| For years scientists have been telling us
| |
| | implementation of the laws of nature on
|
| how the universe began. Do we really
| |
| | every level. So, it might be more
|
| know? Or do we need another six billions
| |
| | scientific to take this into account
|
| years to figure it out?To date, our space
| |
| | rather than adopt a fantasy which cannot
|
| explorations, manned and unmanned, have
| |
| | be scientifically or logically
|
| uncovered a world of intriguing,
| |
| | substantiated.THE DOUBLE STANDARDThere
|
| perplexing, puzzling, fascinating, and
| |
| | seems to be a double standard in logic by
|
| even awe-inspiring phenomena. Whether we
| |
| | which some people accept scientific
|
| understand it or not, the universe we
| |
| | theories. When the layman accepts
|
| live in seems to be a highly organized
| |
| | theories of evolution without possessing
|
| system or set of smaller systems
| |
| | much knowledge of them, he obviously puts
|
| functioning in harmony. All of its
| |
| | his trust and faith in those who
|
| components work within a framework of
| |
| | perpetuate these theories. This trust is
|
| very structured, precise, and clearly
| |
| | sometimes expressed as "they're the
|
| defined laws of nature. If this were not
| |
| | scientists, they must know what they're
|
| so, the universe could not possibly have
| |
| | talking about." And it is this kind of
|
| survived in its present state of
| |
| | blind allegiance which sets the layman's
|
| complexity for any long period of time,
| |
| | science-related logic on a different
|
| certainly not for thousands of years. If
| |
| | level than the logic he uses in daily
|
| the laws of gravity were to cease
| |
| | life.How so?To date, virtually every
|
| functioning for only one moment, all
| |
| | planet and moon explored in our solar
|
| orbiting bodies throughout the universe
| |
| | system has proved to be full of
|
| would move into different orbits. For
| |
| | inexplicable puzzles, mysteries, and
|
| life on earth, this would be
| |
| | contradictions of theories (as pointed
|
| catastrophic. If the "strong force" which
| |
| | out in other chapters in
|
| holds together sub-atomic particles were
| |
| | EvolutionDead.com). Some of these
|
| to cease functioning, all matter in the
| |
| | discoveries are beyond present scientific
|
| universe would disintegrate. Obviously,
| |
| | understanding. Some are even beyond
|
| the laws of nature function every moment
| |
| | anything we expect to understand in years
|
| of every day, with utmost precision.Our
| |
| | to come. In addition, some events outside
|
| universe contains atomic and sub-atomic
| |
| | our solar system are so baffling that
|
| particles not visible to the naked eye
| |
| | scientists can only explain them with
|
| and sometimes not even visible with
| |
| | strange entities like black holes and
|
| sophisticated instruments. It also
| |
| | quasars, which are themselves only
|
| contains planets, stars, huge galaxies
| |
| | theoretical. Some events outside our
|
| spanning hundreds of thousands of
| |
| | solar system cannot be explained even
|
| lightyears across space -- some of which
| |
| | with theoretical science. Some events on
|
| are so far from earth that they appear as
| |
| | the quantum level are so baffling that
|
| mere specks in the sky -- and galaxies
| |
| | they seem to defy common sense and
|
| billions of lightyears apart. The laws of
| |
| | logic.So, how is it that when it comes to
|
| nature are so complex that they support
| |
| | explaining "how it all began," scientists
|
| millions of forms of life on our planet
| |
| | give the impression of having a
|
| while maintaining the integrity of the
| |
| | sufficient understanding of the laws of
|
| cosmos as a whole. It would be difficult,
| |
| | nature governing the entire universe
|
| if not impossible, for the most
| |
| | allegedly billions of years ago? Wouldn't
|
| intelligent human being to even imagine a
| |
| | one first need at least an impeccable
|
| more complex system, let alone come up
| |
| | understanding of what is happening in his
|
| with a functioning design of anything
| |
| | own backyard, our solar system, before
|
| nearly as complex.And as much as modern
| |
| | explaining the mechanics of the entire
|
| man has already learned, we're just
| |
| | universe? Surely the entire universe is
|
| beginning to see the tip of the iceberg
| |
| | more complex than our "puny little" solar
|
| concerning the complexities of the laws
| |
| | system. And wouldn't such an "expert"
|
| of nature. There have been people who
| |
| | have to possess an impeccable
|
| have devoted virtually their entire lives
| |
| | understanding of quantum mechanics as
|
| to discovering and studying the laws of
| |
| | well as the mechanics of distant heavenly
|
| nature. Doctors have studied medicine.
| |
| | bodies in his own time before attempting
|
| Astronomers have studied the skies.
| |
| | to describe events which allegedly
|
| Biologists have studied vast numbers of
| |
| | brought all of these entities into
|
| life forms. Physicists have studied the
| |
| | existence billions of years ago?
|
| laws of nature governing the cosmos right
| |
| | Certainly events billions of years in the
|
| down to those governing events on the
| |
| | past cannot be easier to decipher than
|
| quantum level. And the list goes on. Yet,
| |
| | events in our own time. So how can anyone
|
| not one of these endeavors has thus far
| |
| | seriously claim to understand how our
|
| resulted in the complete knowledge of
| |
| | universe developed into its present
|
| even one subject. I'm not talking about
| |
| | state?Perhaps it is necessary to go into
|
| knowing everything about every subject.
| |
| | the dimensions of our universe to put
|
| I'm talking about knowing everything
| |
| | this question into proper perspective:The
|
| about only one subject. It hasn't
| |
| | diameter of our sun is about 865,400
|
| happened yet. And you'd think that after
| |
| | miles. Our solar system is about 9
|
| all the scientific discoveries,
| |
| | billion miles in diameter. Our nearest
|
| achievements, and sophistication of the
| |
| | neighbors outside our solar system are
|
| twenty-first century, such knowledge
| |
| | the stars Proxima and Alpha Centtauri,
|
| might at least lie in the foreseeable
| |
| | each about 4 lightyears away. (One
|
| future. But that doesn't seem to be the
| |
| | lightyear is about 6 trillion miles, the
|
| case either. In many instances, it's
| |
| | distance light travels -- at 186,000
|
| quite the contrary. Some branches of
| |
| | miles per second -- in one year.) These
|
| science seem to become increasingly
| |
| | stars are only two of the billions of
|
| elusive in direct proportion to our
| |
| | stars which make up our galaxy, the Milky
|
| sophistication. For the "cut and dried"
| |
| | Way. An average galaxy is believed to
|
| physical world this is supposed to be,
| |
| | have a diameter of approximately 100,000
|
| this kind of complexity almost rivals
| |
| | lightyears. The Milky Way is only one
|
| spiritualism itself.Now, an intelligent
| |
| | galaxy in a local group of 30 galaxies
|
| person would ask himself, "Where did all
| |
| | spanning a total of about 3 million
|
| this complex ingenuity come from?"A 'BIG
| |
| | lightyears across space -- if you
|
| BANG?'There is a theory generally
| |
| | travelled at the unimaginable speed of
|
| referred to by scientists as the "big
| |
| | light, it would take you about 3 million
|
| bang." No, it has nothing to do with the
| |
| | years to cross this local group of only
|
| fourth of July. When the fourth of July
| |
| | 30 galaxies.It is estimated that there
|
| ends, we're usually left with a lot of
| |
| | are at least fifty billion galaxies in
|
| exploded shreds of garbage. When this
| |
| | the universe.When you think about these
|
| purported "big bang" ended, it allegedly
| |
| | proportions for a moment, you begin to
|
| left us with debris which somehow evolved
| |
| | realize the awesomeness of this place we
|
| into a highly complex and organized
| |
| | so casually refer to as our
|
| universe. How? Beats the heck out me.
| |
| | universe.Then, after hearing the theories
|
| Let's see if it beats the heck out of
| |
| | behind the phenomena believed to exist
|
| you.Big-bang theorists hold that the
| |
| | deep in space -- black holes,
|
| universe roughly fifteen or twenty
| |
| | supergiants, supernovae, quasars,
|
| billion years ago. There was this
| |
| | pulsars, neutron stars -- you begin to
|
| "something or other" which exploded.
| |
| | realize that the "other end" of the
|
| Since then the universe has been
| |
| | universe is not only far away but also
|
| expanding. Everything in it evolved from
| |
| | holds wonders which only a few years ago
|
| the stuff of that explosion.Let's see if
| |
| | would have been considered somewhere
|
| we understand this. In spite of the fact
| |
| | between science fiction and the absurd.
|
| that just about any kind of an explosion
| |
| | Even today, most of these objects are
|
| we could cause would result in nothing
| |
| | speculative and far from pat concepts.Is
|
| but chaos and destruction, we're being
| |
| | this the universe which came into
|
| told, against all logic, that an
| |
| | existence through a series of accidents
|
| explosion is what began the process of
| |
| | billions of years ago? And who are the
|
| building the inconceivably complex system
| |
| | ones perpetuating this? The same people
|
| we now call our universe. Isn't that a
| |
| | who have given us "pat" answers about our
|
| bit like saying that if you blew up a
| |
| | own solar system in our own time?We do
|
| Rubik's cube the little pieces could
| |
| | not yet understand how phenomena deep in
|
| conceivably become more complex than the
| |
| | space work in our time. We do not yet
|
| original cube? It is common sense that an
| |
| | understand how our solar system works in
|
| explosion will create a general state of
| |
| | our time. We do not yet completely
|
| fragmentation and disarray. After ripping
| |
| | understand how our own planet, earth,
|
| a system apart, isn't it rather absurd to
| |
| | works in our time. We do not yet
|
| expect the resulting chaos to become more
| |
| | understand how many living organisms on
|
| intricate and organized than the original
| |
| | our planet work in our time. We do not
|
| system? When you think about it, after an
| |
| | yet understand how even some small
|
| explosion, it is unrealistic to expect a
| |
| | organisms of the bacteria and virus
|
| system to even maintain its previous
| |
| | variety work in our time. We do not yet
|
| level of complexity, let alone evolve
| |
| | understand how sub-atomic particles, so
|
| into something more complex.An example:
| |
| | fundamental to our existence, work in our
|
| If you took every nut, bolt, and part
| |
| | time. But, somehow, we do understand the
|
| necessary for the construction of a car,
| |
| | process which allegedly brought all of
|
| piled them up on top of a bomb, and blew
| |
| | this into being billions of years ago and
|
| them up, would you ever expect the parts
| |
| | caused it to evolve. Is someone pulling
|
| to fall down into a functioning car by
| |
| | our leg?How can anyone simply accept
|
| mere chance? How many times would you say
| |
| | theories of how a universe of such
|
| you'd have to blow the pieces up to get a
| |
| | unimaginable proportions and complexity
|
| functioning car? Fifteen million?
| |
| | came into being from the same scientists
|
| Seventeen billion? Or do you think it
| |
| | who seem so confused every time we send a
|
| could never happen? Sure the pieces would
| |
| | rocket to explore an area of space only a
|
| fall into different configurations and
| |
| | stone's throw from earth? How can anyone
|
| shapes after each explosion --
| |
| | accept theories of the origin of our
|
| configurations which may be pleasant to
| |
| | universe, which implicitly include the
|
| look at with an abstract, artistic eye.
| |
| | origin of the basic elements of matter
|
| Configurations which may even inspire you
| |
| | and life, when these same elements are
|
| with thoughts like, "Where's the broom?"
| |
| | not yet understood today? Isn't it
|
| But to think that you could eventually
| |
| | obvious that our comprehension of the
|
| get into a car and drive off is confusing
| |
| | universe is shallow, at best?SHORTCOMINGS
|
| the laws of probability with intelligent
| |
| | OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIG BANGIn
|
| design. If you blow up the pieces of a
| |
| | 1998 scientists discovered something that
|
| car, all you will ever get is a pile of
| |
| | baffled the heck out of them. Our
|
| junk. And maybe a few lumps on your head
| |
| | understanding of the expanding universe
|
| from falling debris. But that's about
| |
| | was that it might eventually collapse
|
| it.The scientifically accepted theory of
| |
| | under its own gravitational pull. Or, if
|
| the origin and evolution of our universe
| |
| | its gravitational pull was not strong
|
| says, in effect, that if you blew up the
| |
| | enough, it would just keep expanding, but
|
| parts of a car you could get a lot more
| |
| | at a slower rate, much like any other
|
| than just a car -- you could accidentally
| |
| | explosion.What scientists discovered,
|
| get a supersonic jet or a space shuttle!
| |
| | however, was that the universe's rate of
|
| This is a better story than what used car
| |
| | expansion was speeding up! This was
|
| dealers give you.UNSUPPORTED BY SCIENCE
| |
| | absolutely astounding. There was, and
|
| ITSELFIf the idea that chaos cannot
| |
| | still is, no science to explain this.
|
| accidentally turn into design and
| |
| | Sure we have more theories (dark matter,
|
| organization makes sense to you,
| |
| | being the major one), but at the moment
|
| congratulations! You have something of a
| |
| | it's all a big mystery.What this boils
|
| knack for thermodynamics. The second law
| |
| | down to is that we've had pretty much of
|
| of thermodynamics states that energy
| |
| | a "pat" theory for about a half a
|
| decreases in utility, moving from a state
| |
| | century, based on what we thought was
|
| of order to disorder and finally to a
| |
| | solid science. Then, reality threw us a
|
| stage of randomness and decay.The notion
| |
| | curve, and our most fundamental
|
| that a "big bang" can be the seed for a
| |
| | understanding of the universe went out
|
| universe such as ours is in direct
| |
| | the window.WHERE'S THE LOGICThis is where
|
| violation of this law. In a big bang
| |
| | the big puzzle of the double standard
|
| scenario, rather than order turning into
| |
| | comes in. The greatest mystery of all is
|
| disorder, the precise opposite happens --
| |
| | how some people put trust and faith into
|
| chaos not only turns into organization,
| |
| | scientific theories when, given the same
|
| but into an ingenious system of mind
| |
| | circumstances in a more practical
|
| boggling complexity. This doesn't
| |
| | situation, the absurdity would be
|
| coincide with scientific principles, and
| |
| | conspicuously obvious to them. Suppose
|
| it certainly doesn't hold up
| |
| | you had your bicycle checked out by a
|
| logically.When confronted with the second
| |
| | mechanic who gave you a three hour speech
|
| law of thermodynamics as it relates to
| |
| | on how bicycles work. He described in
|
| the evolution of life, many scientists
| |
| | depth the physics of pulleys, gears,
|
| respond that this law does not apply to
| |
| | momentum, and friction, then told you
|
| an "open system." Earth, they say, is an
| |
| | that your bike was in excellent shape.
|
| open system since it is influenced by
| |
| | But the moment you got on your bike it
|
| extraterrestrial systems. So, let's say
| |
| | fell apart. Would you go back to the same
|
| you cannot use this argument against life
| |
| | "mechanic" to have your car checked out?
|
| on earth. But, how do you do away with
| |
| | Would you fly a plane that had been
|
| the second law of thermodynamics when it
| |
| | okayed by this mechanic? Who, in his
|
| comes to the entire universe? The entire
| |
| | right mind, would reason, "He may be
|
| universe cannot possibly be an open
| |
| | dishonest or ignorant about bicycles,
|
| system -- there are no outside systems to
| |
| | but, after that speech on pulleys and
|
| influence it. Even if we were to discover
| |
| | gears, he must be competent when it comes
|
| "other universes" (of anti-matter, for
| |
| | to planes and other complicated
|
| example), it would still not make our
| |
| | mechanics." Most people would not allow
|
| universe an open system. Anything we
| |
| | this crook to adjust their kites, let
|
| discover becomes part of the "big
| |
| | alone evaluate the condition of their
|
| picture" of our entire universe or part
| |
| | planes.Why, then, does it not seem odd to
|
| of one big super universe. Thus, after
| |
| | these same people that scientists have
|
| all is included, we inevitably wind up
| |
| | little problem figuring out how a vast
|
| with one huge closed system. How did this
| |
| | and complex universe with the staggering
|
| entire system turn into a workable
| |
| | dimensions of hundreds of billions of
|
| machine of inconceivable sophistication
| |
| | lightyears of space allegedly worked
|
| by accident?Answer: It didn't, because it
| |
| | billions of years ago, yet have
|
| couldn't.There is no logical or
| |
| | difficulty understanding how our "drop in
|
| scientific basis whatsoever for an entire
| |
| | the bucket" solar system works today? How
|
| universe to develop out of chaos. Such an
| |
| | do scientists go from relative ignorance
|
| occurrence would need an "outside" force.
| |
| | of the laws of nature of our own solar
|
| And since we've already included
| |
| | system in our own time to a well rounded
|
| literally "everything" in our definition
| |
| | understanding of the forces behind the
|
| of "our universe," there are no outside
| |
| | entire universe in a time long gone?The
|
| forces left. Consequently, since our
| |
| | answer, of course, is that scientists
|
| universe is in existence and is in a
| |
| | obviously do not have a well rounded
|
| complex state, its only possible origin
| |
| | understanding of the physics and
|
| would have to be a force not within the
| |
| | mechanics of our universe today, and
|
| confines of our physical world. In short,
| |
| | certainly cannot have any kind of a
|
| we'd be talking about a force unlike
| |
| | decent understanding of the universe in
|
| anything we are acquainted with on a
| |
| | the past. The objective here is not to
|
| physical or scientific level -- quite
| |
| | malign scientists. They obviously do
|
| conceivably something of a spiritual
| |
| | understand the science behind cell
|
| nature. Perhaps it is this spiritual
| |
| | phones, rockets, heart surgery, etc. We
|
| aspect, the only true logical option,
| |
| | have proof of that. But how the universe
|
| which scientists are trying to
| |
| | (or life, for that matter) began, that's
|
| avoid.Without getting involved in the
| |
| | a different story. Readily accepting
|
| spiritual implications of our physical
| |
| | accounts of the origin and evolution of
|
| universe for the moment, let us note what
| |
| | our universe only shows a tolerance for
|
| is relevant here: the structure of our
| |
| | misinformation in scientific matters
|
| universe, like genetics, shows a high
| |
| | which goes far beyond what one would
|
| degree of intelligence and sophistication
| |
| | accept in more practical circumstances.
|
| in its design and implementation. Perhaps
| |
| | If you find these theories fun, that's
|
| the intelligence required is so
| |
| | great. But if truth is of concern to you,
|
| overwhelming that some individuals simply
| |
| | proceed with caution.by Josh Greenberger
|
| find it too mind-boggling to consider.
| |
| | This has been an excerpt from his free
|
| But attributing the super-phenomenal feat
| |
| | book on evolution at
|
| of the development of our universe to an
| |
| | EvolutionDead.comJosh Greenberger: A
|
| accident of chance is not the answer.
| |
| | computer consultant for over two decades,
|
| Aside from it not being scientific, it
| |
| | the author has developed software for
|
| falls somewhat short of sound,
| |
| | such organizations as NASA's Goddard
|
| level-headed thinking. There's certainly
| |
| | Institute of Space Studies, AT&T, Charles
|
| no evidence supporting such an accident.
| |
| | Schwab, Bell Laboratories and Chase
|
| The mere existence of our universe does
| |
| | Manhattan Bank. Since 1984, the author's
|
| not prove it was formed by accident. If
| |
| | literary works have appeared in such
|
| anything, our universe does give every
| |
| | periodicals as The New York Post, The
|
| indication of having been designed with
| |
| | Daily News, The Village Voice, The Jewish
|
| intelligence. Studying just about any
| |
| | Press, and others. His articles have
|
| branch of science will tell you, without
| |
| | ranged from humor to scientific to
|
| any great reasoning abilities, that there
| |
| | topical events. Visit his site:
|
| is intelligence in the design and
| |
| | shopndrop.
|
