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

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 every
washing machine needs an agitator--that's me. I challenge what I think is fuzzy
thinking, wrong thinking and outright deception, no matter what side of the aisle
it is on, so you will also see me challenge mainstream religious thought here, as
well as science. Not that either is bad as a whole, but there is 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 the
preeminent physicists of our time. I posed a challenge to him, that he might
enlighten me, correct me, etc. I am still waiting for his reply. I share that
letter here.

The Big Bang Fizzles Out

Dr. Hawking,

My writing to you has to do with the fact that I am greatly bothered by some
issues that would seem to me to be evident to one of your mental stature--certain
fundamental laws of physics as introduced by Newton. I am not all-seeing by any
stretch of the imagination, but these seem to be glaring problems to me. If there
are further advancements that have taken these issues into account and address
them adequately, please refer me to them, if you will. Otherwise, I suggest that
an 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 have
constituted the materials for the original point of focus were in fact IN one
point, 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 a
Big Bang in the first place.

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

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 in
a vacuum (all matter was in that single point, so there was no interfering medium
to travel through) and should neither gain nor lose speed as they travel. This is
simple Newtonian Physics. If they do the impossible and gain speed, then we must
address that issue. Perhaps there is a repelling force at the center of the event
that pushes the matter away? Yet how could this be possible, as the concentration
of matter (whether it attracts or repels or is neutral) no longer exists, due to
the "bang" itself. Then maybe there is an attractive force or object on the outer
reaches of the universe that draw these Quasars in. That would pose the problem
that NOT all matter was then in the center of the event, as well as the fact that
there must now be an "eggshell" of sorts that is compelling the Quasars to
accelerate as they gain proximity--this is, of course, preposterous. To think that
all of the universe is contained in a gigantic eggshell, dense beyond
description--shades of the ancient superstitions? Perhaps then these objects are
self-propelled by some means we know not--they choose their own velocity (and
trajectory)--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" of
the 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 this
issue 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 faster
than 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 other
is wrong.

The early Rabbis had theories (from their Torah) of several more dimensions than
we 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, space
and 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? As
to intelligence--none of the major scientists (I use the term loosely in referring
to evolutionists and their kind) ever addresses THAT origin and SHOWS it as
nothing more than what they THINK it to be--"random or conditioned reaction to a
wonderfully complex environment." Humbug!

The same "man of science" that says there is no God is trying at breakneck speed
to BECOME one in his own right, is he not? There is none to become, according to
that logic. And it is the height of all arrogance to think he may become such if
there has never been nor ever will be. After all, is not all the universe decaying
according to the "LAW" of entropy? Then why try? Not according to the brightest of
our 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 is
then an illusion, is it not?

God save me from this philosophy then! I want no part of a science that breaks or
ignores its own "laws" for the sake of convenience or to dumb down the masses in
order to maintain some degree of imagined power or status for their own small
circle of influence. This is no science--it is no more than medieval witchery. No
disrespect meant to you, sir. If you honestly do see anything I have missed that
could possibly enlighten me, please do so. I am not above being taught--I just
object to being insulted. And perhaps I have taught you something as well. The
true man of science pursues the truth, no matter how unpopular it may be in his
own circles (for example--there are many individuals with HIV who have no AIDS and
many 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 be
first to admit that I cannot prove it to another. It is an individual experiment
and every man must choose for himself whether he will get into the test tube and
be a part of that experiment or will by his choice remain ignorant of the results
that others have experienced for themselves. There IS a plan and it all makes the
most wonderful and supreme sense when you are privy to that knowledge. I invite
you to participate in the grandest experiment of all--if He can create all of what
you see, He can certainly answer a sincere prayer, can he not? It is far more wise
to seek this answer than to continually try to write Him out of the equation--it
will never happen because it is impossible and will only lead to frustration and
madness.
Feel free to rebuke, correct, insult or whatever. I can take it. Any offense you
may have taken to this is unintentional on my part, I assure you. I just think we
need to hold ourselves to certain standards and not compromise them in the least
degree 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 the
White Hole on the other end of the process--a sort of "cosmic vomiting" into our
regions? Maybe we are at the end of the drain pipe after all. A wonderful and
complex cesspool and nothing more--doesn't that just lift your self-esteem? Take
care, 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 one
in 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 lazy
enough to believe anything he hears. Research is important.

Columbus was a man who felt he had a special destiny among men. He felt moved upon
by the Holy Ghost to go where he did. He records this in his journals. He was no
average man at all. Columbus was a man with a destiny for sure. He knew it and he
acted upon it. One need only read his journals to know the man. So much for his
gold-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 recent
research that was done by a Mexican scholar that shows the real cause of the
deaths in such mass numbers was something similar to Ebola virus. The evidence is
extremely strong. A list of the diseases that Columbus or the Spaniards may have
brought, when compared to the list of those commonly known among the natives,
shows that it was nothing the foreign visitors brought. Further research from past
records of the ancients and tree ring studies of a few ancient groves which still
exist, shows that weather patterns played a tremendous part in the deaths. Massive
drought drove the rodents in the region to the forests, where, in an effort to get
sufficient water and food, they dug around trees the earth which harbored the
virus 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 the
virus. All of the native and foreigner's records of the symptoms indicate it was
hemorrhagic fever that killed so many millions so quickly. The symptoms also align
with those from a past event in the region that bore the same weather patterns
just prior to the loss of great numbers of the population.

The Spanish were not present at that earlier event, nor was Columbus. The sickness
spread much faster throughout the neighboring cities than was possible by the
visitation of the Spaniards or Columbus. So, one must conclude that it was an act
of nature or of God and not to be blamed on Columbus. That is, once a person is
informed and if they are honest about it.

Intellectual Cowardice and Educational Terrorism

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

I have been studying a favorite area of research lately, that of the theory of
evolution. 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 shades
of the supposed 'sides' or poles on the question--from strict scientists to strict
religionists. That simply makes for healthy debate and learning opportunities--
something that should benefit all involved. But some have taken matters to the
next level, I am afraid.

I have seen strong evidence of bullying tactics from both sides, in ruthless
attempts to 'prove' their viewpoints. We are talking more than just good-natured
poking 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 casting
aside of strong facts in order to retain pet theories that are unsupported
otherwise. 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 of
tantrum-throwing by those who claim a superior intellect. Numerous examples can be
found, but the one that caught my attention in this matter--specifically as to its
intensity--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 do
not intend by my cited example to 'take a side' in this matter, except to show my
strong disapproval of such tactics, regardless of the source and the viewpoint of
the insult thrower. I deem it to be childish in the extreme and to show an utter
contempt 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 good
manners.

Such tactics are demeaning to the perpetrators, unfair to the intended victims and
amount quite often to cowardice in the face of facts. It shows the intellectual
INFERIORITY of the attacker. Since he cannot win by reason and logic, he resorts
to name-calling, fear-mongering and outright intimidation--hardly a viable or
honorable substitute. And when one cows others by this means in order to silence
them, 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 manner
possible. One who resorts to such an approach has lost respect, honor, integrity
and intelligence in the matter. And ground once lost becomes doubly difficult to
regain. 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, as
well as engage in further thought on the subjects of the Big Bang, Evolutionary
Theory and an alternate view of geological time frames for religionists, allowing
both sides of the issue to come together.)

We are seemingly expected by the scientific community to believe that all we see
in the universe, both living and non-living, macroscopic and microscopic, no
matter how elegantly and complexly structured, is the direct result of chance--
faith-testing, probability-ignoring, physical law-violating chance. If the facts
don't fit the theories, we are asked to revise the facts. Amazingly, some of the
world's smartest individuals, so-called, swallow this method hook, line and sinker
and call it the scientific approach. They claim to have no personal agenda but the
advancement of science and discovery. That there is so little distinction between
theory and fact leaves one to shake his head in stunned disbelief. It appears that
all that is required for theory to be transformed into fact is the passage of a
few years and the adherence of a few more well-respected disciples, which would
seem to make modern science more nearly a religious cult than a concerted effort
to ascertain truth. Add to this their thinly-veiled efforts to write intelligent
design 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 viewpoints
of the theory known as the Big Bang are in violation of the very laws of physics
that science claims to hold inviolate. I admitted the chance that I could be
uninformed and mistaken and challenged him to show me where I might be wrong. The
end result was total and complete silence on the issue—for several years now. No
response 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 even

consider. But certainly such a great mind as this would never behave in such a
manner.

2. Maybe, after several years he is still thinking it over, in order to respond

and explain to me with clarity and in a concise manner. What focus and patience
this must require.

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

4. Is it possible that the thought was so absurd that he is still laughing over it
and 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 he
dare 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 a
theory, like macro-evolution) does indeed flagrantly violate and ignore willfully
several laws laid down by Newton and others as being inviolable facts of physics
and the universe as we know it.

Let us establish here and now that men of science observe only input that they can
receive with their five physical senses (which we all know can be fooled by
illusion, bias and mis-comprehension). A true scientist will never add to the bank
of data anything that he has not observed or measured via some generally accepted
and standard method. This is, by reason and by obligation, the proper way (much
like 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 to
compromise 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 every
way. No one has ever observed one, captured it on film or audio or explained its
origins. This does not, however, preclude its use on a regular basis in the
scientific field. In fact, the only evidence of its existence at all is the
recurring use of it amongst this august group. Nevertheless, it seems to have
served 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
the ubiquitous nature of the hunch (was that redundant?). Note that no scientist
yet 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 actually
fizzles 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 in
the universe, both seen and unseen (the prodigious amount of dark matter that has
been verified via the aforementioned hunch) was once parked in a singularity, a
small ball or particle that had the most immense density that ever existed, even
to this present day. This singularity, or particle, was infinitely tiny and had
immense gravity, no doubt. After all, with all that matter congregated like a can
of 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 nothing
can escape from a black hole, right? Scientists have said so, therefore it simply
follows that it is true. Nevertheless, somehow all this matter decided to explode
one day and spread out for breathing room...ahhhhhhhh.... Never mind that this is
a contradiction--there is some explainable reason, I am sure.

B. Now, since all this matter was exploding outward in all directions from this
central point, leaving in ever-widening divergent paths, one would suppose that it
would be nigh unto impossible for the particles to join together to form atoms and
then molecules, correct? After all, they are being propelled from a common center
under great force, at incredible speeds and therefore, due to differing paths of
trajectory, are leaving one another's proximity as well. Not so, it seems. Those
pesky little rascals have a mind of their own! They decide to flock together and
compare notes. 'Wow! Did you see that? Cool! Awesome! Far out! Gnarly, dude!' When
this little love-fest is over, they decide upon a leader and all the little clumps
decide to form a super-clump, a Particle Union, if you will. And, one-for-all and
all-for-one, they decide to ignore these divergent trajectory 'theories' that were
so inconvenient to them in the first place and form still larger clumps that
eventually become asteroids, planets and stars. Some got a bit carried away,
however, and these hot-headed clods crossed one another, body-slamming into each
other and wreaking havoc until they all decided it was best to cool down and think
things over.

C. Now, as if this weren't enough, a few of the more rebellious ones decided to
ignore another established rule and accelerate on its own. How rude! It had been
previously 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 ever
again.

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 wonder
things like: Is there a motive force inside the meteor that causes it to
accelerate? Is there a super-dense shell about the outer limits of the universe
that attracts the Quasar? Are we indeed living in an egg? Maybe there are tiny
pilots inside these astral travelers.... Is God causing...wait, scratch that.
Can't be. That's the one rule that all good scientists adhere to, without
question. God must not be part of the equation.

E. And what about that maddening problem of the 'echoes' of the Big Bang? In a
total vacuum, what are they echoing off of? Still, it would be all too easy to
attribute it to cumulative white noise from all those 'billions...and
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 by
natural 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 science
drops 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 chance
against a scientific hunch, right? Or could it?

Could it be that science is intentionally trying to over-complicate things with

all their abundance of theories? The fact that boatloads of research grant dollars
are involved wouldn't be a determining factor in this flurry of new theories
amongst 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 the
scriptures to the 'experts' in Latin! Outsiders beware! Uneducated, abandon all
hope! 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 and

political 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't
paid his dues (and thousands of dollars) to have his head filled with all that
information in those books that were outdated with the last new theory that has
yet to be added into the new and more expensive edition. (Oops. We need to add
teacher-craft to the list).

Is it possible in the real world that “retarded'”and “eccentric” guys like

Einstein, Edison and Tesla (yes, they were proclaimed so at some time in their
lives) 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 highly
developed powers of observation and a great big HUNCH! Now there's a novel
thought! 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 the
bullies trying to prevent it? Here's a theory for you: Does the establishment and
status 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 was
struck by lightning' decide to specialize into specific organs devoted to the
symbiotic benefit of the whole? What made the eye an eye and not a liver or a bowl
of Jello? Where did intelligence come from in the first place? Is everything we do
just conditioned response, a social-Darwinistic reaction to stimuli, as the
scientific 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 when
exposed to that music or poetry, the need for learning, the drive to teach, the
quest 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 technical
development in the last hundred plus years that eclipses the thousands prior to
that? Perhaps this is just conditioned response. Then tell me this--what does your
hunch tell you is the nature of the catalyst that we are responding to when we
design computers, space shuttles and geo-stationary orbiting satellites? Why the
cell phones and televisions and the constant march to improve upon every new
improvement?
Can you really say that you believe there is macro-evolution when no one has ever
personally observed it and there is no binding evidence other than a hunch? An
opinion. A theory that has been accepted and taught as if it were fact carved into
stone. In the light of another intelligent theory, based in scientific reason, do
you have a mind that is open enough to consider it, though it may go against the
grain 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 that
it 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 upon
any grounds. This is mostly due to the fact that many religionists are as devoted
to theories based in conjecture, hunch and misconception as there are scientists
suffering the same maladies. If truth is universal, it crosses into both
territories--science and religion. The fact is that many well-known early
scientists were believers in intelligent design and a divine Creator. They studied
the world around them to understand the mind of the Author of the universe. They
wanted 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 and
that careful calculation and measurement proves it. SOME religionists say the
earth is only 6,000 years old. They base this on faith in their interpretation of
a verse that reads thus: 'One day is as a thousand years to the Lord and a
thousand years as one day", coupled with another earlier one that states that God
made the earth in six days and on the seventh day He rested. Therefore, these
believers say, it has to be six thousand years old--'God said it, I believe it and
that's the end of it.' How narrow minded! These men are just as bad as the man of
science 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, a

mirror-image restatement and an idiomatic poetic form, common to Hebrew. This is
not 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 365,000
of 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, 190
million 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 of
our planet.

Survey says: 2 billion, 555 million years, give or take a geologic time period or
two. Is this more to your liking, Mr. scientist? 2.5 billion+ is a lot of time, is
it not? Plenty of time for an eternal being, not bound by time as we see it from
our 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 you
going to plant the seeds in if not soil? Then a few seeds here and there to
produce a lot of oxygen and food for the animal species yet to come. And why
should we break the pattern--place a male and female of each species to populate
the ocean, simpler life forms first, to feed the later ones that will be much
larger. And so on until all the simpler forms have been established over millions
of years and provide a firm foundation for the more advanced species that will be
dependent upon them.

Now, this could easily be mistaken for a slow evolution from one simpler life form
to a more advanced life form. No matter that this has never been observed or that
there is no 'missing link' in the fossil record. It is easy enough to manufacture
one (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 true
evidence is lacking.

The fossil record would naturally show a slow populating of the earth by
these..."emerging species"...during these 'geological periods'. Each new period
would 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 was
also introduced via one male and one female of the species. (NOTE: I have still
not said that there is a God, just that this is an alternative theory for you to
consider, if you are truly open-minded).

It seems that each new find that is older than the last 'nucleus to a theory' is
hailed 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 state
that 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 massive
proportions around the same time.) The argument is made that there is simply not
enough calculable water volume in all the world to have covered the tops of the
highest mountains. I agree. But the scientist is also guilty--of not paying
attention to detail, or of carefully choosing only the details he wishes to pay
attention 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 'continually
came and went'. Well, let's examine that a moment. What type of event could cause
the crust of the earth to crack open and spew forth the great quantities of
pressurized water that lay beneath the deep strata of rock? (After all, it also
says the earth was previously watered by the mists of the earth and that no rain
had 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 and
mythology claiming a world-wide flood at around the same time--that is, at first
he was laughed at. Then he was hated and ostracized for such audacity.
Unscientific! Later, open-minded thinkers like David W. Patten, a geologist and
author of The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, came along and wrote excellent
books, based in deep scientific reasoning and ample evidence to suggest that
Velikovsky was right in his conclusions--a huge astral body had come into such
close proximity to the earth that it had ruptured the earth's crust and caused
tidal waves of previously unknown proportions, which could have lasted days and
weeks, traveling around the earth repeatedly, scouring every living thing from its
face and smashing into the highest of mountain peaks. There is far more than
enough irrefutable evidence to support this theory. Any honest geologist will
admit to it. Patten shows diagrams of the mountain ranges running from pole to
pole in the Americas. They reflect the rotation of the earth and the proximity of
a large passing astral object. The arc of the mountain ranges perfectly matches
the upwellings of magma that would have occurred due to such a large gravitational
disturbance. It also suggests that the ancient mythological events Velikovsky
cites 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 her
place”. What could possibly cause that, if not a close encounter with a very large
cosmic body? Is there evidence that this has happened? If Velikovsky is right that
all the world's calendars anciently went from a 360 day year to a 365-1/4 day year
in a period of just 20 years, then yes. He explains this 20 year delay as a
necessary time for a relearning process. It took time to figure out the new system
each society would use to calculate the new length of the year. If the earth
indeed moved out of her orbit and into a larger one, this would also explain a lot
of other things, paleo-climatology and magnetic pole shift being among them.

All I am saying is “give peace (between science and religion) a chance”. Science
and religion can reason together and walk hand in hand, just like in Newton's day
and 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 a
hundreds-of-billions-to-one mathematical chance actually could produce all of this
by accident, I can keep an open mind, okay? Until then, I just don't have that
much faith.

Evidence and Proof of God

The title is provocative, to be sure. It is quite a bold claim, I know, but let us
proceed 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 existence
of God—to the intellectually honest man or woman, that is.

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

I will go on record as saying that many of the claims of religionists today are so
wild and foolish that it is no wonder the whole lot of us are lumped in with them
as 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 that
the 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 that
is 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 of
speculation 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 instead
of established fact. This has not, however, kept members of opposing camps from
jumping to confusions and digging trenches they feel they must then defend
forever. 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 as
exactly that. Some of us think we might reason with opposing views in a peaceful
manner, however. I ask that you keep an open mind, regardless of which side of the
issue you are on. You just might learn something—minds are like parachutes, in
that they work best when open.

The newest theory of the 'big bang' (there have been many and doubtless will be
more among non-believers) is that a bubble of space exploded into space and
expanded. No, that is not a misprint. You read that correctly. Space exploded into
space and formed matter, according to this theory. At least the previous theory
allowed for a singularity of matter that was the genesis of all we see today. That
theory, too, had it's numerous problems, and for those of you who still believe
the 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 they
always manage to insult my intelligence), we are now asked to believe that science
has adopted the Ex Nihilo theory of creation (something from nothing) that, not so
long ago, many Christians were ridiculed for believing. Of course, the scientific
community doesn't call it that and they don't attribute this sudden creation of
everything 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 space—where did it
come from? There has never been anything yet that did not have a beginning. So,
what was the prime motivator for this bubble of space-stuff—oops, sorry; there was
no stuff...just space...in a bubble, no less. What made the bubble in the first
place? How did it form in that particular place (if you can call anywhere in a
vast empty void a 'place')? What force pushed inward to form that bubble? There is
always an outside force pushing inward to form a round bubble. That is a
recognized law of physics. But, of course, we are asked to believe that physics
didn'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 no
gravity 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 a
whole, both believers and non-believers, accept as immutable fact. The First Law
of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy can change places, but
there will never be more or less of the total of the two, has just been flagrantly
cast aside, if we are to accept this bubble of space becoming matter theory. It
cannot 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 give
them the benefit of the all-too-obvious doubt) have labeled it as such from the
beginning? Was it an unintended oversight or do they confuse us intentionally? And
the whole idea of a big bang becoming our presently sophisticated universe is a
direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that nothing
within a closed system, unaided by any further input from outside that closed
system (which these men accept our universe, without God, to be), will continue to
progress and evolve, but will merely decay and atrophy by normal means. Hence, the
first two laws of physics, according to Isaac Newton (the man smart enough to
invent Calculus), have just been cast upon the dung heap of history without so
much as a backward glance. Is this science? Is this a scientific approach? Is it
honest? The men who will swear you can't get something for nothing and that in
life there is nothing free, have just chosen to ignore their own advice. They now
accept the mistaken concept of many of today's Christians that the universe was an
Ex-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, so
let us proceed.

Alright, I guess we just have to chalk that up to one chance in a googleplex or

more, don't we? Let's assume that it did happen that way or by any of the other
equally improbable means, just for the sake of the argument. How did this
expanding bubble of 'space into space' begin to crystallize into matter from no
material at all? If I were asked to make a cake, I had darn well better have some
ingredients to start with. What were those (non-existent) ingredients and how did
they come to gel into substance? No ideas? Me neither. And believe me, I am
trying.

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

the argument (the actual odds could be much larger). It wouldn't be fair to
evolutionary 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 the
theory says. And who am I to question these ultra-smart guys? Now, we have a
planet that is eventually capable of supporting life. Again, this is one chance in
a huge number that it happened to be in just the right orbit and at just the right
distance from just the right size and type of star. And the rotational period had
to be just right, compounding the probability problems again. Then we have the
issue of atmosphere. Only a certain type of atmosphere could support life—not
methane, not hydrogen, not helium, not nitrogen alone. The atmosphere had to be
not only the correct gases, but in the correct proportions, too. What are the odds
of that?! Gosh, I'm no mathematician by any means, but this number seems to be
getting to be what I would call huge!

Now, we need to have just the right conditions for life to occur. Even the
simplest of cells is incredibly more complex than Charles Darwin could have
imagined on his smartest day. And yet his intellectual descendants insist on
making monkeys of themselves and swallowing it hook, line and sinker. DNA—three
simple 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 you
end 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 cell
formed and survived. So far, so good. If that's all there is, that cell is in big
trouble, not to mention the fact that it is going to be awfully lonely unless
something 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? Their
theory won't survive unless you do.

By some wondrous and unexplained means, this single cell now has divided—the
miracle of mitosis. YAY! And later, since they have all learned the same cool
trick, there are now millions of cells, all alike and all members of the same
club. 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 still
others desire to go into optics or chemistry. So, now we have a colon, a nerve, an
eye and a pituitary gland. But something still isn't right, so they decide
together to violate the laws of probability yet again (this number is getting
unmanageable. Anyone have a Cray super computer?)

Having decided that they need new members in the club, and not just any dumb old
single-celled idiot, they put out the request for livers, kidneys, brains, finger
nails, bones and more. And the response is overwhelming! It takes more than big
numbers to scare off these guys. Now, they have a secret meeting in which they
initiate the new members and organize into chapters they call organs. What a long
way 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 group
epiphany) 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 female
from here on in and, true to their theory, it was more fun. But, one must ask, why
the need to specialize into genders, if mitosis was working so well? And the odds
again...what are the odds that the hundreds of thousands of species on the earth
would successfully become male and female, with fully functional, compatible and
complementary reproductive organs, egg and sperm cells? Would you admit honestly
that the odds are again massively against such a thing? The numbers just keep
adding up, don't they? Consider, too, that all human fetuses begin as females and
at a certain point in their growth, specialized chemicals may wash over the
developing 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 for
further reproduction? And then, too, where is the missing link that proves we
humans once divided via mitosis? Shouldn't there be an alternate branch that
continues 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 be
just the right thickness, just the right material, for the still weak animal to
break free at the right time. There has to be a suitable food source while the new
life form is developing within this shell and there has to be a sufficient amount
of food to complete the process. For any of this to have happened by a fortunate
accident of nature presumes that everything had to go right at every stage. Do you
truly know how complex it is to form an egg with a shell within the body, evacuate
it 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 hatching
and then making sure it lives to the point of self-support? This may sound easy to
you, 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 was
successful? Thousands? Millions? Billions? Trillions? What are the chances that
even one would succeed? Little to none, if we are honest. And if evolution was
truly the means by which this all happened, why have we not found the remains of
the 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 like
the 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 "nanomachines." Before proteins can carry
out these important functions, they assemble themselves, or "fold." The process of
protein folding, while critical and fundamental to virtually all of biology, in
many ways remains a mystery.
Moreover, when proteins do not fold correctly (i.e. "misfold"), there can be
serious consequences, including many well known diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Mad
Cow (BSE), CJD, ALS, Huntington's, Parkinson's disease, and many Cancers and
cancer-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 or
happenstance are enormous.

But to continue...we don't stop there; oh, no! Imagination overtakes rational
probability once again and somehow we now have fish and lions and plants and
lichens and molds. All from the ambitions of one single little guy who never knew
the 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, and
worthy of being ignored as wholly irrelevant, right? Evidently, according to this
grand theory, these variations in species come from cosmic rays that cause DNA to
mutate and form the brand new, more sophisticated and advanced species. Never mind
the fact that cosmic rays are harmful to living tissue and that probabilities
fairly well demand only the entropy of the affected DNA, virtually guaranteeing
only non-viable changes. Not only that, but scientists say that in the earlier
periods of the earth, there was no magnetic field to speak of. What does this
mean? It means there was even less protection from cosmic rays than the scientist
would like to have. You don't need to take my word for it--mention of this was
made on an episode of The Universe called Sex In Space. According to these
experts, the result of any change in DNA would be what we call cancer. But, I
guess facts like this are simply not convenient or important when you have an
agenda...er, uh, mission to fulfill—whether you be scientist or a monkey with
visions of grandeur.

But we aren't done by a long shot, my educated friend. These monkeys suddenly
aspire to be more than they currently are, they change the coding of their DNA
once again, eventually get their diplomas and become the very scholars we have
teaching our science courses today. Isn't it wonderful? Oh, to consider the
astounding things you may accomplish when you choose to ignore laws of
probability...it staggers the mind.

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

With their new science of mathematics, one of the especially bright ones figures
out that the probabilities against his own existence is becoming a number so large
that it has exceeded the calculated number of atoms in the very universe—you
remember, the one that was made from nothing? This discovery causes him to puff
out his chest with pride and declare a brand new theory—WE are god. Ahhhh, sigh of
relief. The struggle is over and has been worth it, after all. Just a few loose
ends to tie up. For example, chirology—the reverse images of our constituent
molecules 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 for
survival. All of these had to be, shall we say, in phase and compatible with one
another. But of course, to the evolutionary biologist, we are living proof that we
have somehow overcome that problem, also. Then there's the question of our own
internal and involuntary repair mechanisms and subconscious maintenance systems—
from whence did they come?But why muck up such a wonderful theory with stupid and
meaningless 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 over
there! Besides, look what I've done with this really awesome huge number! I've
built an ivory tower from it. Come on in and make yourself at home. Don't step on
the 'space' cat—he isn't fully formed yet. And come see this cool Entropy problem
I am working on."

Perhaps you are beginning to see the tremendous amount of faith it takes to
believe 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 process
of photosynthesis? If it stopped happening tomorrow, it would be a very few days
until all animal life on earth would be dead from lack of oxygen. And without the
carbon dioxide provided by animal exhalation and other sources, the plants
themselves would be gone in quick order. Then too, there is the symbiotic
relationship within our own bodies. The beneficial flora in our intestines is
absolutely crucial to our survival. And not just us—if termites didn't have
certain organisms in their digestive systems, they would die also. And you can
count many, many more of these types of relationships. And we are expected to
believe all these fortunate accidents just kept happening, one after another?

There is also the ultra-violet light paradox. It seems that there was a certain
level of UV light necessary for certain things to have happened to form life as
claimed by evolutionary scientists, but unfortunately there was also too much to
allow 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 the
ozone layer. Early on, the earth had none. This would have dictated that life
would be restricted only to the oceans, if at all. So, how did the cosmic rays
find 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 have
tried to crawl onto land would have been destroyed in short order by excessive UV
light levels. Another strike against the theory—and 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 and
accepted scientific standard...and yet it did!" This is perfectly akin to
believing in magic, the very thing that the Darwinistic science community (I make
the distinction purposely, as not all scientists are trying to make monkeys of
themselves) has accused the religionist of adhering to. Magic and Ex Nihilo
creation. Seems the two sides aren't so different after all, doesn't it? Well, as
they 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 periods
we are talking about are much too long to allow any acceptable term or form of
observation that could lead to reasonably accurate conclusions. What there are
instead, are what only appears to be periods of evolutionary development in life's
history. But there are other viable explanations to be sure. And might I remind my
readers that there have been numerous adaptations of this particular theory as
well. Just as the big bang had its opposing Steady State proponents, so does
evolutionary theory. Later it became the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, to
overcome the problems of cataclysmic events—not to mention the fact that animals
just don't lie down after death and refuse to rot as they get covered slowly by
sediment over thousands of years—it isn't like they aspired to be fossils when
they grew up.

There is another explanation that is equally able (that's unfair, actually...it is

far superior in every way) to explain what only appears to be billions of years of
evolution from 'tar-paper shack to skyscraper.' And it is scientifically sound to
all 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 the
intended victims of their deceit and lies.

The next section is pasted from the post called Too Much Faith, the link given
earlier. 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 the
earth is only 6,000 years old. They base this on faith in their own interpretation
of a verse that reads thus: 'One day is as a thousand years and a thousand years
as one day to the Lord ", coupled with another earlier one that states that God
made the earth in six days and on the seventh day He rested. Therefore, these
believers say, it has to be six thousand years old—'God said it, I believe it and
that's the end of it.' How narrow minded this viewpoint is! These men are just as
bad as the man of science 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, a

mirror-image restatement and an idiomatic poetic form, common to Hebrew. This is
not all, though. It is also an equation that, if followed through to the end, will
lead 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 365,000
of 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, 190
million 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 of
our planet.

Survey says: 2 billion, 555 million years, give or take a geologic time period or
two. Is this more to your liking, Mr. Scientist? 2.5 billion+ is a lot of time, is
it not? Plenty of time for an eternal being, not bound by time as we see it from
our 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 you
going to plant the seeds in, if not soil? Then a few seeds here and there to
produce a lot of oxygen and food for the animal species yet to come. And why
should we break the pattern—place a male and female of each species to populate
the land and ocean, simpler life forms first, to feed the later ones that will be
much 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 of
the more advanced species that will be dependent upon them.

I've had someone object to my proposal, saying that my math was admirable, but the
earth 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-down
period before life could begin to exist. Which still leaves us with a much shorter
period of time for life to form by their theory of evolution. Another thing these
guys normally forget when they make accusations against the biblical account is
that 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 the
darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening
and the morning were the first day.

So, you see, the earth itself was well on its way before the days of the creation
of life began. There is no mention of exactly when the waters were placed upon the
earth, but it was before this establishing of light. We know it wasn't immediately
after the planet was formed, because if you place water on a still extremely hot
planet, what happens to it? It boils and evaporates. A considerable amount of
cooling 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 some
boiling and evaporation may have occurred. This would have allowed for the
evaporation sufficient to create the water canopy in the atmosphere that was
apparent early in the world's history. That would then have allowed for the rapid
and enlarged growth of plants that were common in the early periods. This, in
turn, would have allowed for the sustenance of the huge animal life that lived in
those days. With the removal of that atmospheric water canopy, only smaller life
could 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?

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament 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 the
second day.

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

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one
place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters
called he Seas: and God saw that it was
good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the
fruit 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 saw
that 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 4.5
billion years, just to get ready for life to appear. It wasn't until the 'third
day' that plants began to appear. Is it so unreasonable to assume that perhaps 2
billion years was required for cooling of our originally hot planet? It also is
stated that the oxygen content of the atmosphere was likely created by
cyannobacteria, which survived for about 2 billion years and is now all but
extinct--"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 produce
atmosphere. How much time would that leave for the next steps--our theoretical
evolutionary process to gain its impossible momentum against all odds and produce
plants and animals, which just happened to be a symbiotic arrangement? According
to my critic, the 2.5 billion years I stated are too short a time to accomplish
his task of evolution, and yet it appears that is about all we are left with, if
not even less time than that.Would that be an admission on his part that it could
never 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 passage
could easily be mistaken for a slow evolution from one simpler life form to a more
advanced life form. No matter that this has never been observed or that there is
no 'missing link' in the fossil record (although I have heard some claim that ALL
the links are missing). It is easy enough to manufacture one, by the way (and this
has been done numerous times—evidence quickly disappears once veracity is
questioned—i.e., Piltdown Man, et. al.) and a theory to support it, in the event
any true evidence is lacking. Piltdown Man turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by
a student on his instructor, and it stood for a long time, until someone noticed
file marks on the teeth, whereupon the evidence conveniently disappeared. Other
'discoveries' turned out to be a hog's tooth, upon which an entire 'prehistoric
man' was built—in theory, of course. And if you were to exhume Robert Alda, actor
Alan Alda's father, you would find that the quite prominent brow resembles closely
that of a famous early 'prehistoric' celebrity. (No offense, Mr. Alda. I think you
were 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
these..."emerging species"...during these seeming 'geological periods'. Each new
period 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, when
mankind was also introduced via one male and one female of the species. (NOTE: I
have still not said that there is a God, just that this is an alternative theory
for you to consider, if you are truly open-minded). And please note that sudden
cataclysms would be required to cover over the bones of these animals in a
relatively 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 of
fish, plants, etc. It should be mentioned here that Cataclysmic events were
viciously denied and fought tooth-and-nail for the longest time by this community
of self-styled 'scientists'. Only common sense would eventually overcome the
objections. It should also be mentioned that many in this community are now
concluding that ALL fossils bear the appearance of having been covered over by the
debris 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 amazing
that 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 indeed
require use of the Hubble Telescope if we are to have even the slightest hope of
observing 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 theorized
event, it would take the patience of Job to find sufficient evidence to support
such a theory, would it not? Or perhaps just an over-blown ego and a lot of
stubborn nerve.

End of pasted section.

Two billion, five hundred fifty five million years. And this is after the planet
itself was sufficiently cooled for the placement of life, from what I can tell.
Any 'rational' evolutionary scientist would think this period plenty long for his
pet theory to have taken place...still against all odds. But he is unwilling to
accept an alternate theory that comes to the very same conclusion. And when the
second one has infinitely better chances of having happened, discarding it so
quickly and easily is tantamount to true madness. Sorry, but someone had to say
it.

In the next part of the discussion, let me point out ahead of time that I have no
personal problem with the earth itself being billions of years old, that certain
life was here millions of years ago and allowed to populate from the original two
of its kind, just like man and woman in the Bible. Nor do I have any trouble
accepting that mankind has not been here that long, but only about 6,000 to 6,500
years. The concepts are not by any means mutually exclusive. Simpler life forms
were required for the support of later advanced forms and sufficient time was
required to allow them to establish a foothold. The real question still comes back
to whether the origin of all the varied life forms was a fortunate cosmic accident
or 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 first
common '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. Problem
is, nuclear DNA isn't reliable for extended periods of time. They break down and
become inaccurate and unreadable—not that this fact stops the evolutionary zealots
from making claims based on such insufficient information—scientific method,
indeed! Then, what is accurate and reliable, but has a shorter time period
reliability? Mitochondrial DNA. So, it should be used almost exclusively, yes?
Sorry, but it rubs the evolutionist the wrong way—seems it mutates 26 times faster
than they had originally thought, leaving mtDNA Eve placed around 6,000 to 6,500
years ago. This would mean mankind was introduced far more recently than they
would like to accept. And since this date is so close to what many religionists
claim, the facts get thrown out and the theory is kept, regardless of its
deception. Don't believe me?

"...researchers have calculated that 'mitochondrial Eve'—the woman whose mtDNA was
ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in
Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old. No one thinks
that'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 one
archaeologists' view of the new method, regardless of its accuracy.

"The mystery of human origins is far from solved, but because DNA may not be as
diagnostic 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 just
take a back seat."
Scientific American, Aug. 1999

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

"The hypothetical descent of mankind from 'mitochondrial Eve' has been much
debated...some claim 800,000 years to be an upper limit, while most researchers
suggest 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 lived
about 6,500 years ago—a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human
origins."
Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens
Trends 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 particularly
useful for analyses at shallow time depths."

Well, well.... Useful as it is, some still wish to cast off mtDNA as detritus—just
so much flotsam and jetsam. An inconvenient truth, indeed. This approach is akin
to trading a single dollar bill for two quarters and thinking that you are now one
ahead. Trade further for three dimes, then five pennies and call it a wonderful
deal—but just labeling it in a pleasing manner doesn't make it so. You cheat
yourself when opinion becomes more sacred than truth. I go so far as to call this
approach to science a 'religious cult.'

Astrophysicists will tell you that the universe isn't old enough for life on earth
to have been the product of evolution as presently taught. Unfortunately, they
don't speak the same professional language as evolutionary biologists and they
don't travel in the same circles too often. They don't read the same papers or
attend the same conferences. They may rarely get out of their own rooms. Not a
likely 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 irreducible

complexity. There are, in the DNA, extremely tiny 'machines' that carry back and
forth the necessary components to replicate the strands of DNA. Without these
nano-machines, there would be no replication possible. This is magnitudes of
levels of complexity above simple mitosis of single cells. And the truly amazing
thing about these little workers is that, as complex as they are, if you were to
remove any part of the structure, they would cease to function and life itself
would be impossible. IMPOSSIBLE! These tiny units have the equivalent of rotary
bearings and little motors in them, that turn at thousands of revolutions per
second, able to come to a dead stop in less than one revolution. And they have
motivating members that allow their movement and the accomplishment of their
tasks. 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 problems
with the theory of evolution to view the link on Unlocking the Mystery of Life. I
have 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 human
brain—three pounds of tissue that is composed of approximately one hundred billion
neurons, each connected to ten thousand others, firing at from two to one hundred
times per second and carrying 10 to the 27th power bits of information per second!
Then, too, there are numerous neurotransmitters with varied functions. Without
this, you have no brain function and bodily control. Do these just form by happy
accident? Then there is the fact that the limbic system, the higher thinking
center, occurs in mammals alone. Why would that be? This allows abstract thinking.
And the prefrontal 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 the
specialization of the hemispheres of the brain. This is not random, but consistent
in humanity as a whole. The left hemisphere is the logic center of the brain and
the right is the creative center. And then there is the fact that the brain will
actually reshape and renew pathways that are damaged or are needed as the reult of
learning new tasks. Taxi drivers have an area of the brain that is larger than the
average person, because they have to memorize the layouts of their cities and this
area of the brain grows proportionally to compensate and allow the adaptation to
take place. Women and men have different areas of the brain that are most
dominant. Spacial perception, as a rule, is more dominant in men than women. This
is true throughout the species. No randomness at all. Why is that? How does
evolutionary theory provide for such a thing? And if one were to attribute all
such specializations to instinct alone, one must face the fact that such
specialization would never happen overnight, but take such lengthy periods of time
as to be nearly impossible for reasonable chances of species survival while such
instincts are in deveopment. Even the evolutionary scientist will admit that
nothing happens that quickly when discussing proposed biological evolution.

There is a structure in the brain called the Corpus Callosum, which is a bridge
between the hemispheres. It consists of about two hundred million fibres, lieing
parallel to one another and exchanging information to and from the hemisphere and
the opposite half of the body, which it controls. Surgeries have shown that
severing this bridge prevents the specialized functions from being carried out as
intended. Feeling an object with the left hand will not allow access to the word
that describes it. This is not random. It is specific and consistent. Feeling it
with the right hand does not have the same effect. What if those two hundred
million 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 of
disbelief to assume this was just a fortunate accident. And when you add the odds
against it to the preceding odds against all the other occurences, you must
believe in miracles to explain how it happened at all. Unfortunately, an
evolutionary scientist does not believe in miracles, so he is left without any
rational explanation for such an occurence. Still, it takes unlimited faith on his
part to believe it happened as he says. This amount of inordinate faith directly
parallels the probabilities number we have been steadily accumulating in our
study.

Can you honestly think it was all just a fortunate cosmic accident? If you are
honest about the matter, you will have to admit that the odds against life
happening spontaneously and defying entropy at every turn are so massively huge as
to be impossible. You will see that even if evolution were the sole process and
cause of life, it could never have happened without the help of intelligent
direction of some kind. Some outside influence, some contributing intelligent
factor, 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 no
measure of supporting input from outside the loop.

And now, to keep my promise. I have shown that the evidence against evolution, to
all but the most stubborn and belligerent of soldiers in this war, is overwhelming
and by any currently accepted scientific measure, is deemed in the realm of
impossible. Not just unlikely, but impossible. All it takes in most instances to
be labeled such is that the chances be less than one in one hundred. Here, the
odds are beyond astronomical. The most powerful computers we have today would take
a thousand years to figure out the chance that it could happen the way the
proponents have painted it. Mathematically, you would stand a better chance with a
roomful of Darwin's monkeys throwing wooden blocks to build the Taj Mahal in a
day. 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 it
all. 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 make
more sense and isn't it much easier to wrap your mind around than some voodoo
magic space bubble that created everything from nothing? I say this as much to the
religionist as to the scientist. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God created
everything from nothing. The very Hebrew word for create, baurau, means to
organize. You cannot organize what isn't first there. Can you organize empty
space? A vacuum cannot be divided and moved. I defy you to do so and measure it
while 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 Planck
and Albert Einstein say it is there in huge amounts, who are you to argue the
point without any proof? And why won't their own colleagues take them seriously?
For one simple reason—this sounds too much like Intelligent Creation—a theory that
they have vowed to resist at all costs. The teachings of my faith actually say
that matter was always there, as was space and also intelligence. It must have
been. There is no other rational explanation. And if that intelligence spoken of
is eternal, then why not our own? My faith teaches me that this life is a
temporary period of time for growth and the opportunity to be tested for
worthiness of greater things and greater powers in higher realms. If I am wrong, I
have still lived a happy life in the efforts to be a better person to my neighbor
and family, so that I may be worthy of such honors when offered. If I am right, I
may actually receive those honors, as promised in the scriptures. If you are
right, you are no better off than me. If you are wrong, you lose the opportunity
of a lifetime, literally. I sincerely hope you don't.

And now for the second part of my promise—the proof that God exists. And I said
the proof is overwhelming, you will recall. I do not back away from that claim
now. Any person in this world can prove the existence of God without the slightest
degree of doubt. Millions have already done so. Millions more will. What is the
method for this experiment?

It is as simple as this:
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask
God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and
if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he
will 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 or
in order to prove it wrong. It carries a promise. The promise is that if you ask
with a sincere heart, with real intent, in honest humility and without foregone
biases, having faith that God can and will answer, you will get your answer. Note
that it does not promise that you will get it the first time you ask. What
experiment ever was solved the first time? How rare is that. But it does promise
that if you will do it under these conditions, you will be rewarded with an answer
that is unmistakable—you can know the truth—not only of this, but of all things.
Learning takes time. You will not learn faith in Christ overnight. You may not
even learn to want the truth overnight, if you are particularly resistant to the
answer 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 wave
of 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 standing
on the roof tops and calling out to the sky for an answer. You do this in the
quiet and peace of your own room. Turn off all other distractions. The answer will
likely 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 of
this world. I did say it was overwhelming—and when you are fully in tune, it is.
You may find that tears come to your eyes for no reason you can think of, except
for the sudden and overwhelming joy that you feel. Personally, I can point to an
exact moment where the change came. Literally, one second I didn't know if there
was a God, but by the next I couldn't deny it, for the presence of His love was
like being suddenly immersed in the sea. Learning was instantly poured into me—
things I had not known before, but which were later verified in an unmistakable
manner to me. And in case you deem this to be the ravings of a frenzied mind, the
very same experience was being had in the room by a friend of mine—therefore, in
the mouths of two witnesses, just as God promises. And others in the house, not
privy to exactly what was happening, became frightened and left for other rooms,
knowing that indeed something of an extraordinary nature was taking place. Many
other wonderful and miraculous things have since happened to me. I will not go
into detail here, as I consider them to be sacred in nature and I share them only
with 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 with
meters, 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 the
elements. There is no other way. If you want the reaction, you must follow the
formula. 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 personal
communication, plain and simple. He will not force Himself on you, as He is too
much 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 am
here for an education, not a brainwashing. I insist on being offered all relevant
theories and viewpoints. I will not be bullied out of nor cheated out of learning
true facts. I will hold personally responsible any who attempt to do do so." At
the very least, do your own research and don't accept every flimsy theory that
comes 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, the
theories change constantly, but facts do not. Why not go to the source of all
facts, if you can?

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

The whole evolutionary biological process is a synergetic anti-entropic function

and the purpose to mankind's intelligence and existence is to bring conscious
understanding to the process of which we are a part. In other words, we have a
purpose 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 of
the next and of the whole. Anti-entropic implies that the process is not and
cannot 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 the
scientific community sees as and proclaims to be a closed system?

One last thing. If science can accept as fact that matter can be influenced and
manipulated to some small degree by our puny minds, via quantum physics, then why
not allow for a superior intelligence to have far greater breadth of control?
Plenty of respectable scientists have allowed for that over the ages—Newton,
Galileo, Einstein, Planck and more. Some, like Planck, have said without doubt
that it is all controlled by a great and intelligent Mind. The capitalizations are
his, not mine.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume
behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is
the matrix of all matter." —Max Planck

"It appears that the universe is not so much a great mechanism as it is a great
idea." —Unknown

Einstein said that "God does not play dice with the universe", but have you ever
truly thought of what he was implying by that statement? He wasn't saying that he
didn't believe in God, as some would like to suggest, for we know from his
writings that he did. He was inferring that it is not just random chance. There is
control and purpose. A sufficiently trained and disciplined mind could hold things
together far more so than our tiny little minds do (this was inferred strongly by
Max Planck and others). We are only as smart as we allow ourselves to be and that
means working with facts, not theories alone. You may choose to believe in magic
and the creation of something from nothing or you may choose to face facts—
overwhelming facts and irrefutable probabilities. Again, why not find out from the
source of all facts and truth? Don't you owe it to yourself; or are your pet
theories so much more important than truth that you would waste a good portion of
your lifetime in intellectual darkness, just to preserve your false pride? God has
been proven to me and countless others. You can have that proof, too, if you are
willing and ready. I wish you the best in your search. The axiom of science should
be the same as that of Sherlock Holmes: 'When all other contingencies fail,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' After all, if it's a
choice of believing in God or choosing to believe in magic, which is more likely?

Questions Science Has Yet To Answer

It can be a great deal of fun to read or watch good science fiction. And more
often than not, the fiction is quickly replaced by fact--all because someone had
the vision or insight to understand that the seemingly impossible was not so
impossible after all. That's what we commonly call 'progress', which comes as a
result of overcoming those who resist change, cling to obsolescence and the status
quo. And it isn't always the humble peasant class that is guilty of this. Often it
is industry, science and government that could be blamed for foot-dragging their
way into the future.

And often we may be the one who has the insight or the privilege to be involved in
the concept that is at first rejected and then later accepted as possible, and
then eventually as fact. One of my own sons one day shared his concept of the
nature of light with me. I later shared this with a friend who is a laser
specialist, among his other talents, and he smiled broadly and informed me that
this same idea is currently being given seriously consideration by those on the
cutting edge of his and related sciences. My son had no formal training, but he
did have the gift of vision, insight, revelation or whatever you choose to call
it. I have had the same thing happen to me on many occasions, as I am sure you
have.

There are, however, questions of immense nature that scientists have yet to answer
and, in my humble opinion, never will on the path that has been chosen for them.
The 'party line' only goes so far and then you have to get off and walk, as it
were.

Number one in these questions I propose is this: Since science now tells us that
the original "big bang" was not an explosion of matter, but an explosion of space
(Yes, I just heard that last night on a show about the 'big bang'), I am forced to
ask what might have been surrounding that 'singularity' of space in the first
place. They compared it to a balloon that pops and everything in it escapes and
expands. I must remind that even a humble balloon has some outside force or
pressure that keeps it intact, albeit temporarily, by surrounding it and exerting
inward pressure upon it. And if all space was in this singular 'balloon', the
something HAD to be outside of it. Even a vacuum constitutes space. There had to
be matter or space surrounding it or else nothing existed. And if nothing existed
outside of this 'spaceball', there would be nothing to expand INTO. Space
surrounded by space--where does one draw the line...of demarcation?

Now, I am adult enough to know that I do not negate the existence of something
simply because I cannot conceive of it or believe in it. But I am also adult
enough to know that the dominant belief system is often wrong and the common man
or woman, or the 'rebel' of science, the cutting edge theorist that everyone
laughs at initially, but eventually comes to enbrace ('we knew all along you were
right') is the one who sets it straight eventually. Personally, I cannot conceive
of a singularity of 'space' being compressed and surrounded by a 'nothing'
(including vacuum) into which it expands. This sounds like something out of The
Never-Ending Story film, only in reverse. It also reminds me of the
incomprehensible creeds promoted by some religious faiths. Frankly, it needs to
make SOME sense to me or I cannot accept it. And this sounds like myth and fable
to me. Again, what was the prime motivator of the whole thing? What could have
caused it? Or maybe we should ask, WHO caused it. Things like this don't happen by
themselves and with no cause, I would conjecture.

Point number two: Assuming this new theory is soon to be rejected and we go back
to matter as being the composition of the singularity, what caused all that matter
to gather into one point in the first place? And what determined the single focal
point of it all? Some outside force had to have pressed in upon this point and
condensed all the matter in the universe or it would not have been there in one
tiny spot. From whence the force? If this is so, then we cannot accept that a
great 'nothingness' surrounded this singular pinpoint of matter. And, if an inward
force, then why not remain in that state continually? What made this force stop
bringing it together, so to speak?

Long, long ago Democritus announced his belief in the atom as the basic building
block of all matter. He proclaimed that there was nothing but matter and the void.
If you will add to this intelligence, which is often sadly lacking in application,
I agree with him totally. All is either energy or matter or void of both. I
envision the universe as having been like a beach or a desert, full of sand as far
as the eye can see in all directions. We can go in and gather this sand and make
of it glass implements that are beautiful and useful. The basic materials must be
there in the first place, however, and waiting only for the artist to make use of
them.

Why not a steady state of matter, spread homogeneously throughout all the void?
Waiting only to be gathered and utilized by the artist or some creative,
coalescing force that causes the formation of stars, galaxies, clouds of gas and
more. A steady, homogeneous state requires no more effort to form a universe from
than is required to force all matter together (FROM a state of being spread out, I
would have to assume). Which brings us to the next question yet to be answered.

Science is desperately seeking what they refer to alternately as the Higgs Boson
or the "god" particle. There is a great deal of concern over this particle. The
very absence of it thus far is most perplexing to men and women of science.
Without this particle, in their collective opinion, there is no rational
explanation for how all things condensed into what we observe today. And the
general consensus is that this particle, if it exists at all, should have been
discovered long before now. The fact that it hasn't is a thorn in the paw.

The Higgs Boson is the lynch pin that holds together the universe, it seems. It's
what makes chemistry a science we can depend on. It defines the consistency of
matter in certain conditions. If the Higgs Boson doesn't exist, that means there
must be another explanation for the universe; an explanation they are desperate to
refute as 'unscientific'. They will go so far as to name a particle after this
rejected creative force, but not admit the presence of the rejected creator--the
'magic man', the 'big daddy in the sky' or any other term of deprecation they can
conceive of. (Note: an archaic definition of deprecation is "To pray for
deliverance from'. How ironic.)
Another irony is the billions of dollars spent on building the Large Hadron
Collider. They want to solve the riddles of the universe and their own existence,
but far too seldom choose to spend the money on solving the problems common to
humanity--sickness, crop failure, inadequate energy supplies, clean water, etc. In
fact, often the technology that would solve these problems is suppressed as being
disruptive to the status quo. Solving these problems would give mankind a clue as
to their real purpose for existence in this world and the type of beings they
actual are. It would reveal that small spark of divinity within them that is
dieing to get out, but being forced inward into a singularity that may never
explode. Solving that riddle may prove the most difficult of all.

The Nature of the Universe--But Not As You Know It

I wish to start this post with a few quotes from eminent physicists. Forgive me
for not taking note of the speaker for the one marked 'unknown'. I forget now
where I read it and how to find it again. I do know it was a book dealing with
physics.

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." --Niels Bohr

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume
behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is
the matrix of all matter." --Max Planck

"It appears the universe is not so much a great mechanism as it is a great idea."
--Unknown

Ever since the book and movie The Secret was released, the public in general is
becoming more and more familiar with the term Quantum Physics. Some of us are even
beginning to think we understand it now. The concept seems to be what was once
considered the impossible--mind over matter. Another term that has been used in
certain circles is Psychokinesis. Whatever you call it, it is fascinating stuff. I
wanted to begin with quotes from recognized authorities on the subject, because it
is often taken for granted that someone else knows more than you ever possibly
could. That simply isn't so, but a good place to start is with some folks who are
well grounded in the subject.

Niels Bohr is recognized as a preeminent scientist in the field of atomic theory.

He was so impressed...no, blown away is a better term...by quantum theory that he
could make such a statement--if you aren't stunned, blown away and speechless when
you finally think you understand it, then you don't really understand it. The
implications were considered to be that staggering in nature.

Okay, we have established that a super-smart man says this is extremely important
and powerful stuff. What do others say of it? Max Planck, another one very
familiar with the world of the atom, states that all matter exists by virtue of
force--and force only, if we understand him correctly. Matter and energy are
interchangeable, as we know, but that is not the word he chose to use. He said
'force'. This would seem to imply a directed and controlled energy field. But from
what source?

Planck states that we must assume a conscious and intelligent mind behind this
force. He didn't say we could, or might. Again, he chose his word
carefully--'must'. Why would such a world-recognized physicist choose his words
thus? And if there should be any confusion or mis-interpretation, he goes on to
say, " This Mind is the matrix of all matter." Not 'the mind' or 'a mind', but
'This Mind'. He specifically imparts supreme power to one mind alone and to
emphasize its importance, he capitalizes the word as Mind. And the power he
attributes to it is that it is the matrix of all matter. Not some matter, but all.
And it is not just a support on occasion, but is the actual matrix, the fabric,
the foundation and super-structure it is built on.

The third man agrees that the universe appears to be more a great idea than a
mechanism. What a strange statement. These men actually believed that all we see
and experience as the material world is in actuality the product of a great
imagination and intellect. The Mind. I find it reassuring that not all scientists
are so quick to dismiss evidence just because it conflicts with the notion that no
supreme being exists or could. They recognize, at risk of losing station among
their peers, that evidence remains valid though it may be unpopular.

Why call the universe an idea? Simple logic and good sense. If we, in an infant-
like state of development psychically, can think and cause minute, but measurable,
change in matter at the lowest level, via quantum physics, what must a
sufficiently advanced and powerful mind be able to accomplish? Before you dismiss
this out of hand, reflect on how easily the human race accepts that there may be
life out there in the cosmos and even desires it to be so, while assuming that
flying saucers are the result of an advanced civilization. Why so quick to believe
in an advanced race...so long as it isn't referred to as Gods? The effort to write
divinity out of the equation is so thinly veiled that it is pathetic. Man tries to
make of himself a god, while simultaneously denying the existence of such. He
wants God made in his image, not him in God's. This is madness. It is
unscientific.

I am the first to admit that there is a lot wrong with religious sects today. Most
are not rational in their beliefs--they have shifted and changed over the
centuries and millania--this applies equally to all of them. However, this does
not preclude a faith established in scientific fact and sound reasoning from being
a valid faith. I have such a faith myself. I will refrain from telling more within
the confines of this particular blog. I will answer personal messages requesting
information, however. My main thrust here is to cause reflection on the insanity
of a course that throws away fact and firm evidence but accepts unsound theory
because of personal biases.

One should never cut off their nose to spite their face, as the saying goes.
'Whatever remains after all other evidence has been discounted, no matter how
preposterous, is fact'.--to paraphrase Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Choose to be a
seeker of sound evidence, not a defender of common belief alone. With that, let me
close with one more quote from a recognized intellect.

"It is the theory that decides what we can observe." --Albert Einstein
Keep an open mind and don't make it more complicated than it has to be.

Stringing Us Along?

Is the String Theory unraveling? So says Michio Kaku and many of his associates in
a TV program about parallel universes. With as many as five separate theories,
scientists were confused about how they could all be right, if you accepted only
ten dimensions as being absolute. It appears that when an eleventh dimension was
allowed, as only a few rebels would, all was suddenly resolved and the five
theories became not only compatible, but were seen now to be different ways of
understanding the same theory. And yet there are still quests to find out if they
are right in their understandings. Theories and ideas that were thought to be
insane and impossible but a few decades ago are now given serious consideration.
New approaches to viewing the very basic building blocks of the universe have
taken hold. I do not pretend to be an astrophysicist, nor to have even had classes
in such. And yet, sometimes the 'uneducated man' is the one that asks the
questions and considers the views that the book-smart man overlooks. One of my
sons has done that with an unusual way of looking at the nature of light (no pun
intended). When I presented his idea to an expert in the field of lasers, his face
lit up (still no pun intended) and he shared with me that some of his cutting edge
friends (some are dual Ph. D's) were considering the same theories. My son has no
college education in physics. He simply has a mind that explores and is curious,
examining details others ignore. His theory about light goes thus: light has
characteristics of both wave and particle. Confusing as this is to mainstream
scientists, my son Trevor accepted both as being possible concurrently and
determined to formulate a theory that would explain this conundrum. What he came
up with it this—photons are binary particles. If you were to see two stars
rotating about one another, they would at times appear to be two stars and at
other times as one, because one is hiding behind the other. He postulated that
light might be this way also. It appears as a wave because it 'pulses' as the
electrons (or whatever they are) rotate about one another. It also appears as a
particle, because it is—a binary particle. It makes sense to me. And it made sense
to my educated friend.

Well, this got me to thinking, also. The characteristics of the universe include
such features as vortexes, orbiting particles, resonant vibration, wobbles, dual
bodies, matter/energy exchange and so forth. First, it seems that all the universe
is a mass of infinitely small vortexes and a conglomerate that becomes an
infinitely large vortex. In other words, it is all in a spin at every level. The
universe is in constant commotion. And, secondly, it is in a constant state of
vibration, as well. All at different frequencies. Every living body and every
inanimate object has a resonant frequency unique to itself. If you interfere with
that natural frequency, you get different effects, maybe good or maybe bad. You
can induce health or sickness via interference and over-ride of one's resonant
body frequency. This works with sound, as well—something the military uses to
accomplish their ends. Tesla knew well the power of resonant frequencies. And I
might add that Viktor Schauberger knew well the power of vortex technology and
speculated that it permeates all the known universe and is a natural law we would
do well to obey and not defy.

What then makes these vibrations and wobbles? I am going to speculate a theory
here. I do not claim it to be true, but merely offer it for consideration. I want
to propose one possible cause by going back to principle of orbiting bodies. It is
a standard approach now to discover distant planets by their influence on the
central star that they orbit around (and discover the moons about the planets, as
well). In other words, there are resulting aberrations in the movement of the
star, caused by the constant change of direction in gravitational pull as the
planet proceeds in orbit around the star. To put it in plain language, the star
wobbles and does not entirely stay put. Now, let's apply this principle to the
atom. Is it not possible that the vibrations of the atom are caused by an induced
wobble from the orbiting electron(s)? And this induced wobble might cause another
side effect—constant collision with other atoms surrounding it (Brownian movement
on the atomic level). And these collisions might cause an exchange of electrons
between neighboring atoms. This may be the aether flux and energy/matter exchange
that Tesla, Moray, Gray and others learned to tap. A constant interchange of
energy and matter like this may be what we now refer to as Dark Matter and Dark
Energy. Can I prove it? Of course not. I will leave that up to those with the
government grants and huge instruments. Does that mean I am wrong? Of course not.
I could very well be proven correct at some time in the near future. One thing I
do know for certain is that no one will likely put my name on the postulate and
credit me for it, but it will still feel good to know I asked the right questions—
without the fancy degrees on my wall to prove I can think. And now I invite you to
think and comment.
On The Nature of Light and Matter

One of my sons, Trevor (when about 10 years old), proposed about three years back
that he thought light to be somewhat different in nature from that in which it is
usually portrayed. He reasoned that since it bore characteristics of both a
particle and a wave, that perhaps there was one configuration that might
satisfactorily account for both effects.

He proposed that perhaps light was indeed a particle configuration, but made up of
two particles rotating about a common center, much like a binary star
configuration. This configuration would appear to be a particle, but also, due to
its rotation, would appear to change much like a wave. It made sense to me. When I
asked him how he had come up with the idea, he said that it had just come to him
in a moment of inspiration and insight.

A short time later, I had opportunity to discuss the matter with a friend who is
an expert in lasers. As I told him the idea, he began to smile quite widely and
told me that this was exactly the most recent theory of a few physics experts who
are considered to be leading-edge scientists in their field.

The effect can be easily demonstrated by simply placing your index and middle
fingers closely together and folding back the remaining fingers and thumb. First
turn your hand so as to see both fingers side-by-side, then turn it 90 degrees to
see only one finger, with the other hiding behind it. The effect is always a
particle, but the characteristics of rotation will also fluctuate to portray a
wave pattern. I was impressed that this seems a wonderful explanation for the
apparent discrepancies in the observations thus far. In fact, things I have read
recently appear to point to all quantum matter as being both particle and wave in
nature.

This made me wonder, also, whether matter is simply a 'concretion', for lack of a
better term, a result of the coincidental phases of these quantum particles which
happen to meet and cross at just the right stages in their cycles. Much as you can
reverse the phase of sound 180 degrees and cause a rarefaction or cancellation, or
you might also introduce it again at the same phase and cause a reinforcement of
the original frequency, might not these fluctuations in quantum materials be doing
the same thing? And I have to reflect also on the fact that matter and energy are
interchangeable and seem to be doing exactly that at all times. It is certainly a
wonderful world and universe in which we live. We will one day understand the
process and be able to control it to some degree, I am sure.

GLOBAL WARNING! Junk Science May Be Hazaedous to Your Health

There is a lot of junk science going around today and we are constantly bombarded
by the fear mongers about the environmental issues that supposedly plague us. Most
of them are just MENTAL issues, not environmental issues.

For example, after the Exxon Valdez spill, you heard an enormous outcry from the
Green movement. What follow-ups do you have today? None. Why? Because the
coastline has healed far more quickly and miraculously than they ever imagined
possible--hence, no cannon fodder for their cause. On to something more
spectacular....

Regarding the ozone hole over the Arctic: AOL news recently released a prediction
from Japanese scientists that says it should disappear altogether by 2050. I also
recall several years ago hearing Paul Harvey report that the ozone hole had
enlarged and extended a thousand miles further south, into lower regions of
Russia--due to "colder than usual temperatures". A light went on in my head with
that one. Where do these "holes" occur? Over the cold regions of the world--the
poles. And if they extended further, "due to colder than usual temperatures", then
could they not be naturally occurring phenomena over cold regions of the world? By
the way, only 30 years ago, we were being told we were headed into an ice age. Now
it is global warming. So, which is true?

As to the carbon dioxide emissions.... The proponents of the ban on these

emissions are almost all "tree-huggers" (you may substitute 'earth worshippers',
if you like). What they fail to realize is that trees breathe CO2, and provide
oxygen. If you deprive the trees and plants of CO2, you deprive us of oxygen, too.
Not a pretty scenario, if you are a rational being.

What would happen if the earth had a more temperate climate (AKA Global Warming)?
Well, for one, we should have fewer and smaller hurricanes, as these are caused by
temperature differentials, not homogeneous temperatures. The same with tornadoes,
caused by the collision of a warm front and a cold front. Fewer and smaller--who
wouldn't be for that? That has my vote.

And a fairly recent issue of the journal SCIENCE listed home cooking fires in
southeast Asia as the leading cause of the world's human-generated pollution, not
the industrialized nations of the world. Far beyond that is the pollution put out
daily by the world's volcanoes. We will NEVER reach that level, nor do we
presently have any control over them.

Far more important than asking if the claims of these protest groups are true
would be to ask what the motive is for the group (or the 'man behind the curtain')
claiming it. What do they have to gain by this and who is backing them
financially? In other words, "follow the money". I think you will find that to be
an extremely enlightening exercise.

One more, although I could go on. When you calculate the vast ocean surface, a
rise of a foot is nothing to most areas of the world. Also, be aware that the
"experts" cannot agree. Some claim a foot and others as much as 45 feet. When you
are dealing with environMENTALists, you can usually assume they have multiplied by
at least 10, to get the fear factor up into the range they want it to be. (And
that is no exaggeration on my part. It is their prevailing method.)

An experiment you can do on your kitchen table should relax your mind and make for
sweeter dreams. Place some ice cubes in a glass of water and mark the level on the
glass with a permanent marker (comes off with acetone, nail polish remover or
hairspray), then let the ice melt and check the level again. It should be the same
as before. Why? Because water EXPANDS 10% when it freezes, therefore becoming less
dense and therefore it floats, being about 90% below the waterline. So, again the
crazies have cried wolf and are made out to be liars. If there is a great degree
of actual shelf ice melting, it may be due to increased volcanic activity in the
polar regions. Take Iceland, for example. Look back over the news and see what has
happened there. No man, nor mankind as a whole, could have produced such
geothermal effects. And please explain the fact that recent science magazines have
reported vast pools of 45 degree water in the middle of icebergs. What control
does man have over the middle of an iceberg and why should the temperature be 45
degrees--a full 13 degrees over the freezing point?

So, just relax and take a deep breath. Life goes on and there is little you can do
about it--unless you want to hyperventilate and add some CO2 (to feed the trees
and temper the weather patterns).

Genome Sequencing and Jumping to Confusions

I learned many years ago that jumping to a conclusion based upon partial facts is
a dangerous thing. After being sufficiently embarrassed a number of times, I
finally decided there had to be a better and more dependable way. And in the event
that no answer was readily available, at least I learned to gather all the
available evidence before advancing a theory, alternate or not--a method our most
eminent scholars seem to have stepped over (or trampled upon) on their way to a
conclusion. In the interest of accuracy, I present here the claims of one Ken
Miller, who appears to be teaching as carved-in-stone doctrine the theory he has
personally adopted. And then I present some other questions he seems to have
overlooked or neglected to ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related

The video link here claims that Creationists cannot provide any kind of comeback
or answer to this, simply because at one particular event that the speaker took
part in, they did not have a ready answer. I could ask my grandmother to explain
the fusion process in a star and because she had no ready answer, would I be wise
to assume that there was none?

To quote the man in the film (Ken Miller), "If a chromosome were missing, it would
be lethal". He further states, 'It could not have gotten lost in our lineage'. How
he comes to this conclusion is anyone's guess. But then, instead of assuming that
we were meant to be this way, he assumes the fusion of the chromosomes of the
Chimpanzee and the Gorilla or the Orangutan to make up 46 that man has--this based
solely on the similarities of the so-called source and the so-called resulting
species. He doesn't present it as a possibility, but as a foregone conclusion, it
seems. Does anyone else see the glaring discrepancy besides me? In order for the
source species to have contributed a proper number of fusion chromosomes, it had
to either lose one from each parent in the process (a lethal result, according to
Mr. Miller) or it had to have had some causative or prime mover to result in the
fusion he claims, something he neglects to even touch upon. He neglects to mention
this problem AFTER he says the Creationists refused to even broach the subject
matter laid before them. Is he not playing the same game here? Or is he
conveniently side-stepping factors that might prove difficult to explain or
embarrassing to him?

This is what I call "jumping to confusions", based upon his own personal
biases.There are many species in our world with similarities. His conclusion,
however, is somewhat akin to deciding that we descended from the Alligator,
because it has four appendages and we have four, and it has a tail and we have a
'remnant tail bone'. Or that we have a common ancestor in the starfish, because we
are symmetrically designed to be similar. Or perhaps our common ancestor may have
been the Tortoise and we just lost our shell along the way, to make it possible to
stand upright and reach the fruit on the tree of knowledge these guys eat from. We
may assume all day long and get nowhere. Perhaps our ancestor was the Mandrake
root, which bears a strong similarity to man. Just as valid, is it not?

To be honest, I, too, have a personal bias, based upon the witness of the Spirit
of God and upon personal studies. Mine is just as valid as his. Why not jump to
the conclusion that all creatures are unique and different by design? Why must his
conclusion be the only valid one? Are there not other possibilities, no matter how
small the 'man of science' may consider them to be? Should not all possibilities
be considered? [See my entries here entitled Too Much Faith and Evidence and Proof
of God--A Layman Challenges Big Science.]

The fact that a set of chromosomes 'seems' to have fused does not mean it is 1)
totally understood by the scientist 2) due to evolutionary processes or 3)
impossible as a result of design. The only thing a scientists can say for certain
is that it 'appears' to have been a fusion of these chromosomes from other
sources. We then must study as to whether Chimps, Gorillas or Orangutans would
ever choose to cross-breed. If they did anciently, would they not do so today,
given the chance? And if they could do so, would there not be some genetic
experiment to show the possibility, even if done by in vitro fertilization? Or are
we to assume that simian researchers have no curiosity in this area?

Evolutionary biologists want us to assume that human chromosome sequence number

two is the result of a fusion of other species. If these purported source species
do not by choice or cannot physically cross breed, then we must assume that the
fusion was impossible by the means proposed. There is no other answer (or excuse).
If they can, then we must also assume that man may successfully breed with either
of the 'source' species. This what we call bestiality, by the way--a term which
man has put on it to label it as taboo. Why taboo, if they are our common
ancestor? I am certain some relative of Dr. Mengela may be out there trying to
prove the possibility in a test tube. It would, of course, be not only
interesting, but dangerous to his reputation as a 'true scientist', even among his
peers. In fact, a casual search of the Internet will show that even the scientific
community sees this as a line that few are willing to cross and those that have
proposed it have been dealt with severely.

We might as well conduct a study to compare an airplane and an automobile and then
conclude they come from the same common ancestor, because they both have a cockpit
to sit in and they both have wheels. 'And it seems as if one has developed wings,
so as to take to the air, while losing the extra unnecessary wheels in the
process.' Or that the statue of Liberty is the fossilized remains of early
mankind, which was much larger in the day of the dinosaur. Silly, yes, but it
makes just as much sense to jump to one conclusion as to jump to another, does it
not? What you end up with is nothing more than a Rube Goldberg contraption of a
theory that may seem to work prima facia (on first appearance), but is too complex
to have ever happened in actuality--much like the entire theory of macro
evolution.

It has been pointed out that Gorillas are closer to humans than to Orangutans and
they are not only different species, but different genus. Any hybrid that might
have resulted would most likely be sterile, as would any result with even the
remotest possibility of becoming a human. Also, although ranges can change, others
have noted that certain species are mainly African in origin and others are mainly
Indonesian, so the likelihood of them meeting is remote. Also, because of the
difference in the genetic code, any Chimp/human cross would likely be sterile,
which is contrary to what Ken MIller would like us to believe--and yet, if that
were the source of humans in the first place, it would have to be possible, would
it not?

One identifying himself as DesertYeti on a web forum has this to say:

"Most likely impossible.
Orangutans are not even in the same family as gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and
humans. Phylogenetically, the latter 4 are in the Family Hominidae.
Orangutans are in a separate family, Pongidae.
Previous phenetic (non-cladistic) classifications lumped all apes into the
Pongidae based only on plesiomorphic (shared primitive) characters like hair cover
and prognathism.
They are less closely related to gorillas than gorillas are to us.
The two families split at least as long ago as 15-20 million years, based on
molecular data and fossil evidence."
Another, known as Juustin (his spelling, not mine) responds:
"My main question was regarding the fact that at some point the 48 chromosomes
permenantly became 46 (at least in the "human" branch). In order for the offspring
not to be sterile, both parents would need to already have the fused chromosomes,
so that both had 46."

Now, I admit I am not a geneticist, but this line of thinking sounds reasonable to
me. It has been suggested that in order for the offspring to have fused genes, the
parents would have both had to match it in number. And an additional question I
have is this--regarding the supposedly fused sequence, what do those sections do?
What did they do in the original animals and what do they do in humans? Since
studies show that a human infant has higher social skills than any Chimp, would it
not be important to know what these portions do? Ken Miller, in case you didn't
notice, makes no mention of the function involved. He simply points out that they
appear to be fused from two other species--and he isn't even sure which ones. This
could all be a big coincidence, for all he knows, but I certainly don't expect he
will ever admit it.

A New York Times article suggests that the experts may not be so convincing as
they would to believe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/science/18evolve.html

Estimates of when the supposed split between humans and Chimps took place is now
seen as being off by a few million years--less! And the estimate is now that there
were two splits instead of the originally supposed one. What that means is that
the odds of all this happening in less time, with more splits, is even less likely
odds than before. When the odds against keep multiplying so dramatically [See Too
Much Faith and Evidence and Proof of God--A Layman Challenges Big Science], there
is a lot more explaining to do than a simple "it was all a fortunate accident".

Here's a quote from the article worth noting--

QUOTE:
The suggestion of a hybridization has startled paleoanthropologists, who
nonetheless are treating the new genetic data seriously. The earliest human-
lineage fossil remains, like Sahelanthropus, seem clearly to have been bipeds,
walking on two feet, but the ancestors of chimps presumably walked on their two
feet and the knuckles of their hands, as do modern chimps.

"If the earliest hominids are bipedal, it's hard to think of them interbreeding
with the knuckle-walking chimps — it's not what we had in mind," said Daniel E.
Lieberman, a biological anthropologist at Harvard.
END QUOTE

If nothing else, for now the claim that we have 'nothing to say and no valid
options' is fallacious, at best.

A Cure For Cancer

Each year, millions and millions of dollars are spent on supposed cancer research.
The truth of the matter is that the millions are spent to preserve jobs that would
be in question otherwise. I know that is a bold accusation, but it is true. There
is a lot of money in research and if it dries up, due to a cure being found or the
researchers being found to be frauds, there will be a lot of jobs down the drain.
This self-centered interest has even led to the scuttling of true cures, simply
because the pharmaceutical companies couldn't succeed in creating a synthesized
version of the active ingedients. Did they let the public know there was a natural
cure that was safe? No. They simply buried the information and refused to leak it
to anyone--even after seven years of proving it works.

Did you know there is a South American fruit that will cure cancer? Drug companies
couldn't make a synthetic version, so they just dropped it altogether. There is
also an Southeast Asian fruit that will cure cancer--over 30 years of clinical
research poves it, but it has to be sold as a fruit juice in order to stop the FDA
from squashing it. Isn't it too bad that our government has taken to protecting us
from things that will help us, in addition to what will harm us? And with all the
money the drug companies make, it's a true shame they won't share what they can't
make more money on.

One pharmaceutical researcher said seven years was spent in the effort to
synthesize a compound that would cure cancer. You see, they cannot patent fruit
that grows naturally. All efforts failed, so they kept silent. That is, until the
researcher got cancer and used the fruit to cure himself, no one else knew. Even
worse is that the research information isn't shared with other companies in a
joint effort to develop it.

Another fruit from southeast Asia has a history of thousands of years as a near
cure-all among the people of the area--and research proves it. Again, you can't
patent fruit that grws naturally. Being a delicate fruit, it doesn't travel well,
so must be juiced and sold here only as juice.

And people wonder why I believe there are conspiracies and that they are not
theories, but fact. We get sicker, weaker and more stupid and nothing is done if
it won't make money. Wh does the government allow the use of NutraSweet(C) without
warning or listing on a label, when it is known to break down into dangerous
chemicals at less than body temperature? Maybe because Monsanto makes large
contributions to re-election campaigns on both sides of the aisle? Why do we have
anti-freeze in our toothpastes and shampoos? Why sodium fluoride, a dangerous
poison and waste by-product, when calcium fluoride is safe and works as well? Cold
it be that a sickly people are easier to control? What better way to disguise
their efforts than a slow, cumulative poisoning that would appear to be natural
causes and could be labeled as 'common', because we all have it?

Sadly, many will think this foolishness and dismiss it without researching it.
When one chooses to be ignorant (in health, politics and more), there is little
that can be done for them. We get what we deserve, it seems. Ignorance is bliss
only for a short time--it is truth that sets you free.

Star Trek's 'Q' and the power of God

Atheists and believers often argue about the topic of miracles. I define a miracle
as the operation of a higher law that we do not yet understand--not the act of
accomplishing something impossible to do. I mentioned previously that every
washing machine works because it has a good agitator. Say hello to your new
agitator—me. I like to think and I like to make others think. Some people hate
that. Thinking, that is. So, if your brain hurts when you think, stop reading and
go watch something soothing and inane. If this is what whets your appetite, I
welcome your comments.

It's always fun to watch Star Trek episodes with 'Q' in it. At times you love to
hate him and at times you envy him his power. What couldn't you do with that kind
of power? Of course, I would hope that you would choose to do good with it only.
The rest of the 'Q Continuum' seems to be a bit better behaved than he is, do they
not? Nevertheless, having that kind of power could be a problem for even the best
of persons. They say absolute power corrupts absolutely—I guess that is why they
also say to be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it. Human
nature is the wild card in the equation.

Science is still in its infancy. Let's face it, every decade or so we have to
change our view of the world and universe. And we still aren't anywhere near full
comprehension. I do find it amusing, however, that those who are quick to deny
God's existence will be just as quick to claim their absolute faith in a science
that is still misunderstood and in its infancy. While admitting that they don't
yet know everything, they seem awfully quick to make themselves into 'gods', if
you will—the 'experts' being the final authority on any issue. Call me crazy, but
I always question authority and for my own good. Maybe I am just a rebellious
spirit, but often my unwillingness to follow blindly has served me well.

Let's consider quantum physics for a moment. The popularized view of this came as
a result of the film “The Secret”. You can find any number of sites that wish to
have your money in order to teach you to make your own miracles. Aside from the
commercialization aspect of it, I can accept the concept and have used it in my
own life to some success. My problem is that I wasn't taught this from my
childhood, so it isn't second nature to me yet.

Anyway, back to quantum mechanics. It seems that three scientists can observe the
same phenomena and will observe three separate and mutually exclusive events in
motion. They will argue that each of the others must be 'mistaken, because those
events cannot possibly all have happened, even separately, let alone
concurrently'. No matter, all are correct, it would seem. How can that be? It
appears that matter responds to thought. “Mind over matter” isn't so far-fetched
after all. Not that you will any day soon be able to pick up your mother-in-law
and fling her into the neighbor's pool via thought waves alone, service to mankind
as that may be.

So—matter responding to thought—the evidence appears undeniable. We evidently do

send out signals to the universe, whether 'good vibrations' or 'bad vibes'. So,
how does this happen? It is apparent that matter must be endowed with some innate
ability to react to human thought. We are not yet certain whether it responds to
the thoughts of other life forms, but that would be an interesting research
project for a government grant, would it not? But how does that happen? How can
inanimate material respond to thought? There is only one way that I can see—and
some of you are not going to like the answer. Okay, maybe two reasons and I will
be fair and mention them both.

The first possibility—perhaps our thoughts are able to influence unintelligent,

inanimate materials strictly via some 'sub-space interference', for lack of a
better term. The problem I have with this reasoning is that the matter being
affected has no way of discriminating how it is being acted upon in order to react
appropriately. The second and more probable mechanism, the one that will draw the
flack, is that this supposedly unintelligent matter is actually endowed with some
degree of intelligence. I can hear the howls right now--”Preposterous! Improbable!
Impossible! Heretic! How foolish and unscientific!”

Feel better? Okay, now let me explain. From a purely logical point of view, in
order for matter to respond specifically to specific thought patterns, it must
have some manner of discriminating what the thought vibes are and what the
instructions might be. Here is where we come to the real meat of the issue.

Let's start with a few assumed points, just for the sake of the argument, shall
we? Let's assume that there are a few things in the universe that are eternal. One
would be space itself. There is an eternity of space about us, plenty of room to
expand, explore, to grow and to chart. So far as we know, there is no end to it.
Another thing we might safely assume is that matter has always been here and
always will be. Whether it was in a homogeneous spread about the universe from the
start or was in a pinpoint singularity is of no concern right now. And allow me
the third eternal thing—intelligence. That will take some discussion.

No one knows the nature of intelligence. It is certainly more than just

conditioned response. And just because we cannot bottle it or measure it by means
of bells, buzzers and meters does not negate the fact that it exists. If it were
simply conditioned response, we would not have I.Q. Tests. Wouldn't a Pavlovian
test be sufficient, if that were the case? “Okay, Joe, you are more susceptible to
the sound of crickets than you thought. You fall asleep far more easily than the
average person when you hear them.” Obviously it is more than this, but beyond our
ability to explain right now.

So, let's start with this matter of matter endowed with intelligence (sorry,
couldn't resist). The Bible says that God commands the elements and they obey. How
is it possible to obey if they are not endowed with intelligence? That they are
predisposed to act in a certain way is obvious. Chemistry tells us that. And yet
there are different reactions at the quantum level. At this level, according to
the latest theories, fine matter and energy are constantly changing places and are
in flux. (This may be how Tesla and Moray knew to draw unlimited energy from the
'aether'). Is it not then possible that these observable 'reactions' are energy
converting into tangible matter as a result of the catalyst of thought? Strange as
it may sound to us, there is no reason to think it impossible at this stage. It
would also explain how matter could 'obey'. It isn't that difficult to imagine
that a sufficiently developed intellect might have learned to have greater control
and influence over the elements. After all, don't we flatter ourselves by assuming
we can eventually have total control and understanding of all things? Are we not
striving to be gods?

Reminds me of an experience I had years ago as a missionary in Canada. We chanced

to talk to a man who was a self-professed atheist. When we started to share our
message, he began to smile with a condescending grin that was meant to tell us we
should expect to get nowhere with him. As he was about to turn away and close his
door, I have no doubt that a stroke of inspiration came over me, because I was
shocked to hear the words that came out of my own mouth. “Do you believe in
UFO's?” Well, the door that had a moment before been closing to only an inch now
came wide open again and a look of interest replaced the previous look of
amusement. Suddenly it hit me—if he didn't believe in God, he had to believe in
something and that something was science. So, I followed that line of reasoning
and continued.

He agreed that he did believe in UFO's and that they were much further advanced
than we were and that they had to have either been able to lengthen their life-
spans or overcome death or have suspended animation techniques in order to travel
such great distances (this was before wormholes had gained much of a foothold in
the public thought). So I asked him if he thought they had anti-gravity devices.
Yes, he said. Then maybe they could cause a man to walk on water or ascend into
the heavens without visible means and maybe we would even call them gods. Such a
look of terror I had never seen but once before on a man. Suddenly he announced
that he was very busy and had to go. The door closed before we could get a chance
to arrange to meet again. We came by in a few more days and he only peeked through
the curtains and wouldn't open up for anything. Again he was "very busy."

What happened here was that I had shook his set of beliefs and shown him that
maybe science and religion could go hand-in-hand after all. He wasn't prepared for
that. He didn't want to accept that. There had been a thought presented to him so
disruptive that it shook the very foundations he had built his intellectual life
on. While he was guarding the front door, I had come in the back, so to speak. And
it scared him to no end. That is precisely why I question authority. Perhaps in
another blog post I should get into the mathematical improbability of evolution--
as stated by scientists themselves.

It is just as easy to shake a seasoned believer, if you come from the right angle.
I learned this years ago, as a still-green believer myself. This was an incident
with the other man who had a look of terror that I referred to earlier. Let me say
here that I do not delight in scaring people out of their beliefs--it is not a
hobby or anything like that. But I do believe that when a person builds his belief
system on false premises, he sets himself up for a resounding fall. That is what
happened with a minister I knew.

This minister had previously baptized me into the Church of Christ. I stayed with
them about a year, but never felt that this congregation was more than a social
group. I didn't feel the spirit of God there. Add to this the fact that I wasn't
truly converted and you can see why I fell away into drugs and immoral behavior--
the way of the world. But then I did have a genuine spiritual experience that
convinced me of the existence of God. And a second witness confirmed I was not
hallucinating it. The revelation that I received was information that was unique
to the Latter-day Saints doctrine (Mormons), a group I was wholly unfamiliar with.
The experience changed me overnight and I went from my parents not knowing if I
was alive or dead or where I was for a week or two at a time to suddenly being
home every night and reading the Bible. You can imagine the shock my parents
experienced.

About six months later, two LDS missionaries came to the door. I was home alone,
would previously have told them I wasn't interested and my folks weren't home.
This time I asked them in and listened intently--and the unique information and
set of beliefs they shared rang true with the revelation I had been given six
months earlier--in other words, I had been prepared to recognize the same
doctrines when I would hear them again. But,, this set the stage for my encounter
with the minister.

My sister, by then, had started to go to a church--another congregation of the

same Church of Christ I had been in. Well, she must have mentioned her brother was
studying with the 'Mormons' and bang! out of the woodwork came all the ministers
they could find--to save me from the 'Mormons'. Problem was that they couldn't
answer any questions I had to instruct me, but they certainly knew how to
regurgitate the false claims and lies they had been taught to parrot (not much
research was needed to find out that mostof it was manufactured and slanderous,
while the rest was often no more than twisted misrepresentation). What amazed me
was that they had never cared to save me from drugs and immorality--just from the
'Mormons'. Does this show a lack of proper reasoning and a strong, irrational
bias, or am I mistaken?

To shorten the story a bit, around this time I also had a meeting with the
minister who had baptized me into that denomination previously. I told him I
thought the true church would have, as the Bible said, the signs that would verify
its authenticity--healing of the sick, raising the dead and so forth. And that
there would be living Apostles and Prophets and revelation in our time, if the
true church were here. He, too, responded with a condescending grin and flipped to
a New Testament verse that read what powers were entrusted to the early Apostles
and then concluded that, since they were now dead, all their powers were removed
from the earth, also. I was just green enough to ask the question he never thought
I would have. I had noticed (like a neon light in the dark) that in the list of
powers and authorities he had read me, there was also listed the authority to
baptize--yet he had said all of these powers were now gone with the death of these
men. When I asked if he really had authority to baptize me or not, he went white
and his mouth dropped open and he tried with great difficulty to speak coherently
and couldn't provide an answer. In fact, he tried to change the subject. I then
asserted that it was my eternal salvation we were talking about and asked again if
he had authority to baptize me. He left and never came back again. He was visibly
terrorized by the thought that he might have been living a lie and never knew it.
I came in the back door, in a manner of speaking, when he was watching the front.

But again (since I digressed), to get back to the original issue, why be so eager
to dismiss God and yet be so quick to think we are the gods of our own existence?
There is so much unexplained and so much to learn. And just because one might
think there is a lack of evidence for something does not automatically rule out
the existence of it. As for me, I have already proven that God exists. I cannot do
this for you, though. You must do that for yourself. This is not an experiment you
can do from an observer's position, however. You must 'get into the test tube'
with Him and be part of the equation. Only through interaction of components will
you see the reaction. You are the catalyst in this instance. I have been satisfied
in this respect and it is my sincere hope that you may be, also. After all, if God
thinks of us as His children and we can become heirs of all he has, shouldn't we
wish to know our relationship to Him and desire to be proven trustworthy with that
kind of power? What an adventure is yet to come!

I have only an A.A.S. degree, but I am still able to read and study and decide
what makes sense to me and what doesn't. I am willing to be set straight on those
matters where I am unenlightened or mistaken. Please, no attacks on my character--
I want truth more than anything. Do you? Personal opinion, at some point, must be
put on the altar and burned as a sacrifice to find truth, whatever the subject and
whomever the source. Otherwise, it only calls itself education, but is a pale
imposter.

Should you desire to contact me, you may do so at anovelapproach@writeme.com.

Steven G. O'Dell, Mar. 16, 2009