a layman challenges big science (and some religionists)

8/14/2019 A Layman Challenges Big Science (and some religionists)

1/38

A Layman Challenges Big Science (and some religionists)And Evidence and Proof of God

The following are a few highlights of posts I have on my weblog site at:http://deeperthings.webs.com I invite you to read further there. They say everywashing machine needs an agitator--that's me. I challenge what I deem to be fuzzythinking, wrong thinking and outright deception, no matter what side of the aisle

it is on, so you will also see me challenge some mainstream religious thoughthere, as well as mainstream science. Not that either is bad as a whole, but thereare definitely more than trace amounts of bad science and bad religion.

Back about 2004 I wrote an email letter to Stephen Hawking, considered one of thepreeminent physicists of our time. I posed a challenge to him, that he mightenlighten me, correct me, etc. I am still waiting for his reply. I share thatletter here.The Big Bang Fizzles Out

Dr. Hawking,

My writing to you has to do with the fact that I am greatly bothered by someissues that would seem to me to be evident to one of your mental stature--certainfundamental laws of physics as introduced by Newton. I am not all-seeing by anystretch of the imagination, but these seem to be glaring problems to me. If thereare further advancements that have taken these issues into account and addressthem adequately, please refer me to them, if you will. Otherwise, I suggest thatan entire re-thinking of the theory may be in order.

We (the general population) are told that "nothing can escape from a black hole".This includes even light. Then we are told that x-rays can and do escape.Hmmmmm,...okay. The fact is that if ALL matter, energy and whatever else may haveconstituted the materials for the original point of focus were in fact IN onepoint, then that would have been the "MOTHER of all black holes" and it would seem

evident that nothing COULD escape from this, thus making moot the question of aBig Bang in the first place.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the impossible did happen (maybe by anact of God) and that the singular point was indeed the origin of the event. Now wehave other troubles to sort out. We are told that anything radiating outward froma single point will gradually distance itself from any other thing leaving thatsame point (divergence), even if they left side by side in the same generaldirection. Yet we are also told that there are numerous celestial bodies thatcross paths and influence one another. How can these both be true--divergent andcrossing?

We are informed that these bodies (some of which are called Quasars) are actually

accelerating as they gain distance from their point of origin, yet they travel ina vacuum (all matter was in that single point, so there was no interfering mediumto travel through) and should neither gain nor lose speed as they travel. This issimple Newtonian Physics. If they do the impossible and gain speed, then we mustaddress that issue. Perhaps there is a repelling force at the center of the eventthat pushes the matter away? Yet how could this be possible, as the concentrationof matter (whether it attracts or repels or is neutral) no longer exists, due tothe "bang" itself. Then maybe there is an attractive force or object on the outerreaches of the universe that draw these Quasars in. That would pose the problemthat NOT all matter was then in the center of the event, as well as the fact thatthere must now be an "eggshell" of sorts that is compelling the Quasars to


2/38

accelerate as they gain proximity--this is, of course, preposterous. To think thatall of the universe is contained in a gigantic eggshell, dense beyonddescription--shades of the ancient superstitions? Perhaps then these objects areself-propelled by some means we know not--they choose their own velocity (andtrajectory)--not likely, I would say. Unless God IS interfering in some manner.

Well, there are other difficulties, too. Not the least of which is the "echoes" ofthe Big Bang. If there was nothing out there in the first instance, what is there

to echo FROM, I might ask? I do hope you might offer some sort of clarity on thisissue as it is most puzzling to me. Perhaps it is just background noise? If so,from what? And then there is that nasty problem of things happening far fasterthan they should in the creation of new stars and galaxies. Oh, bother!

As to the theory of an Oscillating Universe--when Quasars reach escape velocity,how will they ever be re-introduced to the system? It cannot be. One or the otheris wrong.

The early Rabbis had theories (from their Torah) of several more dimensions thanwe even speculated on, until late. Maybe they were not so foolish as we are told?And is it not possible that all there was in the first instance was matter, spaceand intelligence and that the prime intelligence found a way to organize (the

Hebrew word for create means to organize what was already there) that matter? Asto intelligence--none of the major scientists (I use the term loosely in referringto evolutionists and their kind) ever addresses THAT origin and SHOWS it asnothing more than what they THINK it to be--"random or conditioned reaction to awonderfully complex environment." Humbug!

The same "man of science" that says there is no God is trying at breakneck speedto BECOME one in his own right, is he not? There is none to become, according tothat logic. And it is the height of all arrogance to think he may become such ifthere has never been nor ever will be. After all, is not all the universe decayingaccording to the "LAW" of entropy? Then why try? Not according to the brightest ofour scientific minds--it is all a wonderful accident. Math, science itself, love,advances in medicine and every virtuous desire of the human heart and mind are

simply the effect of random or conditioned response to our environment. Even IQ isthen an illusion, is it not?

God save me from this philosophy then! I want no part of a science that breaks orignores its own "laws" for the sake of convenience or to dumb down the masses inorder to maintain some degree of imagined power or status for their own smallcircle of influence. This is no science--it is no more than medieval witchery. Nodisrespect meant to you, sir. If you honestly do see anything I have missed thatcould possibly enlighten me, please do so. I am not above being taught--I justobject to being insulted. And perhaps I have taught you something as well. Thetrue man of science pursues the truth, no matter how unpopular it may be in hisown circles (for example--there are many individuals with HIV who have no AIDS andmany with AIDS that have no HIV, yet it is the kiss of death to research funding

if you suggest that perhaps HIV is not the cause of AIDS).

As to the existence of God--I know for myself that there is one, but I will befirst to admit that I cannot prove it to another. It is an individual experimentand every man must choose for himself whether he will get into the test tube andbe a part of that experiment or will by his choice remain ignorant of the resultsthat others have experienced for themselves. There IS a plan and it all makes themost wonderful and supreme sense when you are privy to that knowledge. I inviteyou to participate in the grandest experiment of all--if He can create all of whatyou see, He can certainly answer a sincere prayer, can he not? It is far more wiseto seek this answer than to continually try to write Him out of the equation--it


3/38

will never happen because it is impossible and will only lead to frustration andmadness.

Feel free to rebuke, correct, insult or whatever. I can take it. Any offense youmay have taken to this is unintentional on my part, I assure you. I just think weneed to hold ourselves to certain standards and not compromise them in the leastdegree for the sake of fame or popularity. I hope you agree.

Your friend,Steven O'Dell

P.S. Here is one to think about--maybe what we call the Big Bang was just theWhite Hole on the other end of the process--a sort of "cosmic vomiting" into ourregions? Maybe we are at the end of the drain pipe after all. A wonderful andcomplex cesspool and nothing more--doesn't that just lift your self-esteem? Takecare, my friend.

Was Columbus A Mass Murderer?

Every now and then I hear an old misconception that just rubs me the wrong way.Examples: 'The Maya didn't have any concept of the wheel." Another that bugs me is

"Columbus killed millions of native Americans." I have touched upon the first onein another post, but I wish to briefly mention the second one here.Supposedly twenty million natives died from the diseases that Columbus brought.And supposedly he was nothing but a gold-digger for Spain. To accept this as fact,one has to be totally unfamiliar with the man and his writings or just be lazyenough to believe anything he hears. Research is important.Columbus was a man who felt he had a special destiny among men. He felt moved uponby the Holy Ghost to go where he did. He records this in his journals. He was noaverage man at all. Columbus was a man with a destiny for sure. He knew it and heacted upon it. One need only read his journals to know the man. So much for hisgold-digging. He was moved by God to discover a new land and he was quite aware of

the importance of the force that drove him.Regarding the issue of him being the cause of millions of deaths, there is recentresearch that was done by a Mexican scholar that shows the real cause of thedeaths in such mass numbers was something similar to Ebola virus. The evidence isextremely strong. A list of the diseases that Columbus or the Spaniards may havebrought, when compared to the list of those commonly known among the natives,shows that it was nothing the foreign visitors brought. Further research from pastrecords of the ancients and tree ring studies of a few ancient groves which stillexist, shows that weather patterns played a tremendous part in the deaths. Massivedrought drove the rodents in the region to the forests, where, in an effort to getsufficient water and food, they dug around trees the earth which harbored thevirus and then with the subsequent heavy rains they returned to the farms and

cities where food was then more plentiful. With their return, they brought thevirus. All of the native and foreigner's records of the symptoms indicate it washemorrhagic fever that killed so many millions so quickly. The symptoms also alignwith those from a past event in the region that bore the same weather patternsjust prior to the loss of great numbers of the population.The Spanish were not present at that earlier event, nor was Columbus. The sicknessspread much faster throughout the neighboring cities than was possible by thevisitation of the Spaniards or Columbus. So, one must conclude that it was an actof nature or of God and not to be blamed on Columbus. That is, once a person isinformed and if they are honest about it.


4/38

Intellectual Cowardice and Educational Terrorism

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark, The real tragedy of lifeis when men are afraid of the light." - Plato

I have been studying a favorite area of research lately, that of the theory ofevolution. Let me accentuate focus on the word THEORY. I know and accept that

there are differing views of opinion on the matter, even within the varying shadesof the supposed 'sides' or poles on the question--from strict scientists to strictreligionists. That simply makes for healthy debate and learning opportunities--something that should benefit all involved. But some have taken matters to thenext level, I am afraid.

I have seen strong evidence of bullying tactics from both sides, in ruthlessattempts to 'prove' their viewpoints. We are talking more than just good-naturedpoking of fun or sarcasm and with here. Where emotionalism has replaced self-control and human respect for their fellow being, this has extended to slander,libel and all manner of irrational ad hominum attacks. It has included the castingaside of strong facts in order to retain pet theories that are unsupportedotherwise. It has resulted numerous times in the threatening or ending of

promising careers simply because of a passing mention of a differing viewpoint.

This cannot and must not be tolerated. It is a tyrannical approach and a form oftantrum-throwing by those who claim a superior intellect. Numerous examples can befound, but the one that caught my attention in this matter--specifically as to itsintensity--was in the film Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed, starring Ben Stein.Numerous others abound, aimed from or at the opposing sides. Please note that I donot intend by my cited example to 'take a side' in this matter, except to show mystrong disapproval of such tactics, regardless of the source and the viewpoint ofthe insult thrower. I deem it to be childish in the extreme and to show an uttercontempt for others, as well as being visible proof of a profound lack of self-control and discipline, not to mention a plain understanding of old-fashioned goodmanners.

Such tactics are demeaning to the perpetrators, unfair to the intended victims andamount quite often to cowardice in the face of facts. It shows the intellectualINFERIORITY of the attacker. Since he cannot win by reason and logic, he resortsto name-calling, fear-mongering and outright intimidation--hardly a viable orhonorable substitute. And when one cows others by this means in order to silencethem, it is obvious that he desires no room for debate, but only wants to 'win',as he envisions it. This is not winning. It is losing in the most profound mannerpossible. One who resorts to such an approach has lost respect, honor, integrityand intelligence in the matter. And ground once lost becomes doubly difficult toregain. I need say no more where it should be obvious to all. Even to the villain,this should appear a clear sign of his ultimate weakness.

Too Much Faith (I expound a bit here on the letter to Dr. Stephen Hawking, aswell as engage in further thought on the subjects of the Big Bang, EvolutionaryTheory and an alternate view of geological time frames for religionists, allowingboth sides of the issue to come together.)

We are seemingly expected by the scientific community to believe that all we seein the universe, both living and non-living, macroscopic and microscopic, nomatter how elegantly and complexly structured, is the direct result of chance--faith-testing, probability-ignoring, physical law-violating chance. If the factsdon't fit the theories, we are asked to revise the facts. Amazingly, some of theworld's smartest individuals, so-called, swallow this method hook, line and sinker


5/38

and call it the scientific approach. They claim to have no personal agenda but theadvancement of science and discovery. That there is so little distinction betweentheory and fact leaves one to shake his head in stunned disbelief. It appears thatall that is required for theory to be transformed into fact is the passage of afew years and the adherence of a few more well-respected disciples, which wouldseem to make modern science more nearly a religious cult than a concerted effortto ascertain truth. Add to this their thinly-veiled efforts to write intelligentdesign out of the equation and you most certainly have a 'non-prophet' religious

order.

I have personally written to Stephen Hawking and proposed that specific viewpointsof the theory known as the Big Bang are in violation of the very laws of physicsthat science claims to hold inviolate. I admitted the chance that I could beuninformed and mistaken and challenged him to show me where I might be wrong. Theend result was total and complete silence on the issuefor several years now. Noresponse whatsoever. From this I could draw a few theories of my own, I suppose.

1. Perhaps I am too insignificant to respond to--not worth his time to evenconsider. But certainly such a great mind as this would never behave in such amanner.

2. Maybe, after several years he is still thinking it over, in order to respondand explain to me with clarity and in a concise manner. What focus and patiencethis must require.

3. It might be that he just doesn't answer queries at any time, just as a matterof general principle. Nothing personal, you see.

4. Is it possible that the thought was so absurd that he is still laughing over itand will answer when the spasms cease? I would think this would be a life-threatening condition and am inclined to dismiss it as a possibility altogether.

5. Or, perhaps the proposal sparked a controversy in his mind so deeply that hedare not answer until he and all his league have had time to discuss it in depth.

What I proposed to Dr. Hawking is that the Big Bang Theory (and it still is just atheory, like macro-evolution) does indeed flagrantly violate and ignore willfullyseveral laws laid down by Newton and others as being inviolable facts of physicsand the universe as we know it.

Let us establish here and now that men of science observe only input that they canreceive with their five physical senses (which we all know can be fooled byillusion, bias and mis-comprehension). A true scientist will never add to the bankof data anything that he has not observed or measured via some generally acceptedand standard method. This is, by reason and by obligation, the proper way (muchlike the medical doctor who is bound by the Hippocratic Oath to cause no harm,regardless of what we commonly observe today). To do more or less than this would

be to lose face among colleagues and among the populace as a whole and tocompromise his integrity.

However.... It seems there is room in the scientific method for what is called a'hunch'. The hunch is an unusual object, without mass and immeasurable in everyway. No one has ever observed one, captured it on film or audio or explained itsorigins. This does not, however, preclude its use on a regular basis in thescientific field. In fact, the only evidence of its existence at all is therecurring use of it amongst this august group. Nevertheless, it seems to haveserved them well, although it falls outside the realm of any observable phenomena.Conjecture has it that we can credit the existence of many and varied theories to


6/38

the ubiquitous nature of the hunch (was that redundant?). Note that no scientistyet has proven the accuracy of this object to date, although it remains in wide-spread use.

Proceeding, let us examine the many ways in which the Big Bang Theory actuallyfizzles out.

A. Scientists have stated that they have concluded (no doubt with the aid of many

standard methods, the accuracies of which are beyond reproach) that all matter inthe universe, both seen and unseen (the prodigious amount of dark matter that hasbeen verified via the aforementioned hunch) was once parked in a singularity, asmall ball or particle that had the most immense density that ever existed, evento this present day. This singularity, or particle, was infinitely tiny and hadimmense gravity, no doubt. After all, with all that matter congregated like a canof sardines, how could it help but stay stuck together in that condition forever,being that it was the Mother of all black holes and everyone knows that nothingcan escape from a black hole, right? Scientists have said so, therefore it simplyfollows that it is true. Nevertheless, somehow all this matter decided to explodeone day and spread out for breathing room...ahhhhhhhh.... Never mind that this isa contradiction--there is some explainable reason, I am sure.

B. Now, since all this matter was exploding outward in all directions from thiscentral point, leaving in ever-widening divergent paths, one would suppose that itwould be nigh unto impossible for the particles to join together to form atoms andthen molecules, correct? After all, they are being propelled from a common centerunder great force, at incredible speeds and therefore, due to differing paths oftrajectory, are leaving one another's proximity as well. Not so, it seems. Thosepesky little rascals have a mind of their own! They decide to flock together andcompare notes. 'Wow! Did you see that? Cool! Awesome! Far out! Gnarly, dude!' Whenthis little love-fest is over, they decide upon a leader and all the little clumpsdecide to form a super-clump, a Particle Union, if you will. And, one-for-all andall-for-one, they decide to ignore these divergent trajectory 'theories' that wereso inconvenient to them in the first place and form still larger clumps thateventually become asteroids, planets and stars. Some got a bit carried away,

however, and these hot-headed clods crossed one another, body-slamming into eachother and wreaking havoc until they all decided it was best to cool down and thinkthings over.

C. Now, as if this weren't enough, a few of the more rebellious ones decided toignore another established rule and accelerate on its own. How rude! It had beenpreviously agreed upon that NO ONE was allowed to do this in a complete vacuum.Nevertheless, here it was being done and at the expense of the sacred law itself.From this point on, it was anyone's guess whether the rules were to be obeyed everagain.

D. Little wonder now that scientists have been so confused in their observations.This throws so many more conjectures into the mix that one's mind becomes entirely

boggled, far more than University training ever caused. Now one had to wonderthings like: Is there a motive force inside the meteor that causes it toaccelerate? Is there a super-dense shell about the outer limits of the universethat attracts the Quasar? Are we indeed living in an egg? Maybe there are tinypilots inside these astral travelers.... Is God causing...wait, scratch that.Can't be. That's the one rule that all good scientists adhere to, withoutquestion. God must not be part of the equation.

E. And what about that maddening problem of the 'echoes' of the Big Bang? In atotal vacuum, what are they echoing off of? Still, it would be all too easy toattribute it to cumulative white noise from all those 'billions...and


7/38

billions...of stars'. That would be the easy answer...the cowards' way out.Scientists will have none of that. This calls for a new theory. Let's celebrate!

F. Let's not even get into those stars that are forming way too fast to be bynatural means, okay? Science is getting tired and needs a rest.

Okay, let's get a bit more serious. What is the average layman to do when sciencedrops the gauntlet it had claimed to take up? After all, something so simple as

common sense (which seems to be so uncommon) couldn't possibly stand a chanceagainst a scientific hunch, right? Or could it?

Could it be that science is intentionally trying to over-complicate things withall their abundance of theories? The fact that boatloads of research grant dollarsare involved wouldn't be a determining factor in this flurry of new theoriesamongst this tight-knit circle, would it? Perish the thought and Heaven forbid('if there were a heaven, of course'). Shades of the Dark Ages and leaving thescriptures to the 'experts' in Latin! Outsiders beware! Uneducated, abandon allhope! No Degree? Then you have no degree of hope at being taken seriously!

I have a theory of my own. We have priest-craft , doctor-craft, lawyer-craft andpolitical careerists. Why not assume the existence of science-craft? (Call it a

'hunch'). By this use of the term '-craft', I infer a close-knit group of self-defending, exclusive and jealous individuals who adhere to a strict party line,regardless of it's basis in fact.

Maybe they exclude the insights into truth by the common man because he hasn'tpaid his dues (and thousands of dollars) to have his head filled with all thatinformation in those books that were outdated with the last new theory that hasyet to be added into the new and more expensive edition. (Oops. We need to addteacher-craft to the list).

Is it possible in the real world that retarded'and eccentric guys likeEinstein, Edison and Tesla (yes, they were proclaimed so at some time in theirlives) could really have some insights that proved to be accurate, even if they

don't tread the same circles as all those other guys chasing each others' over-educated tails? Even men and women without any formal education might have highlydeveloped powers of observation and a great big HUNCH! Now there's a novelthought! How many geniuses have been shut out because they were just 'different'or 'uneducated'? Could we be living in paradise right now if it weren't for thebullies trying to prevent it? Here's a theory for you: Does the establishment andstatus quo REALLY resist progress, or is it just my imagination?

Add to this the incredible complexity of a single cell, let alone an entire organ.Ask yourself this question: what made that 'pre-biotic organic soup that wasstruck by lightning' decide to specialize into specific organs devoted to thesymbiotic benefit of the whole? What made the eye an eye and not a liver or a bowlof Jello? Where did intelligence come from in the first place? Is everything we do

just conditioned response, a social-Darwinistic reaction to stimuli, as thescientific hunch would have you believe? Can that explain the act of compassion,the writing of poetry and great music, the deep feelings that one experiences whenexposed to that music or poetry, the need for learning, the drive to teach, thequest for the heights and depths of our planet, a trip to the moon and beyond,mathematics, invention of computers and the sudden acceleration of all technicaldevelopment in the last hundred plus years that eclipses the thousands prior tothat? Perhaps this is just conditioned response. Then tell me this--what does yourhunch tell you is the nature of the catalyst that we are responding to when wedesign computers, space shuttles and geo-stationary orbiting satellites? Why thecell phones and televisions and the constant march to improve upon every new


8/38

improvement?

Can you really say that you believe there is macro-evolution when no one has everpersonally observed it and there is no binding evidence other than a hunch? Anopinion. A theory that has been accepted and taught as if it were fact carved intostone. In the light of another intelligent theory, based in scientific reason, doyou have a mind that is open enough to consider it, though it may go against thegrain of everything you presently accept--or are you so set in your ways that you

have bowed down to your sacred theories and worship them as your gods?

'Let us reason together', a VERY wise man once said (God). Don't let the fact thatit was recorded in Holy writ scare you. It is still good, sound advice for anyone.There is a common belief that science and religion cannot possibly ever agree uponany grounds. This is mostly due to the fact that many religionists are as devotedto theories based in conjecture, hunch and misconception as there are scientistssuffering the same maladies. If truth is universal, it crosses into bothterritories--science and religion. The fact is that many well-known earlyscientists were believers in intelligent design and a divine Creator. They studiedthe world around them to understand the mind of the Author of the universe. Theywanted to know their relationship to Him and their place in the world.

Let's discuss the age of the earth. Scientists say it is billions of years old andthat careful calculation and measurement proves it. SOME religionists say theearth is only 6,000 years old. They base this on faith in their interpretation ofa verse that reads thus: 'One day is as a thousand years to the Lord and athousand years as one day", coupled with another earlier one that states that Godmade the earth in six days and on the seventh day He rested. Therefore, thesebelievers say, it has to be six thousand years old--'God said it, I believe it andthat's the end of it.' How narrow minded! These men are just as bad as the man ofscience who says religion cannot agree with science and never will.

Let us look at that first statement. It is a nice example of Hebrew Chiasmus, amirror-image restatement and an idiomatic poetic form, common to Hebrew. This isnot all, though. It is also an equation that, if followed through to the end, will

lead to a much larger number, more to the liking of a scientist. Observe:

One 'day' is a thousand of our years (so a 'year' of those days would be 365,000of our earthly years) and a thousand (of those) years (365,000,000 of our years)is a day unto the Lord. Times this by six, according to scripture=2 billion, 190million years old. And He rested the seventh day, so add another 365,000,000 yearsto that, plus the 6,000 that some religionists say is the sum total of the age ofour planet.

Survey says: 2 billion, 555 million years, give or take a geologic time period ortwo. Is this more to your liking, Mr. scientist? 2.5 billion+ is a lot of time, isit not? Plenty of time for an eternal being, not bound by time as we see it fromour mere seventy to a hundred year span, to first place some microbes on this new

planet to break it down and make some mineralized soil. After all, what are yougoing to plant the seeds in if not soil? Then a few seeds here and there toproduce a lot of oxygen and food for the animal species yet to come. And whyshould we break the pattern--place a male and female of each species to populatethe ocean, simpler life forms first, to feed the later ones that will be muchlarger. And so on until all the simpler forms have been established over millionsof years and provide a firm foundation for the more advanced species that will bedependent upon them.

Now, this could easily be mistaken for a slow evolution from one simpler life formto a more advanced life form. No matter that this has never been observed or that


9/38

there is no 'missing link' in the fossil record. It is easy enough to manufactureone (and this has been done--evidence disappears when veracity is questioned--i.e., Piltdown Man, et. al.) and a theory to support it, in the event any trueevidence is lacking.

The fossil record would naturally show a slow populating of the earth bythese..."emerging species"...during these 'geological periods'. Each new periodwould reflect the introduction of other, "more advanced" species, as was intended

by the Author of the plan, until we reach the present period, when mankind wasalso introduced via one male and one female of the species. (NOTE: I have stillnot said that there is a God, just that this is an alternative theory for you toconsider, if you are truly open-minded).

It seems that each new find that is older than the last 'nucleus to a theory' ishailed as the true originator of the human family. How many originators are there?Currently over a dozen, if I am up to date.

'But', says the scientist, 'surely you can't expect us to swallow all that mumbo-jumbo about a worldwide flood, can you? So much fable and fairytale!' They statethat this was a localized flood and that the Hebrew record was just 'borrowed'from an older record called the Epic of Gilgamesh. (Never mind that they ignore

the fact that cultures all over the world talk about a deluge of massiveproportions around the same time.) The argument is made that there is simply notenough calculable water volume in all the world to have covered the tops of thehighest mountains. I agree. But the scientist is also guilty--of not payingattention to detail, or of carefully choosing only the details he wishes to payattention to. He is not alone in this--the religionists often may be as guilty.

The record says the 'fountains of the deep' broke up and the waters 'continuallycame and went'. Well, let's examine that a moment. What type of event could causethe crust of the earth to crack open and spew forth the great quantities ofpressurized water that lay beneath the deep strata of rock? (After all, it alsosays the earth was previously watered by the mists of the earth and that no rainhad occurred to this time.) And what self-same event could cause such massive

tidal waves that they would continually come and go around the earth?

Immanuel Velikovsky wrote of such an occurrence in his book Worlds in Collision,in the 1950's. He was laughed to scorn for his records of ancient fables andmythology claiming a world-wide flood at around the same time--that is, at firsthe was laughed at. Then he was hated and ostracized for such audacity.Unscientific! Later, open-minded thinkers like David W. Patten, a geologist andauthor of The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, came along and wrote excellentbooks, based in deep scientific reasoning and ample evidence to suggest thatVelikovsky was right in his conclusions--a huge astral body had come into suchclose proximity to the earth that it had ruptured the earth's crust and causedtidal waves of previously unknown proportions, which could have lasted days andweeks, traveling around the earth repeatedly, scouring every living thing from its

face and smashing into the highest of mountain peaks. There is far more thanenough irrefutable evidence to support this theory. Any honest geologist willadmit to it. Patten shows diagrams of the mountain ranges running from pole topole in the Americas. They reflect the rotation of the earth and the proximity ofa large passing astral object. The arc of the mountain ranges perfectly matchesthe upwellings of magma that would have occurred due to such a large gravitationaldisturbance. It also suggests that the ancient mythological events Velikovskycites relating to the planets, etc., may be based in fact.

The Bible states that the earth shall reel to and fro and be moved out of herplace. What could possibly cause that, if not a close encounter with a very large


10/38

cosmic body? Is there evidence that this has happened? If Velikovsky is right thatall the world's calendars anciently went from a 360 day year to a 365-1/4 day yearin a period of just 20 years, then yes. He explains this 20 year delay as anecessary time for a relearning process. It took time to figure out the new systemeach society would use to calculate the new length of the year. If the earthindeed moved out of her orbit and into a larger one, this would also explain a lotof other things, paleo-climatology and magnetic pole shift being among them.

All I am saying is give peace (between science and religion) a chance. Scienceand religion can reason together and walk hand in hand, just like in Newton's dayand Galileo's day. Minds are like parachutes--they work best when open.

And yes, I do believe in intelligent special design, but if you can show me that ahundreds-of-billions-to-one mathematical chance actually could produce all of thisby accident, I can keep an open mind, okay? Until then, I just don't have thatmuch faith.

Evidence and Proof of God

The title is provocative, to be sure. It is quite a bold claim, I know, but let usproceed as if I am not the crackpot that some will think me to be when I claim

that not only is there abundant evidence, but overwhelming proof of the existenceof Godto the intellectually honest man or woman, that is.

Let's take a fair, realistic and enlightened look, shall we? First of all, I wishto admit openly that I KNOW there is an intelligent and superior entity who holdsand exercises influence over the universe. I will get into HOW I know that as wego on. Let us deal with theories before that.

I will go on record as saying that many of the claims of religionists today are sowild and foolish that it is no wonder the whole lot of us are lumped in with themas believing in fantasies and fables. But nothing could be further from the truth.There are some of us who accept that there are laws that God operates by and thatthe very same results may be achieved by obedience and implementation of them as

is espoused by adherents to the theories of evolution, the big bang and others.And I will add that those of us who lean this way needn't have near the faith thatis required to believe the latter theories.

Evolutionary theory (Macro-evolution, that is--and it is still just a theory,hence the name) has far too many questions to answer and an over-abundance ofspeculation they offer as answers. Let's take some of these into consideration,one at a time.

Theories are always changing, it seems. That's why we call them theories insteadof established fact. This has not, however, kept members of opposing camps fromjumping to confusions and digging trenches they feel they must then defendforever. Pardon the battle-field analogy, but if you have seen the film Expelled

No Intelligence Allowed, you will realize that there are some who see it asexactly that. Some of us think we might reason with opposing views in a peacefulmanner, however. I ask that you keep an open mind, regardless of which side of theissue you are on. You just might learn somethingminds are like parachutes, inthat they work best when open.

The newest theory of the 'big bang' (there have been many and doubtless will bemore among non-believers) is that a bubble of space exploded into space andexpanded. No, that is not a misprint. You read that correctly. Space exploded intospace and formed matter, according to this theory. At least the previous theoryallowed for a singularity of matter that was the genesis of all we see today. That


11/38

theory, too, had it's numerous problems, and for those of you who still believethe old one, check here: http//:deeperthings.webs.com/apps/blog/show/293965-too-much-faith But, to add insult to insult (the theories never injured me, but theyalways manage to insult my intelligence), we are now asked to believe that sciencehas adopted the Ex Nihilo theory of creation (something from nothing) that, not solong ago, many Christians were ridiculed for believing. Of course, the scientificcommunity doesn't call it that and they don't attribute this sudden creation ofeverything from nothing to an intelligent being. However, I am inclined to

paraphrase Shakespeare"A skunk by any other name stinketh still."

Okay, let's examine this objectively. This primordial bubble of spacewhere did itcome from? There has never been anything yet that did not have a beginning. So,what was the prime motivator for this bubble of space-stuffoops, sorry; there wasno stuff...just space...in a bubble, no less. What made the bubble in the firstplace? How did it form in that particular place (if you can call anywhere in avast empty void a 'place')? What force pushed inward to form that bubble? There isalways an outside force pushing inward to form a round bubble. That is arecognized law of physics. But, of course, we are asked to believe that physicsdidn't exist before the big bang. And perhaps there was an inner force of gravity,pulling together to form that rounded shape? Nope...impossible. There is nogravity where there is no matter. And again, physics laws didn't exist,

supposedly. Some other explanation must be available. Any ideas? By that I mean,ideas that the common man who isn't educated beyond intelligence can understand.

This very idea violates the laws of physics that the scientific community as awhole, both believers and non-believers, accept as immutable fact. The First Lawof Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy can change places, butthere will never be more or less of the total of the two, has just been flagrantlycast aside, if we are to accept this bubble of space becoming matter theory. Itcannot have been mere space, if it were to become matter. And if it were energy,which indeed might become matter, then would not the smartest men alive (I givethem the benefit of the all-too-obvious doubt) have labeled it as such from thebeginning? Was it an unintended oversight or do they confuse us intentionally? Andthe whole idea of a big bang becoming our presently sophisticated universe is a

direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that nothingwithin a closed system, unaided by any further input from outside that closedsystem (which these men accept our universe, without God, to be), will continue toprogress and evolve, but will merely decay and atrophy by normal means. Hence, thefirst two laws of physics, according to Isaac Newton (the man smart enough toinvent Calculus), have just been cast upon the dung heap of history without somuch as a backward glance. Is this science? Is this a scientific approach? Is ithonest? The men who will swear you can't get something for nothing and that inlife there is nothing free, have just chosen to ignore their own advice. They nowaccept the mistaken concept of many of today's Christians that the universe was anEx-Nihilo creation or event. Something from Nothing. My injecting of the word'balderdash' will have no effect on them, either side of the issue, I am sure, solet us proceed.

Alright, I guess we just have to chalk that up to one chance in a googleplex ormore, don't we? Let's assume that it did happen that way or by any of the otherequally improbable means, just for the sake of the argument. How did thisexpanding bubble of 'space into space' begin to crystallize into matter from nomaterial at all? If I were asked to make a cake, I had darn well better have someingredients to start with. What were those (non-existent) ingredients and how didthey come to gel into substance? No ideas? Me neither. And believe me, I amtrying.

Chalk that up to another one-in-a-googleplex chanceagain, just for the sake of


12/38

the argument (the actual odds could be much larger). It wouldn't be fair toevolutionary scientists or any fun for me to stop this soon, would it? Okay,somehow this space became matter and congealed into planets and stars, or so thetheory says. And who am I to question these ultra-smart guys? Now, we have aplanet that is eventually capable of supporting life. Again, this is one chance ina huge number that it happened to be in just the right orbit and at just the rightdistance from just the right size and type of star. And the rotational period hadto be just right, compounding the probability problems again. Then we have the

issue of atmosphere. Only a certain type of atmosphere could support lifenotmethane, not hydrogen, not helium, not nitrogen alone. The atmosphere had to benot only the correct gases, but in the correct proportions, too. What are the oddsof that?! Gosh, I'm no mathematician by any means, but this number seems to begetting to be what I would call huge!

Now, we need to have just the right conditions for life to occur. Even thesimplest of cells is incredibly more complex than Charles Darwin could haveimagined on his smartest day. And yet his intellectual descendants insist onmaking monkeys of themselves and swallowing it hook, line and sinker. DNAthreesimple letters that add up to an amazingly complex code for life. Get the units(and there are thousands in the simplest of organisms) in the wrong order and youend up with zilch. Let's see, anyone keeping score on the mathematical odds? What

are we up to now? Wow, that big?

Alright, somewhere along the line, we are asked to accept that a single cellformed and survived. So far, so good. If that's all there is, that cell is in bigtrouble, not to mention the fact that it is going to be awfully lonely unlesssomething happens to cause him to have company. I know, this is getting tedious,but could you suspend disbelief again...just for the sake of their argument? Theirtheory won't survive unless you do.

By some wondrous and unexplained means, this single cell now has dividedthemiracle of mitosis. YAY! And later, since they have all learned the same cooltrick, there are now millions of cells, all alike and all members of the sameclub. Life is grand for awhile, until one of them gets this stupendous idea. Why

not specialize? One wants to be a plumber and another an electrician, while stillothers desire to go into optics or chemistry. So, now we have a colon, a nerve, aneye and a pituitary gland. But something still isn't right, so they decidetogether to violate the laws of probability yet again (this number is gettingunmanageable. Anyone have a Cray super computer?)

Having decided that they need new members in the club, and not just any dumb oldsingle-celled idiot, they put out the request for livers, kidneys, brains, fingernails, bones and more. And the response is overwhelming! It takes more than bignumbers to scare off these guys. Now, they have a secret meeting in which theyinitiate the new members and organize into chapters they call organs. What a longway they have come from the unsophisticated and tiny organelles they used to be."Mom" would be proud.

About this time, one of them (we aren't sure which one or if it was a groupepiphany) gets the idea that it isn't any fun to just divide and multiply anymore,but that sex sounds a lot more fun, so they all agree to become male and femalefrom here on in and, true to their theory, it was more fun. But, one must ask, whythe need to specialize into genders, if mitosis was working so well? And the oddsagain...what are the odds that the hundreds of thousands of species on the earthwould successfully become male and female, with fully functional, compatible andcomplementary reproductive organs, egg and sperm cells? Would you admit honestlythat the odds are again massively against such a thing? The numbers just keepadding up, don't they? Consider, too, that all human fetuses begin as females and


13/38

at a certain point in their growth, specialized chemicals may wash over thedeveloping brain and a male child is created. What are the odds of this process,which replaces mitosis, being successful and the end results being viable forfurther reproduction? And then, too, where is the missing link that proves wehumans once divided via mitosis? Shouldn't there be an alternate branch thatcontinues to do so today?

But let's also consider the fact that some animals are born outside the body of

the mother, from eggs with an external shell around them--a shell that had to bejust the right thickness, just the right material, for the still weak animal tobreak free at the right time. There has to be a suitable food source while the newlife form is developing within this shell and there has to be a sufficient amountof food to complete the process. For any of this to have happened by a fortunateaccident of nature presumes that everything had to go right at every stage. Do youtruly know how complex it is to form an egg with a shell within the body, evacuateit from the body at just the right time, develop the instinct to protect it(instead of assuming it is an aborted fetus), nurture it to the point of hatchingand then making sure it lives to the point of self-support? This may sound easy toyou, but the entire process is incredibly complex, as are any of life's processes.How many times did this 'experiment' of nature have to happen before one wassuccessful? Thousands? Millions? Billions? Trillions? What are the chances that

even one would succeed? Little to none, if we are honest. And if evolution wastruly the means by which this all happened, why have we not found the remains ofthe supposedly numerous failed 'experiments' that came before?

This next paragraph is quoted from a site dedicated to the folding@home software,which is 'distributed computing' to solve problems related to proteins, much likethe SETI software that is related to finding extraterrestrial life.

What is protein folding and how is folding linked to disease?Proteins are biology's workhorses -- its "nano-machines." Before proteins cancarry out these important functions, they assemble themselves, or "fold." Theprocess of protein folding, while critical and fundamental to virtually all ofbiology, in many ways remains a mystery.

Moreover, when proteins do not fold correctly (i.e. "mis-fold"), there can beserious consequences, including many well known diseases, such as Alzheimer's, MadCow (BSE), CJD, ALS, Huntington's, Parkinson's disease, and many Cancers andcancer-related syndromes.

Protein is incredibly important to life, it seems, but is also incredibly complex.Again, the odds of everything turning out right from a cosmic mistake orhappenstance are enormous.

But to continue...we don't stop there; oh, no! Imagination overtakes rationalprobability once again and somehow we now have fish and lions and plants andlichens and molds. All from the ambitions of one single little guy who never knewthe meaning of the word 'quit'. Of course, our number sequence is beginning to

look like the rings of Saturn, but that's a minor inconvenience, at best, andworthy of being ignored as wholly irrelevant, right? Evidently, according to thisgrand theory, these variations in species come from cosmic rays that cause DNA tomutate and form the brand new, more sophisticated and advanced species. Never mindthe fact that cosmic rays are harmful to living tissue and that probabilitiesfairly well demand only the entropy of the affected DNA, virtually guaranteeingonly non-viable changes. Not only that, but scientists say that in the earlierperiods of the earth, there was no magnetic field to speak of. What does thismean? It means there was even less protection from cosmic rays than the scientistwould like to have. You don't need to take my word for it--mention of this wasmade on an episode of The Universe called Sex In Space. According to these


14/38

experts, the result of any change in DNA would be what we call cancer. But, Iguess facts like this are simply not convenient or important when you have anagenda...er, uh, mission to fulfillwhether you be scientist or a monkey withvisions of grandeur.

But we aren't done by a long shot, my educated friend. These monkeys suddenlyaspire to be more than they currently are, they change the coding of their DNAonce again, eventually get their diplomas and become the very scholars we have

teaching our science courses today. Isn't it wonderful? Oh, to consider theastounding things you may accomplish when you choose to ignore laws ofprobability...it staggers the mind.

But let's not stop there. This collection of cells now called a human finds he hasan unexplainable desire to go into space, to explore the ocean bottom and to writepoetry and compose music, consider points of philosophy and much more in theabstract realm of thought. No more base survival instinct alone. And lo andbehold, one of them realizes that he had better invent calculus if he plans to dosome of these things properly. As for the mathematics of it all...I am going toask you to suspend disbelief still again, if you will, for the sake of our poorover-stressed theory. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. It makes thestory so much more believable and easier to tell.

With their new science of mathematics, one of the especially bright ones figuresout that the probabilities against his own existence is becoming a number so largethat it has exceeded the calculated number of atoms in the very universeyouremember, the one that was made from nothing? This discovery causes him to puffout his chest with pride and declare a brand new theoryWE are god. Ahhhh, sigh ofrelief. The struggle is over and has been worth it, after all. Just a few looseends to tie up. For example, chirologythe reverse images of our constituentmolecules would be deadly and prevent our very existence. Not just our molecules,but all those in our food, water and the minerals upon which we are dependent forsurvival. All of these had to be, shall we say, in phase and compatible with oneanother. But of course, to the evolutionary biologist, we are living proof that wehave somehow overcome that problem, also. Then there's the question of our own

internal and involuntary repair mechanisms and subconscious maintenance systemsfrom whence did they come?But why muck up such a wonderful theory with stupid andmeaningless questions, right?

"What do you mean, 'why do we have an internal skeleton instead of an exo-skeleton?' Well, let me explain...........Hey! Look at that big distraction overthere! Besides, look what I've done with this really awesome huge number! I'vebuilt an ivory tower from it. Come on in and make yourself at home. Don't step onthe 'space' cathe isn't fully formed yet. And come see this cool Entropy problemI am working on."

Perhaps you are beginning to see the tremendous amount of faith it takes tobelieve in such a theory. And I haven't even touched upon many of the other

problems connected with it. What about symbiotic relationships, like the processof photosynthesis? If it stopped happening tomorrow, it would be a very few daysuntil all animal life on earth would be dead from lack of oxygen. And without thecarbon dioxide provided by animal exhalation and other sources, the plantsthemselves would be gone in quick order. Then too, there is the symbioticrelationship within our own bodies. The beneficial flora in our intestines isabsolutely crucial to our survival. And not just usif termites didn't havecertain organisms in their digestive systems, they would die also. And you cancount many, many more of these types of relationships. And we are expected tobelieve all these fortunate accidents just kept happening, one after another?


15/38

There is also the ultra-violet light paradox. It seems that there was a certainlevel of UV light necessary for certain things to have happened to form life asclaimed by evolutionary scientists, but unfortunately there was also too much toallow some of the processes to ever take place in the first instance. Bummer,dude. Odds are not in our favor...again. And there is also the conundrum of theozone layer. Early on, the earth had none. This would have dictated that lifewould be restricted only to the oceans, if at all. So, how did the cosmic raysfind access to the lower life forms to cause the favorable mutations that

supposedly took place? Again the odds say 'no'. And any life forms that might havetried to crawl onto land would have been destroyed in short order by excessive UVlight levels. Another strike against the theoryand our number grows still larger.Need a telescope to see that last number? Perhaps the Hubble could find it.

"But", says the evolutionist, "that's what makes it all so wonderful, doesn't it?The very chances of it happening at all are quite impossible, by any known andaccepted scientific standard...and yet it did!" This is perfectly akin tobelieving in magic, the very thing that the Darwinistic science community (I makethe distinction purposely, as not all scientists are trying to make monkeys ofthemselves) has accused the religionist of adhering to. Magic and Ex Nihilocreation. Seems the two sides aren't so different after all, doesn't it? Well, asthey say, the truth always seems to lie somewhere in between.

There is no proof to be offered for the theory of evolution, as the time periodswe are talking about are much too long to allow any acceptable term or form ofobservation that could lead to reasonably accurate conclusions. What there areinstead, are what only appears to be periods of evolutionary development in life'shistory. But there are other viable explanations to be sure. And might I remind myreaders that there have been numerous adaptations of this particular theory aswell. Just as the big bang had its opposing Steady State proponents, so doesevolutionary theory. Later it became the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, toovercome the problems of cataclysmic eventsnot to mention the fact that animalsjust don't lie down after death and refuse to rot as they get covered slowly bysediment over thousands of yearsit isn't like they aspired to be fossils whenthey grew up.

There is another explanation that is equally able (that's unfair, actually...it isfar superior in every way) to explain what only appears to be billions of years ofevolution from 'tar-paper shack to skyscraper.' And it is scientifically sound toall but the most intellectually dishonest and vitriolic of opponents. And yes,those people do exist. They often fall into their own pit that they dig for theintended victims of their deceit and lies.

The next section is pasted from the post called Too Much Faith, the link givenearlier. I did so in the interest of time.There has also been a some addition that does not appear in the original post.

Let's discuss the age of the earth. Scientists say it is billions of years old and

that very careful calculation and measurement proves it. SOME religionists say theearth is only 6,000 years old. They base this on faith in their own interpretationof a verse that reads thus: 'One day is as a thousand years and a thousand yearsas one day to the Lord ", coupled with another earlier one that states that Godmade the earth in six days and on the seventh day He rested. Therefore, thesebelievers say, it has to be six thousand years old'God said it, I believe it andthat's the end of it.' How narrow minded this viewpoint is! These men are just asbad as the man of science who says religion cannot agree with science and neverwill.

Let us look at that first statement. It is a nice example of Hebrew Chiasmus, a


16/38

mirror-image restatement and an idiomatic poetic form, common to Hebrew. This isnot all, though. It is also an equation that, if followed through to the end, willlead to a far larger number, much more to the liking of a scientist. Observe thus:

One 'day' is a thousand of our years (so a 'year' of those days would be 365,000of our earthly years) and a thousand (of those) years (365,000,000 of our years)is a day unto the Lord. Times this by six, according to scripture=2 billion, 190million years old. And He rested the seventh day, so add another 365,000,000 years

to that, plus the 6,000 that some religionists say is the sum total of the age ofour planet.

Survey says: 2 billion, 555 million years, give or take a geologic time period ortwo. Is this more to your liking, Mr. Scientist? 2.5 billion+ is a lot of time, isit not? Plenty of time for an eternal being, not bound by time as we see it fromour mere seventy to a hundred year span, to first place some microbes on this newplanet to break it down and make some mineralized soil. After all, what are yougoing to plant the seeds in, if not soil? Then a few seeds here and there toproduce a lot of oxygen and food for the animal species yet to come. And whyshould we break the patternplace a male and female of each species to populatethe land and ocean, simpler life forms first, to feed the later ones that will bemuch larger. And so on, until all the simpler forms have established themselves

over millions of years and can provide a firm foundation for the introduction ofthe more advanced species that will be dependent upon them.

I've had someone object to my proposal, saying that my math was admirable, but theearth was much older than that. True...about 2 billion years more than that. But,what this person is forgetting is that the earth needed a substantial cool-downperiod before life could begin to exist. Which still leaves us with a much shorterperiod of time for life to form by their theory of evolution. Another thing theseguys normally forget when they make accusations against the biblical account isthat the 'first day' was begun after the earth itself was formed. Note:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the

deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from thedarkness.5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the eveningand the morning were the first day.

So, you see, the earth itself was well on its way before the days of the creationof life began. There is no mention of exactly when the waters were placed upon theearth, but it was before this establishing of light. We know it wasn't immediatelyafter the planet was formed, because if you place water on a still extremely hotplanet, what happens to it? It boils and evaporates. A considerable amount ofcooling had to take place first. Since the earth is today still in a state of

cooling, we may assume that the waters were placed upon earth at a time when someboiling and evaporation may have occurred. This would have allowed for theevaporation sufficient to create the water canopy in the atmosphere that wasapparent early in the world's history. That would then have allowed for the rapidand enlarged growth of plants that were common in the early periods. This, inturn, would have allowed for the sustenance of the huge animal life that lived inthose days. With the removal of that atmospheric water canopy, only smaller lifecould survive, as we have today.

And this 'first day' was only to establish the days and nights of the planet.Well, maybe the second day will prove more fruitful for the evolutionist?


17/38

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let itdivide the waters from the waters.7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under thefirmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were thesecond day.

Oops, guess not. The 'second day' was taken up by forming solid land to divide thewaters above ground from the waters below, in the underground water tables andreservoirs. Perhaps the 'third day' will be different.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto oneplace, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waterscalled he Seas: and God saw that it wasgood.11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and thefruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth:and it was so.12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and

the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God sawthat it was good.13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Ah, there we go. It seems a lot of preparation time was needed during earth's 4.5billion years, just to get ready for life to appear. It wasn't until the 'thirdday' that plants began to appear. Is it so unreasonable to assume that perhaps 2billion years was required for cooling of our originally hot planet? It also isstated that the oxygen content of the atmosphere was likely created by cyanno-bacteria, which survived for about 2 billion years and is now all butextinct--"living a precarious existence in only a few localities worldwide." So,we have to account for some cooling time, some time for the bacteria to produceatmosphere. How much time would that leave for the next steps--our theoretical

evolutionary process to gain its impossible momentum against all odds and produceplants and animals, which just happened to be a symbiotic arrangement? Accordingto my critic, the 2.5 billion years I stated are too short a time to accomplishhis task of evolution, and yet it appears that is about all we are left with, ifnot even less time than that. Would that be an admission on his part that it couldnever have happened the way his theory claims it to have taken place?

What of the 2.55 billion years I mentioned, then? Now, this period of time passagecould easily be mistaken for a slow evolution from one simpler life form to a moreadvanced life form. No matter that this has never been observed or that there isno 'missing link' in the fossil record (although I have heard some claim that ALLthe links are missing). It is easy enough to manufacture one, by the way (and thishas been done numerous timesevidence quickly disappears once veracity is

questionedi.e., Piltdown Man, et. al.) and a theory to support it, in the eventany true evidence is lacking. Piltdown Man turned out to be a hoax perpetrated bya student on his instructor, and it stood for a long time, until someone noticedfile marks on the teeth, whereupon the evidence conveniently disappeared. Other'discoveries' turned out to be a hog's tooth, upon which an entire 'prehistoricman' was builtin theory, of course. And if you were to exhume Robert Alda, actorAlan Alda's father, you would find that the quite prominent brow resembles closelythat of a famous early 'prehistoric' celebrity. (No offense, Mr. Alda. I think youwere a reasonably good-looking man in life and a fine actor.)

The true fossil record would naturally show a slow populating of the earth by


18/38

these..."emerging species"...during these seeming 'geological periods'. Each newperiod would appear to reflect the introduction of new, "more advanced" species,as was intended by the Author of the plan, until we reach the present period, whenmankind was also introduced via one male and one female of the species. (NOTE: Ihave still not said that there is a God, just that this is an alternative theoryfor you to consider, if you are truly open-minded). And please note that suddencataclysms would be required to cover over the bones of these animals in arelatively quick fashion, or they would all be weathered away to dust and be

nowhere to be found in our time, let alone the fossils of the softer tissues offish, plants, etc. It should be mentioned here that Cataclysmic events wereviciously denied and fought tooth-and-nail for the longest time by this communityof self-styled 'scientists'. Only common sense would eventually overcome theobjections. It should also be mentioned that many in this community are nowconcluding that ALL fossils bear the appearance of having been covered over by thedebris of a water-induced cataclysmic deluge, although they will, almost to a man,stop short of saying it was the Biblical Flood that caused it.

It seems that each new find which is older than their last 'nucleus to a theory',is hailed as the true originator of the human family. Just how many 'originators'are there? Currently over a dozen, if I am up to date. And isn't it just amazingthat these very discoveries themselves are also far against the odds in such a

huge world as is ours? This addition to our accumulating number will indeedrequire use of the Hubble Telescope if we are to have even the slightest hope ofobserving its newest and furthest reaches. Such a number as this is unfathomable.It just keeps expanding into space, much like the primordial bubble we spoke of.How fitting for this essay. When the odds become that stacked against a theorizedevent, it would take the patience of Job to find sufficient evidence to supportsuch a theory, would it not? Or perhaps just an over-blown ego and a lot ofstubborn nerve.

End of pasted section.

Two billion, five hundred fifty five million years. And this is after the planetitself was sufficiently cooled for the placement of life, from what I can tell.

Any 'rational' evolutionary scientist would think this period plenty long for hispet theory to have taken place...still against all odds. But he is unwilling toaccept an alternate theory that comes to the very same conclusion. And when thesecond one has infinitely better chances of having happened, discarding it soquickly and easily is tantamount to true madness. Sorry, but someone had to sayit.

In the next part of the discussion, let me point out ahead of time that I have nopersonal problem with the earth itself being billions of years old, that certainlife was here millions of years ago and allowed to populate from the original twoof its kind, just like man and woman in the Bible. Nor do I have any troubleaccepting that mankind has not been here that long, but only about 6,000 to 6,500years. The concepts are not by any means mutually exclusive. Simpler life forms

were required for the support of later advanced forms and sufficient time wasrequired to allow them to establish a foothold. The real question still comes backto whether the origin of all the varied life forms was a fortunate cosmic accidentor the result of intelligent design. It is that simple.

Now, let's discuss the DNA problem a bit more closely. We are told that our firstcommon 'mother', known as African Eve, was recorded to be about 200,000 years ago.Fine, I can accept that...if you are going by the nuclear DNA standard. Problemis, nuclear DNA isn't reliable for extended periods of time. They break down andbecome inaccurate and unreadablenot that this fact stops the evolutionary zealotsfrom making claims based on such insufficient informationscientific method,


19/38

indeed! Then, what is accurate and reliable, but has a shorter time periodreliability? Mitochondrial DNA. So, it should be used almost exclusively, yes?Sorry, but it rubs the evolutionist the wrong wayseems it mutates 26 times fasterthan they had originally thought, leaving mtDNA Eve placed around 6,000 to 6,500years ago. This would mean mankind was introduced far more recently than theywould like to accept. And since this date is so close to what many religionistsclaim, the facts get thrown out and the theory is kept, regardless of itsdeception. Don't believe me?

"...researchers have calculated that 'mitochondrial Eve'the woman whose mtDNA wasancestral to that in all living peoplelived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago inAfrica. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old. No one thinksthat's the case."Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 2 Jan. 1998 Vol. 279, No. 5347 pp.28-29

In essence, if the data doesn't fit the theory, eliminate the data. Here's onearchaeologists' view of the new method, regardless of its accuracy.

"The mystery of human origins is far from solved, but because DNA may not be asdiagnostic as it once seemed, Thorne says, we're back to the bones. It's really

good that these things are coming from the fossil side...the DNA studies can justtake a back seat."Scientific American, Aug. 1999

That article should have borne the title, Science Abandons Ethics, the sad stateof science today. The theory has become the sacred cow and the data getssacrificed on the secular humanist science altar. And this despite the growingacceptance and use of mtDNA as a clock. How about a bit more proof?

"The hypothetical descent of mankind from 'mitochondrial Eve' has been muchdebated...some claim 800,000 years to be an upper limit, while most researcherssuggest a date of approximately 200,000 years. ....They sequenced 610 base pairs of 357 individuals from 134 independent mtDNA

lineages...and found...such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve livedabout 6,500 years agoa figure clearly incompatible with current theories on humanorigins."Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickensTrends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE)Vol. 12, No. 11 Nov. 1997

Evolutionary Anthropology, 12:7-18, 2003 adds:"In addition, mtDNA mutates an order of magnitude faster than does nuclear DNA,with the control region mutating at an even greater rate, making it particularlyuseful for analyses at shallow time depths."

Well, well.... Useful as it is, some still wish to cast off mtDNA as detritusjust

so much flotsam and jetsam. An inconvenient truth, indeed. This approach is akinto trading a single dollar bill for two quarters and thinking that you are now oneahead. Trade further for three dimes, then five pennies and call it a wonderfuldealbut just labeling it in a pleasing manner doesn't make it so. You cheatyourself when opinion becomes more sacred than truth. I go so far as to call thisapproach to science a 'religious cult.'

Astrophysicists will tell you that the universe isn't old enough for life on earthto have been the product of evolution as presently taught. Unfortunately, theydon't speak the same professional language as evolutionary biologists and theydon't travel in the same circles too often. They don't read the same papers or


20/38

attend the same conferences. They may rarely get out of their own rooms. Not alikely way to amass cross-disciplinary data that could be compared for relevance,is it?

Another problem that we have yet to discuss is the problem of irreduciblecomplexity. There are, in the DNA, extremely tiny 'machines' that carry back andforth the necessary components to replicate the strands of DNA. Without thesenano-machines, there would be no replication possible. This is magnitudes of

levels of complexity above simple mitosis of single cells. And the truly amazingthing about these little workers is that, as complex as they are, if you were toremove any part of the structure, they would cease to function and life itselfwould be impossible. IMPOSSIBLE! These tiny units have the equivalent of rotarybearings and little motors in them, that turn at thousands of revolutions persecond, able to come to a dead stop in less than one revolution. And they havemotivating members that allow their movement and the accomplishment of theirtasks. How and why did this happen? And again...what are the odds?

It would be most useful to anyone interested in the very real and basic problemswith the theory of evolution to view the link on Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Ihave made it available to you at:

http//:dl.getdropbox.com/u/390314/Documentary%20-%20Unlocking%20the%20Mystery%20of%20Life%20%28Intelligent%20Design%29also%20search%20for%20What%20the%20bleep%20do%20we%20know.avi

Perhaps the most damning evidence of all for evolutionary theory is the humanbrainthree pounds of tissue that is composed of approximately one hundred billionneurons, each connected to ten thousand others, firing at from two to one hundredtimes per second and carrying 10 to the 27th power bits of information per second!Then, too, there are numerous neurotransmitters with varied functions. Withoutthis, you have no brain function and bodily control. Do these just form by happyaccident? Then there is the fact that the limbic system, the higher thinkingcenter, occurs in mammals alone. Why would that be? This allows abstract thinking.And the pre-frontal cortex allows for future thinking. And the specialized areas

of the brain attend to language, vision, hearing, etc. If these areas are injured,the function they performed must be learned by another area. And explain thespecialization of the hemispheres of the brain. This is not random, but consistentin humanity as a whole. The left hemisphere is the logic center of the brain andthe right is the creative center. And then there is the fact that the brain willactually reshape and renew pathways that are damaged or are needed as the resultof learning new tasks. Taxi drivers have an area of the brain that is larger thanthe average person, because they have to memorize the layouts of their cities andthis area of the brain grows proportionally to compensate and allow the adaptationto take place. Women and men have different areas of the brain that are mostdominant. Spacial perception, as a rule, is more dominant in men than women. Thisis true throughout the species. No randomness at all. Why is that? How doesevolutionary theory provide for such a thing? And if one were to attribute all

such specializations to instinct alone, one must face the fact that suchspecialization would never happen overnight, but take such lengthy periods of timeas to be nearly impossible for reasonable chances of species survival while suchinstincts are in development. Even the evolutionary scientist will admit thatnothing happens that quickly when discussing proposed biological evolution.

There is a structure in the brain called the Corpus Callosum, which is a bridgebetween the hemispheres. It consists of about two hundred million fibres, lieingparallel to one another and exchanging information to and from the hemisphere andthe opposite half of the body, which it controls. Surgeries have shown thatsevering this bridge prevents the specialized functions from being carried out as


21/38

intended. Feeling an object with the left hand will not allow access to the wordthat describes it. This is not random. It is specific and consistent. Feeling itwith the right hand does not have the same effect. What if those two hundredmillion fibres had not been established as required to transfer such information?Two hundred million. That's a lot of fibres. It requires a lot of suspension ofdisbelief to assume this was just a fortunate accident. And when you add the oddsagainst it to the preceding odds against all the other occurrences, you mustbelieve in miracles to explain how it happened at all. Unfortunately, an

evolutionary scientist does not believe in miracles, so he is left without anyrational explanation for such an occurence. Still, it takes unlimited faith on hispart to believe it happened as he says. This amount of inordinate faith directlyparallels the probabilities number we have been steadily accumulating in ourstudy.

Can you honestly think it was all just a fortunate cosmic accident? If you arehonest about the matter, you will have to admit that the odds against lifehappening spontaneously and defying entropy at every turn are so massively huge asto be impossible. You will see that even if evolution were the sole process andcause of life, it could never have happened without the help of intelligentdirection of some kind. Some outside influence, some contributing intelligentfactor, must have been a major part of the process. It could never have happened

as the evolutionary biologist claims. It was never a closed system, with nomeasure of supporting input from outside the loop.

And now, to keep my promise. I have shown that the evidence against evolution, toall but the most stubborn and belligerent of soldiers in this war, is overwhelmingand by any currently accepted scientific measure, is deemed in the realm ofimpossible. Not just unlikely, but impossible. All it takes in most instances tobe labeled such is that the chances be less than one in one hundred. Here, theodds are beyond astronomical. The most powerful computers we have today would takea thousand years to figure out the chance that it could happen the way theproponents have painted it. Mathematically, you would stand a better chance with aroomful of Darwin's monkeys throwing wooden blocks to build the Taj Mahal in aday. To put it most kindly, let's just say the theory doesn't look too viable,

shall we?

We talked about the theory that there was a single bubble of nothing that began itall. Now, let's consider a theory long ago discarded by the so-called"intellectuals". The Steady State Theory said that matter always existed,homogeneously spread out into space, which also always existed. Doesn't that makemore sense and isn't it much easier to wrap your mind around than some voodoomagic space bubble that created everything from nothing? I say this as much to thereligionist as to the scientist. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God createdeverything from nothing. The very Hebrew word for create, baurau, means toorganize. You cannot organize what isn't first there. Can you organize emptyspace? A vacuum cannot be divided and moved. I defy you to do so and measure itwhile it is being done. Is this any less myth and fable than believing in a

supreme intelligence? Be honest.

To be honest, I cannot tell you where intelligence came from, but if Max Planckand Albert Einstein say it is there in huge amounts, who are you to argue thepoint without any proof? And why won't their own colleagues take them seriously?For one simple reasonthis sounds too much like Intelligent Creationa theory thatthey have vowed to resist at all costs. The teachings of my faith actually saythat matter was always there, as was space and also intelligence. It must havebeen. There is no other rational explanation. And if that intelligence spoken ofis eternal, then why not our own? My faith teaches me that this life is atemporary period of time for growth and the opportunity to be tested for


22/38

worthiness of greater things and greater powers in higher realms. If I am wrong, Ihave still lived a happy life in the efforts to be a better person to my neighborand family, so that I may be worthy of such honors when offered. If I am right, Imay actually receive those honors, as promised in the scriptures. If you areright, you are no better off than me. If you are wrong, you lose the opportunityof a lifetime, literally. I sincerely hope you don't.

And now for the second part of my promisethe proof that God exists. And I said

the proof is overwhelming, you will recall. I do not back away from that claimnow. Any person in this world can prove the existence of God without the slightestdegree of doubt. Millions have already done so. Millions more will. What is themethod for this experiment?

It is as simple as this:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would askGod, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; andif ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, hewill manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.Moroni 10:4,5

Note that it didn't say to ask out of simple curiosity, with a passing interest orin order to prove it wrong. It carries a promise. The promise is that if you askwith a sincere heart, with real intent, in honest humility and without foregonebiases, having faith that God can and will answer, you will get your answer. Notethat it does not promise that you will get it the first time you ask. Whatexperiment ever was solved the first time? How rare is that. But it does promisethat if you will do it under these conditions, you will be rewarded with an answerthat is unmistakableyou can know the truthnot only of this, but of all things.Learning takes time. You will not learn faith in Christ overnight. You may noteven learn to want the truth overnight, if you are particularly resistant to theanswer you might get. But the promise is sure. I have tested it and been rewarded.Countless others have done the same.

The advice is clear:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally,and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a waveof the sea driven with the wind and tossed.7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.James 1:5-8

Again, you must be sincere. You aren't required to show your sincerity by standingon the roof tops and calling out to the sky for an answer. You do this in thequiet and peace of your own room. Turn off all other distractions. The answer willlikely not be thunder and lightning, but a peace and warmth that will fill your

soul and warm your heart, speaking a peace and comfort to your mind that is not ofthis world. I did say it was overwhelmingand when you are fully in tune, it is.You may find that tears come to your eyes for no reason you can think of, exceptfor the sudden and overwhelming joy that you feel. Personally, I can point to anexact moment where the change came. Literally, one second I didn't know if therewas a God, but by the next I couldn't deny it, for the presence of His love waslike being suddenly immersed in the sea. Learning was instantly poured into methings I had not known before, but which were later verified in an unmistakablemanner to me. And in case you deem this to be the ravings of a frenzied mind, thevery same experience was being had in the room by a friend of minetherefore, inthe mouths of two witnesses, just as God promises. And others in the house, not


23/38

privy to exactly what was happening, became frightened and left for other rooms,knowing that indeed something of an extraordinary nature was taking place. Manyother wonderful and miraculous things have since happened to me. I will not gointo detail here, as I consider them to be sacred in nature and I share them onlywith those who will not ridicule to their own detriment.

No one can perform the experiment for you. It will not be measured in the lab withmeters, buzzers and beakers. You must do it yourself within the confines of your

own special place of solitude. In this spiritual reaction, you must be one of theelements. There is no other way. If you want the reaction, you must follow theformula. The correct answer comes via the proper equation, to put it another way.If you want sure proof, you must humble yourself and make a plea for personalcommunication, plain and simple. He will not force Himself on you, as He is toomuch the gentleman and that is not the plan. You must ask.

And, as to education today, our students need to say loudly and clearly, "I amhere for an education, not a brainwashing. I insist on being offered all relevanttheories and viewpoints. I will not be bullied out of nor cheated out of learningtrue facts. I will hold personally responsible any who attempt to do do so." Atthe very least, do your own research and don't accept every flimsy theory thatcomes from the mouths of supposed authority figures. You owe it to yourself to

question authority and not be a blind follower of the blind. Remember, thetheories change constantly, but facts do not. Why not go to the source of allfacts, if you can?

The concept of believing we have a purpose here is nothing new. It will go on, aswell. And you need not be a fool or uneducated to think so.

The whole evolutionary biological process is a synergetic anti-entropic functionand the purpose to mankind's intelligence and existence is to bring consciousunderstanding to the process of which we are a part. In other words, we have apurpose and it's not all just chance and necessity. Buckminster Fuller

And this statement of mankind's purpose is from a man who apparently didn't

believe in the Biblical Creation account. Catch the meaning of the words'synergetic' and 'anti-entropic', too. They have great significance here.'Synergetic' means that every detail involved in the process must be supportive ofthe next and of the whole. Anti-entropic implies that the process is not andcannot be susceptible to the natural decaying process we accept as a part of life.How likely is this, without a great sustaining input from outside the system thescientific community sees as and proclaims to be a closed system?

One last thing. If science can accept as fact that matter can be influenced andmanipulated to some small degree by our puny minds, via quantum physics, then whynot allow for a superior intelligence to have far greater breadth of control?Plenty of respectable scientists have allowed for that over the agesNewton,Galileo, Einstein, Planck and mo

a layman challenges big science (and some religionists)

Documents