now EMSTs start to outgrow MSTs, who were very successful survivors before but now they are losing to EMSTs!

And realize that two million generations ago you had completely blind sea creatures, but now you have sea creatures with very sensitive light detecting tumours on their heads.

I won’t go on forever with this, but you see how gradual steps can create something that seemed to be impossible to be created in the first place from the point of view of populations at the starting point of evolution. Just to go on with this example very briefly, after billions of generations and a lot of milestone mutations the tumour actually functioned as a perfect light and shade detecting device. It was so sensitive they could actually see the perfect outlines of other creatures and surfaces. After trillions of generations and very many evolutionary steps it was so sensitive towards light that with the tumour you could actually see COLORS! Not particularly real colors, but there were lights and shades with different colors, doesn’t matter if it was the real color of the objects, what matters is that you could see the difference between a lot of lights. After quintillions of generations another tumour of the same kind grew on the other side of your head, and creatures with two of those great light detecting tumours could see much much better than the ones with only one of these tumours.

And I will end this story here. You have to see that it is possible that after an infinite number of generations from simple light detecting cells the human eye arose. Every compound of it came up through evolution but even with only a few compounds of the final, human eye, you do much better at survival than someone who doesn’t have an eye at all and is completely blind.

I fear this won’t be satisfactory for you because I did not go on with this example in every detail until we all arrived at modern, human eyes. But it’s impossible to do that because we don’t have the time or virtual space here, and we don’t even have all the factual steps in that process. But you have to have JUST enough pieces of a puzzle in order to realize what the final picture will be, and you know it’s true. You don’t have to have every single step of processes like this, mainly because it’s just impossible to comprehend 4 billion years of evolution in all the detail, and also because just a few steps of evolution makes us understand the whole process. And the process is consistent and working. Even without all the details. Still, I just outlined the basics for you, and I hope it is at least somewhat helpful.

The “debate” ends here for now, but I will update this post if new responses come up! 🙂

Posted in Blog, Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why I think the Star Wars VII teaser is great – and other matters

I will try to be as brief as I can. I’m not a huge Star Wars fan at all (I’m part of The Lord of the Rings generation), I’ve only seen the original trilogy once, the new trilogy a couple more times, but I don’t like them very much. Still, I really like the whole mythology of it, mainly the basics: jedis, lightsabers, the fights, the Force, the Siths… actually, I think these are all the things I like about Star Wars. And you know, judging by the trailer this is what I will mostly get from the film; the filmmakers got the basics of this mythology and re-used them for their purposes. I really like this attitude – unlike others.


Lot of people, including SW fans (like, hundreds of millions of them) complain about a lot of things regarding this teaser. Understandably. The most shocking thing this teaser has to offer is its visual style that is completely different from what the Star Wars films used to look like. JJ Abrams really got his hands on the visuals, and for the best. I love that they are departing from the previous films – I mean, even from the original trilogy.

And weeks after the teaser has debuted, no one really cares about what I have to say. I mean, if I only wanted to say that I liked the teaser, it would be really boring. But I think this teaser trailer signifies something very important – new times. New times in filmmaking, in blockbuster films. More generally it points out to us in the most obvious way: times, but mainly arts, are changing. All the time. And most people in history could not accept change. Most people living now cannot accept change. This is your common “old people” attitude that you encounter all the time – especially if you’re still relatively young. But even young people, people in their twenties are complaining about things and recalling dear things from their past. It’s a common sight on the Internet. I don’t want to create a fog of mystery around this topic, it’s very obvious why this is: the 21st century must be the fastest changing century in the history of mankind. Mostly when it comes to technology, but even when you think of arts, modern arts, you see this sudden but huge shift from what used to be normal. Like everything was on the brink of a huge chasm but now it’s all falling down faster and faster. And I welcome this. As someone born in 1991 I welcome all the creations and speed and pace of the 21st century. I’m truly a 21st-century-guy. I was born to live here. Still, some – actually, most – people wish the world was more like it used to be.


And I guess it will never happen since it never happened in the past ten thousand years or so, but it’s time we put an end to this attitude, because frankly it is just really boring. And what this new Star Wars trailer signifies – believe it or not – is this eternal change of times. We have this hugely, hugely influential piece of popular art, the Star Wars franchise (I will call it a piece of art, like it or not), and someone is stirring it up again. Nearly everyone loved the idea of seeing a new Star Wars film, still, they don’t actually like what they are seeing in the teaser. I’ve heard a lot of complaints about the visuals and the overall “feel” of it. “It’s not Star Wars anymore.” What people wanted to see is the atmosphere and the visual style of the George Lucas-era. But JJ Abrams and the filmmakers stood up and said: well, fuck you, you’re not getting it. And you are not allowed to get it. We are not playing that game. This is filmmaking, even on this level. On the level of mainstream blockbusters. We are still making films, and there is no way that we are going to make a film that has the exact same features of a film from 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. That is not going to happen.


The world is changing. Times are changing. Everyone is tired of hearing these phrases, still, they stand true. If you haven’t realized by now, life and existence is changing constantly on every level you can imagine. It’s changing on the level of your personal life, it’s changing on the level of your physical body, your molecules are changing, it’s changing on a global level and life is changing on a cosmical level – constantly. And sometimes you can argue about whether it’s for better or worse, but since it’s only arts and films, I think we can agree that there is no good or bad. It just happens. As happened with all art forms since the existence of arts and entertainment. Does it really have to be an 88-second-long Star Wars teaser to remind you of this?

I welcome the new Star Wars trailer and the film because I welcome change. I don’t really have any other choice, do I? And I don’t mind that.


Posted in Thoughts | Tagged | 1 Comment

Ikerparadoxon – 1.

Patrik anyukája nagy sebességgel rohangált fel-alá a lakásban. Folyamatos cipőkopogás hallatszott a lakás különböző helyiségeiből, miközben Patrik kissé nyugtalanul ült az előszobában. Nem igazán tudta mire vélni ezt a kapkodást, ezt a sietséget, ami szinte a semmiből támadt az anyukájára. Már mind a ketten fel voltak öltözve, indulásra készen; Patrik a kis cipőjében várta, hogy anyja végre eltegye az összes fontos dolgát retiküljébe.
– Na, már csak a jogsimat nem találom. Hol lehet eleve a pénztárcám?
A fiú sóhajtott egyet, kifejezetten unta magát. – Jó, megvan, mehetünk! – kiáltott a nő, majd még sebesebb léptekkel elindult az előszoba felé. Amikor odaért fiához, még mielőtt kinyitotta volna a bejárati ajtót, kinézett a kukucskálón.
– Na, szuper… – mondta lemondóan a nő, majd nagy levegőt vett. – Hát, menjünk akkor.
Patriknak még mindig fogalma sem volt, mi is történik most valójában, de morcosan felállt és az anyja után fordult. A nő kézen fogta gyerekét, majd együtt kiléptek az ajtón. A fotósok már várták őket odakint, és ahogy a két ember előtűnt a házból, vad kattintgatásba kezdtek.
Anna kicsit kelletlenül fogadta a dolgot, bár számított rá. Kicsit kínosan mosolyogva vonszolta maga után fiát, aki csodálkozva nézett az őket körülvevő sok-sok kamerára. Talán még egy riportert is látott mikrofonnal a kezében egy tévés kamerába beszélni! Ennél jobban azonban nem tudta felmérni a terepet, mert anyja kinyitotta autójuk hátsó ajtaját, majd kissé türelmetlenül beszállásra intette őt.

Patrikék már körülbelül másfél órája utaztak. Hosszú-hosszú autópályákon haladtak rendületlenül. A fiú azon gondolkodott, hova is mennek most ilyen sietős tempóban, de nem kérdezett rá anyukájánál. A nő jól láthatóan ideges volt, vagy türelmetlen? Folyamatosan az ajkait rágta, ide-oda nézelődött, a kormányon kopogott ujjaival. Patriknak ez feltűnt, és úgy érezte, jobb nem is firtatni a dolgot. Nem éppen megnyugodva, de hátradőlt gyerekülésében, és türelmesen kivárt.
– … – Anna valamit mondani akart, de csak a levegővételig jutott. Patrik ezt meghallotta, és odafigyelt, ám anyja szájából először nem jöttek ki szavak. A nő egy pillanatra még elgondolkodott, majd egy új és hangos levegővétellel folytatta. – Most mondani fogok valamit, ami nagyon fontos. Valószínűleg meg fogsz lepődni, és… igazából nem is én mondom majd, hanem látni fogod. Most oda megyünk.
– De hova?
Patrik kicsit aggódni kezdett. Nagyon nem szerette, ha anyukája úgy kezd egy mondatot, hogy valami fontosat szeretne mondani. A valami fontos szinte sosem jelentett túl jó dolgot. Sőt. Inkább rosszat jelentett. Akárhányszor elhangzott ez eddig, hogy valami nagyon fontosat akar neki mondani az anyukája, mindig egy kicsit kiesett a megszokott, békés, biztonságos életéből. Hirtelen eltűnt a szórakozás, a móka, hirtelen valami baljós dolog szakította meg ezt az egészet. Most is teljes erővel így érzett. Ahogy meghallotta a hírhedt szavakat, azonnal végigfutott a hátán a hideg.
– Nemsokára meglátod. Vagyis hát… végül is elmondhatom, tudod, egy olyan másfél-két órányira a várostól ott van az űrállomás.
– … Az űrállomás?
– Aha.
– Oda megyünk?
– Aham… – Anna ismét beleharapott az ajkaiba, levette tekintetét a visszapillantó tükörről, ahol eddig fiát nézte.
– De miért? Az osztállyal voltunk már ott.
– Tényleg? Nem is mesélted! – Anna sajnos alig tudta leplezni, hogy nagyon kedves, érdeklődő hangneme egészen erőltetett volt. Patrik ettől függetlenül még túl fiatal volt ahhoz, hogy ezt észrevegye.
– Tudod, még másodikosok voltunk! Nem is volt olyan régen.
– És jó volt?
– Fú, hát aha, elég nagy az a hely meg minden. A fiúkkal eléggé féltünk néha!
Anna még mindig az erőltetett stílusban beszélt fiához.
– Féltetek? Hogyhogy? Nincs ott mitől félni.
– Hát jó csak olyan nagy meg tágas volt az egész… én még nem is láttam ilyen nagy épületeket.
– Hát igen, az már igaz, hogy jó magas állványok meg épületek vannak ott. Hm…
Anna ismét elmerült gondolataiba, szinte kizárta Patrikot a beszélgetésből.
– Izgalmas nap lesz ez, Patrik, meglátod.
Patrik a mai nap először megnyugodott, mert anyukáján most őszinte örömöt érzett. Talán még sincs szó semmi komolyról, semmi rosszról legalábbis! Ezen már ő is elmosolyodott. Jó pár hosszú csendes perc után Patrik lelkesen mutatott ki a jármű ablakán.
– Nézd, anya, én már látom! Ott van!
– Igen, igen. – válaszolt Anna sokkal nyugodtabban.
– Most már kicsit várom, hogy megint láthassam azokat a tornyokat!
– Hát, most sajnos nem fogod, kicsikém.
– Miért??
Anna vett egy jó nagy levegőt.
– Mert nem az indulási, hanem a landolási területre megyünk. Az kicsit arrébb van.


Az autó megállt az egyik épület hangárjában. Patrik egyre kevésbé tudta hova tenni a dolgokat; amikor áthajtottak az űrállomás területének sorompóin, mintha ott is fotósokat és tévés embereket látott volna. Anyukája kinyitotta neki az ajtót, kicsatolta a gyerekülésből, majd engedte, hogy magától kiszálljon. Egyenruhába öltözött emberek álltak az autótól nem messze, már várták az érkezésüket. Mindenki mosolygott Patrik és az anyukája irányába, az autó mellett közvetlenül pedig szintén egy egyenruhás férfi állt, aki barátilag üdvözölte Annát.
– Patrik, ez a bácsi egy katona, köszönj szépen!
– Csókolom. – tett eleget az utasításnak Patrik gyanakodva.
– Szia, nyugodtan szólíts csak Jani bácsinak! – az idős férfi megpaskolta a fiú arcát, majd Annához fordult. – Annyira örülök, hogy itt vagytok. Mindenki nagyon izgatott.
– Mi is! Vagyis hát, főleg én, Patrik még nem annyira érti.
Hah… érteném, ha tudnám, mi folyik itt, gondolta a fiú.
– Nem baj, ma minden a helyére kerül. – a férfi meglepően barátságosan mosolygott Patrikra, amitől a fiú kicsit meg is nyugodott. Egészen idegenül érezte magát ebben az egész szituációban, de most először egy kis biztonságérzet támadt fel benne. – Gyertek utánam!
A kis csapat elindult a férfi után.

Egy kis teremben voltak monitorokkal körülvéve, amiken az űrállomás landolási területének élőképei voltak vetítve. Patrik egy kis széken ült, kezében egy narancsleves doboz volt szívószállal, amit “Jani bácsitól” kapott, miközben anyukája és a férfi a terem másik végében, szinte a fiúnak háttal állva beszélgettek. Egy-két szót Patrik is elkapott a beszélgetésből.
Mindjárt itt vannak, percek kérdése. Mit tud a fiú?
Hát… nem sok mindent.
Patrik semmiféle jelentőségett nem tulajdonított mindannak, amit kihallott. Kicsit azért éberen, de gondtalanul üldögélt a széken. Annáék közben tovább beszélgettek.
– Szerintem itt lenne az ideje legalább egy picit elmondani ebből az egészből. Tudom, hogy fontos volt, hogy így legyen tálalva neki az egész, de… talán most már hallhatja. Legalább egy részét.
– Igen, én is erre gondoltam. Fuhh, ne tudd meg, ez nagyon nehéz… – Anna a fejét fogta.
– Elhiszem. Na, menj, menj.
János Patrik felé tessékelte a nőt, aki eleinte kissé kelletlenül, de aztán bátorságát összeszedve fordult fiához. Leguggolt vele szemben, hogy Patrik ülve maradhasson.
– Figyelj csak… emlékszel, hogy meséltem apukádról, igaz? Hogy nagyon-nagyon messze el kellett utaznia, és évekbe telik, mire visszaér.
– Most ő rá várunk?
Anna büszke volt fiára, hogy milyen gyorsan vág az esze. Meghatottan elmosolyodott, majd megsimogatta az arcát.
– Igen. Ő jön most, azért vagyunk most itt. Most érkezik vissza. Eddig azért nem mondtam el, kisfiam, mert… sosem tudtam, hogy mikor érkezik meg, tudod? Sosem voltunk ebben biztosak, és abban sem, hogy egyáltalán visszajön… de pár napja megkaptuk a hírt, hogy jön, úgyhogy most itt vagyunk! Ne haragudj, hogy nem szóltam semmit, jó?
– Jó. – Patrik kissé érdektelenül válaszolt anyja bocsánatkérési kérelmére; inkább kíváncsi volt, minthogy megbántva érezze magát. Anna ismét megsimogatta fia arcát, majd felállt mellőle.
János kérdőn nézett Annára. – Nyugi… – felelte Anna a lehető leghalkabban a férfinak, majd eltávolodott.
– Khm… jól van – nézett az órájára a férfi -, szerintem ideje kimennünk. Mit szóltok? Hm, mehetünk? – kérdezte a férfi barátságosan Patriktól.
– Aha! – pattant fel a székről a fiú.

Már kint voltak a szabadban, a landolási terület oldalán, és mindenki az eget bámulta. Nagyon-nagyon sok ember volt ott, akik közül Patrik természetesen senkit sem ismert. Csakis anyukáját, és a ma megismert Jani bácsit, aki ott állt mellettük. És igen, most már egészen biztos, hogy nagyon sok fotós és kamerás ember van körülöttük. Viszont most szinte alig talált olyan kamerát a fiú, ami rájuk irányult volna; szinte egytől egyig az eget bámulták. Patrik szüntelenül kémlelte a tömeget, amikor hirtelen az emberek mutogatni kezdtek, majd kiáltások is hallatszódtak. Ekkor Patrik is felnézett: egy űrhajó ereszkedett le az égből.
Anna a szájához kapta a kezét, kicsordult egy könny a szeméből. A tömeggel ellentétben azonban Patrik nem volt elámulva a látványtól – sokkal inkább baljós hangulat lepte el. Arca teljesen mogorvába fordult, szinte fenyegetve érezte magát. Az űrhajó nagyon lassan ereszkedett, hatalmas hajtóművei meglepően halkan duruzsoltak a folyamat közben. Hosszú percek után a gépezet földet ért. Érkezését nagy robaj követte, a föld is beleremegett a landolás pillanatába. Patrik nyelt egyet, és aggódva, sőt, szinte félve anyukájára nézett, aki könnyes szemekkel bámult a járműre. Le se vette róla szemét, és karon ragadva Patrikot elindult felé. János követte őket.
Pár pillanat múltán, amikor az űrhajó hajtóművei már leálltak, nagyon sok személyzeti tag kezdett el a jármű felé futni a landolási terület széleiről. A gép egyik ajtaja közben kinyílt. Anna egyre sebesebb léptekkel közelített az űrhajóhoz, Patrik szinte már szaladt ezen a ponton. A jármű még mindig elég távol volt tőlük – a leszállópálya hatalmas méretű volt -, de innen is látták, hogy emberek szállnak ki belőle. Nagyon fáradtan lépdeltek ki a hajóból, a körülöttük lévő emberek pedig azonnal tapsviharban törtek ki, ahogy meglátták őket. Patrikék egyre gyorsabban haladtak feléjük, majd kis idő múltán lelassítottak, majd megálltak. Már egészen közel voltak az űrhajóhoz, amikor Anna úgy döntött, türelmesen megvárja, hogy az űrhajóból kiszállt kis csoport egyik férfitagja elinduljon felé. Annának hatalmas mosolyra húzódott a szája, de Patrik még mindig óvakodva figyelte az eseményeket. És valóban, egy férfi indult el feléjük, akit három helyszíni egészségügyi felügyelő kísért. A férfi mosolyogva jelezte feléjük, hogy rendben van, nem kell ilyen vigyázva követniük őt, teljesen jól érzi magát. János, aki Anna mögött állt, barátilag megfogta a nő vállát, és kedvesen arrébb állt. Patriknak úgy igazából csak most esett le, mit is él át. Soha nem látott, soha nem ismert apját látja épp feléjük közeledni. A férfi arcáról hihetetlen öröm sugárzott, ahogy a kis csoport felé tartott. Ám Patrik ekkor valami furcsát látott meg: apja nem egyedül jött. Volt vele valaki más is. Egy kisgyerek.
A férfi odaért Annához és Patrikhoz, szemben megállt velük, majd mosolyogva végignézett a famílián. Anna könnyes szemekkel nézett a férfire.
– Ezt el sem hiszem. – mondta hihetetlen örömmel a nő.
A férfi megvonta vállát, majd átölelte Annát, és sok-sok év után először ismét csókot váltottak. Patrik kicsit zavartan nézte az eseményeket, illetve a kisfiút, aki apjával jött. Valami nagyon furcsa volt ezen a fiún… sokkal fiatalabb volt, mint Patrik, és valami nagyon-nagyon furcsa volt rajta. Valami megfoghatatlan, valami bizarr.
– Patrik… ő az édesapád! – mondta Anna, mire a férfi odalépett a fiúhoz, és nagyon hosszan megölelte.
– Szia Patrik… kerek tíz éve nem láttalak. Sajnálom, hogy így kell találkoznunk.
Patrik nem igazán tudott mit reagálni a történtekre, kissé érzelemmentesen állt a helyszínen, de ez apukáját egy cseppet sem zavarta.
– Üdv újra itthon! – fogott kezet János is a férfival.
– Jó téged is újra látni. – viszonozta a baráti kézfogást Patrik apja. És ekkor mindhárom felnőtt a Patrikkal szemben álló fiatal fiúra nézett, aki talán még ő nála is jobban meg volt illetődve. Egy pár pillanatig senki nem szólalt meg, csak mosolyogva, ám kissé tanácstalanul néztek a fiúkra. János törte meg a csendet.
– Mondd csak, Patrik hány éves is pontosan? – kérdezte Annától, aki rögtön fiához fordult.
– Hány éves vagy, Patrik? Mondd csak meg Janinak.
– Tíz. – válaszolta kissé zavartan.
János és a fiú apja ekkor összenéztek. Anna is a két férfit bámulta kíváncsi szemekkel, amikor is az apuka lehajolt a lábánál álló kisfiúhoz.
– Patrik, ő Balázs. Ő is az apukáddal utazott. – mondta az anyuka a fiúnak, aki egyre nagyobb aggódással nézett az idegenre.
Patrik apja ekkor feltűrte Balázs ruhájának ujját a bal karjánál. Balázs könyöke fölött egy szíj volt körbetekerve a karján, pontosabban egy digitális karkötő. Az apuka kikapcsolta ezt a szíjat, majd felállt vele, és János és Anna felé mutatta a kijelzőjét. A kijelzőn egy időmérő volt. Anna a számláló láttán ismét szájához kapta kezét, és izgatottan zihálni kezdett. A nevetés és a sírás között ingázott a nő, János pedig elégedetten bólogatott. A kijelzőn a következő számok voltak olvashatóak:

6 év:89 nap:14 óra:27 perc

– Tehát Balázs alig több, mint 6 éves. – jelentette ki elégedetten János. Erre az apuka is mosolyogva bólintott.
Anna ekkor Patrik felé fordult, kitörölte szemeiből a könnyet, majd remegő, de vidám hangon megszólalt.
– Patrik… ő itt Balázs. Ő… ő is az én fiam. A mi fiunk.
Anna Patrik apukájára mutatott ekkor, és Patriknak is összeállt a kép.
– Ó… tehát ő… az én kisöcsém?
– Nos… nem egészen. Patrik… Balázs a te ikertestvéred.



Posted in Blog | 1 Comment