We know from previous posts that the Theory of Evolution is an insult to science itself. The time that would be needed for even one beneficial macro-mutation is far longer than even the Evolutionary dating of the Earth.
Beyond this we will now discuss the wing-arm problem.
In the Theory of Evolution, the arms of a land animal (for example) would over millions of years 'evolve' into a pair of wings. If we distill our common sense and take the rest of the theory seriously, there is still a major problem with this part of the theory.
During the in-between stages of an arm-wing, the appendage would become more and more worthless as it approached a true wing.
Flaws of the Arm-Wing
-Cannot hold or grab things
-Has less strength than an arm
-Has less dexterity than an arm
-Are easier to break than an arm
-Cannot be used to fly
-Offset body balance
In short, the Arm-Wing would be dead weight. Such mutations would not be useful to the animal involved, and would make it LESS successful than its 'normal' brothers and sisters. Evolution is based on the "Survival of the Fittest." A mutant animal would be the first to die in the transition period (which is supposed to last millions of years). Even if it survives and reproduces, its descendants for thousands of generations would also be at a disadvantage. The "Survival of the Fittest" would kill anything that altered from the norm before it was able to find a use for its defect.
This problem is apparent in not just arm-wings, but also in every mutation in history. A horse growing its neck longer (to become a giraffe) would find its body unbalanced and have a hard time just walking around. It's blood wouldn't be able to flow through all the extra body space because the heart wasn't affected by the mutation. Perhaps the bones were mutated to be longer, but not the muscles--killing the horse before it was born.
Eyes supposedly formed from light-sensitive patches of skin. These patches would have caused the animal pain and confusion and would have again been extra weight.
I hope you see by now, that just because a mutation for an "improvement" is made doesn't mean that the rest of the body can adjust to that change. Also, the mutation will not become useful for thousands of generations and will be a huge hindrance the whole time. It is clear at this point that the Theory of Evolution is illogical.
Questions? Comments? Leave a comment or the cyber-ghost will haunt you.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Origins Part 8: Math is Fun!
Again, I must advise you to read all other posts before reading this one. If you do not, you will be more confused than a pumpkin.
We have seen that life could not have formed from non-life. Now I intend to briefly explain why the “evolution” of one species to another is illogical.
There are two theorized types of evolution: macro and micro. Both are theorized to work in approximately the same way. As DNA is being copied during reproduction, a mistake is made in the code. As you make more and more copies, imagine a genetic photo-copy machine, the clarity and quality of the code begins to fade. Remember the rules of thermodynamics: everything goes from a higher, more complex quality to a lower, less complex quality.
Although only one mutation occurs at a time, except in extreme situations like nuclear radiation, the mutation can take several forms: An addition, a subtraction, or duplication. Mutations can also occur on various levels: a single amino acid or an entire gene.
How often do mutations take place? Almost never. Mutations are quite a rare phenomenon. Also, remember that not all mutations will take place in reproductive cells. Most of them happen in the rest of your body where they either have no effect or cause cancer. Of those that form in reproductive cells, the chance that that cell will actually be the one chosen to create another person is slim.
Micro-evolution occurs in the real world. It is the only form of mutation that has ever been recorded. Micro-evolution is when an organism receives a mutated genetic makeup that is equally or less-complex than that of the parents. A lizard with spots may birth a lizard without spots, or spots of a different color. Bacteria may be formed that is immune to certain medicines, but vulnerable to others. Flies may be hatched with legs coming out of their heads.
Macro-evolution, which supposedly gives the offspring genetic material more complex than its parents, has never been observed in all of recorded history, among thousands of distinct species with untold populations. Ants alone out-populate all other animals combined. One would think that if macro-evolution were an actual event, it would have been seen some time during written history, especially with all the procreation being done by ants, mosquitoes, bacteria, and grass. An animal, plant, bacteria, or mold that formed through beneficial macro-evolution would, according to the evolutionary theory, be a level above the rest of its species and environment. That hasn’t happened in all of written history. We could not have missed it because it would be quite drastic, really. If the Egyptians wrote about riding around on land-sharks as an everyday activity, then evolution would have some sort of evidence.
Evolutionists try to get around this disturbing lack of new species by saying that the process moves really slow. They claim that over billions of years, these genetic mutations happened over long periods to create bigger and better life forms. Let’s look at the math. There are an estimated 10 quadrillion ants alive in the world today (source below). None of them have evolved in a beneficial way. Now let us pretend, as a favor to the evolutionists, that there was one beneficial mutation among all the ants alive today. If we take that rate, and divide it by the reproduction cycle of an amoeba (which is closest to the supposed first life form) of two days (source below), then we get this equation:
10 Quadrillion / (365 days in a year/2 days) = 10 Quadrillion / 183 = 54 Trillion years
54 Trillion!!! This means that the time needed for the FIRST beneficial evolutionary mutation is 54 Trillion years!!! The evolutionary theory claims the earth did not even exist until 4.5 billion years ago! Life supposedly began a mere 1 billion years ago! Do you see a problem with the math?
And that is just the ants, meaning that the number of 54 trillion is way too small! If we add in the population of every species of life on earth that has ever lived in all recorded history, the number 54 trillion will look like a crumb on the sidewalk next to the skyscraper that is the time needed for just one positive mutation.
If you want, read this article and apply your new knowledge to it.
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/life_origins_001205.html
Sounds pretty silly, doesn’t it?
Sources
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_ants_are_there_in_the_world
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060914103932AAYe9QjSunday, September 26, 2010
Origins Part 7: Frankenstein Goes for a Swim
Please make sure to read all previous chapters in order before reading this part or you will be very confused. I will not be explaining things I have already talked about in this post.
We've discovered in previous posts that the world is under 10,000 years old. Life would not have had time to "evolve" in that period of time, so we almost don't have to talk about how rediculous the idea of evolution is. Almost.
In a recent laboratory experiment, some scientists were able to replicate a simple amino acid. They then declared that they had proven that life could form under natural causes in a pre-life world. Is this a logical conclusion?
Nope. In creating amino acids in a controlled laboratory setting, they proved that amino acids could be formed in a controlled laboratory setting. Laboratories are not the same as natural, uncontrolled swamps from "billions of years ago" that may or may not have existed. Is there an evolutionist out there who thinks there was a fully sterile lab set up for amino acids to form in with scientists constantly combining only the right chemicals in only the right amount and in the right patterns?
Also, when they created the amino acid, they failed to mention that it was equal parts right and left handedness. Hands? Handedness basically means which direction it is facing, like your hands. It makes sense that the acids would be half and half, because it's just like flipping a coin. In life, however, all amino acids are left handed. That would be like flipping a coin and getting heads 100 times in a row. This is for each amino acid, which is made of hundreds of molecules. Many proteans are made of hundreds of amino amino acids. Each gene in DNA is made of multiple proteans. DNA is smaller than a virus and is surrounded by highly organized organelles and a cell wall- all made of proteans. If you can flip coins that all land head side up and eventually they all just happen to form a life size model of New York City, give me a call.
Upon any thought at all about molecules, amino acids, and proteans, you begin to realize how silly the idea that life originated from a swamp really is. Then you remember that this can't just be a random arrangement of legos, this single cell is more complex than the entirety of human society. This cell actually has to have life put into it- Frankenstein anyone? Then it needs the capacity to eat, which would probably be sunlight and a pre-existing abundance of fully functional solar powered generators that run of Chlorophyll. These generators also need to be already functioning and a delivery system must also be active and in place to bring the food to important places around the cell.
The cell also has to be able to get rid of waste, and have the know-how to actually do it. It needs to have gasses to intake (yes, even plants need oxygen, as well as carbon) and the ability to do so. Does this sound like something that just happens without any reason?
I don't even want to start talking about splitting cells. In short, the first cell would need to be able to split and survive the split. As the evolutionary theory claims, eventually a two cell organism would form. This is so bigger life-forms can come to be. Unfortunately for them, there are no 2 celled life forms. In fact, there are no 3, 4, or 5 celled life forms either. There is a 6 cell life form, but it's a parasite and cannot live without bigger creatures. Twenty is the number of cells which the second generation of cells would need to aspire to. Can you imagine having a baby that is 20 times your size? I'm thinking the theory of life in a swamp is dead at this point.
So how did life form? It sure wasn't an accident. The complex functions of all life leads us to believe that there was a plan from the beginning. Life was formed with the help of thought and blueprints. It doesn't take a genius to realize this intelligence is God. God planned how life would work and built living creatures with astonishing care and detail.
We've discovered in previous posts that the world is under 10,000 years old. Life would not have had time to "evolve" in that period of time, so we almost don't have to talk about how rediculous the idea of evolution is. Almost.
In a recent laboratory experiment, some scientists were able to replicate a simple amino acid. They then declared that they had proven that life could form under natural causes in a pre-life world. Is this a logical conclusion?
Nope. In creating amino acids in a controlled laboratory setting, they proved that amino acids could be formed in a controlled laboratory setting. Laboratories are not the same as natural, uncontrolled swamps from "billions of years ago" that may or may not have existed. Is there an evolutionist out there who thinks there was a fully sterile lab set up for amino acids to form in with scientists constantly combining only the right chemicals in only the right amount and in the right patterns?
Also, when they created the amino acid, they failed to mention that it was equal parts right and left handedness. Hands? Handedness basically means which direction it is facing, like your hands. It makes sense that the acids would be half and half, because it's just like flipping a coin. In life, however, all amino acids are left handed. That would be like flipping a coin and getting heads 100 times in a row. This is for each amino acid, which is made of hundreds of molecules. Many proteans are made of hundreds of amino amino acids. Each gene in DNA is made of multiple proteans. DNA is smaller than a virus and is surrounded by highly organized organelles and a cell wall- all made of proteans. If you can flip coins that all land head side up and eventually they all just happen to form a life size model of New York City, give me a call.
Upon any thought at all about molecules, amino acids, and proteans, you begin to realize how silly the idea that life originated from a swamp really is. Then you remember that this can't just be a random arrangement of legos, this single cell is more complex than the entirety of human society. This cell actually has to have life put into it- Frankenstein anyone? Then it needs the capacity to eat, which would probably be sunlight and a pre-existing abundance of fully functional solar powered generators that run of Chlorophyll. These generators also need to be already functioning and a delivery system must also be active and in place to bring the food to important places around the cell.
The cell also has to be able to get rid of waste, and have the know-how to actually do it. It needs to have gasses to intake (yes, even plants need oxygen, as well as carbon) and the ability to do so. Does this sound like something that just happens without any reason?
I don't even want to start talking about splitting cells. In short, the first cell would need to be able to split and survive the split. As the evolutionary theory claims, eventually a two cell organism would form. This is so bigger life-forms can come to be. Unfortunately for them, there are no 2 celled life forms. In fact, there are no 3, 4, or 5 celled life forms either. There is a 6 cell life form, but it's a parasite and cannot live without bigger creatures. Twenty is the number of cells which the second generation of cells would need to aspire to. Can you imagine having a baby that is 20 times your size? I'm thinking the theory of life in a swamp is dead at this point.
So how did life form? It sure wasn't an accident. The complex functions of all life leads us to believe that there was a plan from the beginning. Life was formed with the help of thought and blueprints. It doesn't take a genius to realize this intelligence is God. God planned how life would work and built living creatures with astonishing care and detail.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Origins Part 6: The Circle of Life?
So, if we can conclude that the earth is, in fact, 10,000 years old or younger, what does that mean?
Logically, we can deduce that the entire theory of evolution is a lie.
The theory of evolution calls for millions of years of life-forms reproducing and dying. Naturally, these creatures would need a planet to live on during those millions of years. Since we have deduced that there was no earth millions of years ago, there could not have been any creatures millions of years ago.
"But what about those fossils?" a fellow student once asked me. Does the existence of fossils provide evidence for evolution?
Well, what is a fossil? Fossils are the remains of an organism that are preserved inside rock layers that were suddenly laid down by water. Fossils do not form over millions of years. The remains of any organism will decay entirely in only a few thousand years. In order for a fossil to be formed, a phenomenon must occur that flash-freezes and contains a creature with a huge amount of pressure instantly.
The only event in history that could have caused fossils to form would be the world-wide Flood. Now, if you are like my 8th grade biology teacher, and your response to this is "yes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes..." then you need to read that statement again. I did not say floods, but rather The World-Wide Flood. Only an event of this magnitude could possibly create a fossil. It is the only thing that could create so sudden a temperature change. It is the only thing that could kill billions of life-forms and cover them in rock layers via a huge amount of water. I will explain more about the flood in a later post.
"What about carbon-dating?" Carbon Dating is inaccurate. This is not a secret. It assumes that the sample is in a closed environment, and that nothing has changed the atmosphere or the sample during all the time it has been decomposing. Rocks have been carbon dated to millions of years, with a tree stump inside them dated to only a few thousand years. Most carbon-dated numbers you will see will be "selected dates," and those are less than half of the results that are found. The other half are rejected because they don't fit the "evolutionary theory."
Still think life has existed for more than 10,000 years? Lets look at human population. At a 0.5% population growth, which is only 1/4 of the constant growth throughout history, the human race would reach its current population in only 4,000 years. Notice how that number is not million of years. Wars, disease, and disasters are already accounted for in the 2% population growth.
Interesting note, the World-Wide Flood is dated 4000 years ago. During that event, all but 8 humans were killed, essentially restarting the population growth. The math works, not to mention that there are surviving records of family lines going back past the flood that agree with this account. Hmmm.
Comments? Questions? Leave a comment, or the cyber ghost will haunt you.
Logically, we can deduce that the entire theory of evolution is a lie.
The theory of evolution calls for millions of years of life-forms reproducing and dying. Naturally, these creatures would need a planet to live on during those millions of years. Since we have deduced that there was no earth millions of years ago, there could not have been any creatures millions of years ago.
"But what about those fossils?" a fellow student once asked me. Does the existence of fossils provide evidence for evolution?
Well, what is a fossil? Fossils are the remains of an organism that are preserved inside rock layers that were suddenly laid down by water. Fossils do not form over millions of years. The remains of any organism will decay entirely in only a few thousand years. In order for a fossil to be formed, a phenomenon must occur that flash-freezes and contains a creature with a huge amount of pressure instantly.
The only event in history that could have caused fossils to form would be the world-wide Flood. Now, if you are like my 8th grade biology teacher, and your response to this is "yes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes..." then you need to read that statement again. I did not say floods, but rather The World-Wide Flood. Only an event of this magnitude could possibly create a fossil. It is the only thing that could create so sudden a temperature change. It is the only thing that could kill billions of life-forms and cover them in rock layers via a huge amount of water. I will explain more about the flood in a later post.
"What about carbon-dating?" Carbon Dating is inaccurate. This is not a secret. It assumes that the sample is in a closed environment, and that nothing has changed the atmosphere or the sample during all the time it has been decomposing. Rocks have been carbon dated to millions of years, with a tree stump inside them dated to only a few thousand years. Most carbon-dated numbers you will see will be "selected dates," and those are less than half of the results that are found. The other half are rejected because they don't fit the "evolutionary theory."
Still think life has existed for more than 10,000 years? Lets look at human population. At a 0.5% population growth, which is only 1/4 of the constant growth throughout history, the human race would reach its current population in only 4,000 years. Notice how that number is not million of years. Wars, disease, and disasters are already accounted for in the 2% population growth.
Interesting note, the World-Wide Flood is dated 4000 years ago. During that event, all but 8 humans were killed, essentially restarting the population growth. The math works, not to mention that there are surviving records of family lines going back past the flood that agree with this account. Hmmm.
Comments? Questions? Leave a comment, or the cyber ghost will haunt you.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Origins Part 5: Older than Dirt
How old is the earth?
I hope you have read the other posts before this, because I don't feel like repeating explanations of the laws of time and thermodynamics.
How do you tell how old something is? Usually, you look for trends associated with aging and try to figure it out that way. Carbon-dating is a popular but inaccurate method, as it assumes that the samples are not affected by their surroundings in terms of carbon.
Carbon tests of historically chronicled hardened lava yielded the result of several million years. A chicken bone from a two-year dead chicken also yielded a huge amount of time. Apparently, Carbon dating is unacceptably inaccurate.
However, there are other tests that can tell us an estimate of how old the earth is. The earth's magnetic field drops drastically every year. By putting the equation in backwards, we can see that 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a field greater than that of the sun. Since this scenario seems unlikely, we can assume that the earth is under 10,000 years old.
The moon is gradually getting closer to the earth. Again, working backwards, it would have been outside of the planet's gravitational pull 10,000 years ago.
From this data, we can conclude that the world is indeed under 10,000 years old.
"But, what about all the millions of years I learned about in school?" is probably what you're saying now. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those millions of years were a bunch of fairy tales that you should never have been taught in a serious learning environment. Why would someone lie to you about this on so large a scale? I will try to address that in a later post. In the meantime, you should post a comment below.
I hope you have read the other posts before this, because I don't feel like repeating explanations of the laws of time and thermodynamics.
How do you tell how old something is? Usually, you look for trends associated with aging and try to figure it out that way. Carbon-dating is a popular but inaccurate method, as it assumes that the samples are not affected by their surroundings in terms of carbon.
Carbon tests of historically chronicled hardened lava yielded the result of several million years. A chicken bone from a two-year dead chicken also yielded a huge amount of time. Apparently, Carbon dating is unacceptably inaccurate.
However, there are other tests that can tell us an estimate of how old the earth is. The earth's magnetic field drops drastically every year. By putting the equation in backwards, we can see that 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a field greater than that of the sun. Since this scenario seems unlikely, we can assume that the earth is under 10,000 years old.
The moon is gradually getting closer to the earth. Again, working backwards, it would have been outside of the planet's gravitational pull 10,000 years ago.
From this data, we can conclude that the world is indeed under 10,000 years old.
"But, what about all the millions of years I learned about in school?" is probably what you're saying now. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those millions of years were a bunch of fairy tales that you should never have been taught in a serious learning environment. Why would someone lie to you about this on so large a scale? I will try to address that in a later post. In the meantime, you should post a comment below.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Origins Part 4: Shapes
With dimensions to put matter in, we can now discuss how actual physical things were formed.
The widely spread idea that gravity pulled matter together after the mythical "big bang" holds many logical flaws. First of all, reasons why the "big bang" could never have occurred are explained in my previous posts. Secondly, in an explosion, objects move away from each other. If gravity were to pull two pieces of matter together, it would have been easiest to do at the beginning, right as the "big bang" was taking place. This would have resulted in the pre-universe object not having split at all, as it would have just held itself together with gravity. If gravity did not pull the matter together right away, it would never have been able to pull it together afterwards.
For an example of how objects move away from each other, please look at your hand. Notice how your fingers are closer to each other at their bases, and how they move farther away from each other as they extend. I'm surprised that anyone with a hand could believe that gravity drew matter together after a "big bang." Some would claim that gravity just wasn't strong enough. All I need to refute this argument is two words: black holes.
So where did galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets come from? In the First-Person shooter game Halo, designers had to input complicated mathematical codes in order to create three dimensional shapes. The Halo world is only a shadow world, meaning that it has no real substance to it, only numbers. This means that our world is infinitely more complex than Halo. If our reality were in some sort of computer program, then our reality would be nothing but a shadow compared to the world of the designer. That world would be infinitely more complex than our own.
Does there need to be a designer? Yes. Computers don't program themselves. Halo took lots of work and math, and that world is much simpler than ours, so our world would take a being infinitely more intelligent than any human to design. If our universe was indeed designed, then it would make sense for there to be physical laws that we could observe and use to our advantage: science. Unless our universe was designed with mathematical logic in place, science is a lie.
The widely spread idea that gravity pulled matter together after the mythical "big bang" holds many logical flaws. First of all, reasons why the "big bang" could never have occurred are explained in my previous posts. Secondly, in an explosion, objects move away from each other. If gravity were to pull two pieces of matter together, it would have been easiest to do at the beginning, right as the "big bang" was taking place. This would have resulted in the pre-universe object not having split at all, as it would have just held itself together with gravity. If gravity did not pull the matter together right away, it would never have been able to pull it together afterwards.
For an example of how objects move away from each other, please look at your hand. Notice how your fingers are closer to each other at their bases, and how they move farther away from each other as they extend. I'm surprised that anyone with a hand could believe that gravity drew matter together after a "big bang." Some would claim that gravity just wasn't strong enough. All I need to refute this argument is two words: black holes.
So where did galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets come from? In the First-Person shooter game Halo, designers had to input complicated mathematical codes in order to create three dimensional shapes. The Halo world is only a shadow world, meaning that it has no real substance to it, only numbers. This means that our world is infinitely more complex than Halo. If our reality were in some sort of computer program, then our reality would be nothing but a shadow compared to the world of the designer. That world would be infinitely more complex than our own.
Does there need to be a designer? Yes. Computers don't program themselves. Halo took lots of work and math, and that world is much simpler than ours, so our world would take a being infinitely more intelligent than any human to design. If our universe was indeed designed, then it would make sense for there to be physical laws that we could observe and use to our advantage: science. Unless our universe was designed with mathematical logic in place, science is a lie.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Origins Part 3: Matter and Energy
Everything is made of matter, but what is matter made of?
With the discovery of the atom, scientists thought for a brief second they had figured it all out. Then they discovered the proton, neutron, electron, lepton, quark, and a new universe of tiny tiny things.
A question arises: do building blocks keep getting smaller forever, or is there a smallest particle?
The idea that size just keeps going on and on forever breaks our human minds. Mathematically speaking, forevers don't happen all that often. If matter particle blocks really do go on forever getting smaller and smaller, then it holds implications. The smaller blocks were not formed before the larger ones. Had the smaller blocks been formed first, then because of the infinite size scale, they would never have built their way up to anything we could see. Matter would never reach us. Thus, if there are infinite levels, we must conclude that all levels were created at the same time.
Perhaps matter is in itself a trick, and the idea of scale is only a concept of zoom. Zooming in on an atom, one could argue that it begins to look like a solar system (or even a galaxy). Could atoms be actual galaxies? Could they be the galaxies we look at in the night sky? This is the idea behind repeating scale. This hypothesis also has implications: the Andromeda galaxy is an atom in your shoe; you are currently standing on an electron; you are an electron; and so on. Again, no foreseeable way exists to test this idea, so we are left to question what would happen if the Andromeda galaxy in atom scale was ripped in half by scientists. Would the galaxy in our scale explode?
Perhaps we are over thinking this question. Even if matter was a self-repeating scale, we still wouldn't know what it was. It would still need to be made of something. If there is a smallest particle, then we have to wonder where it came from, and what made it.
Energy, on the other hand, is relatively self-contained. It isn't made of anything other than itself, and it takes up space. Scientists have also proven that matter and energy can be converted into each other. With this evidence, we feel confident in saying that matter is in fact concentrated energy within certain regions of space.
Where does this energy come from? Is energy eternal? The Laws of Thermodynamics demand that the amount of useful energy must have started high and will eventually dwindle to zero. Please note that this is a LAW of science, and thereby supersedes theories and ideas. So, where did all this useful energy come from, and how is it lasting this long? Could it have been the Big Bang? Nope. Explosions take energy to happen, thus the Big Bang could not have been the start of energy. Also, according to the LAWS of Thermodynamics, all the useful energy would be used up in under a million years. The Big Bang was supposed to have happened Trillions of years ago. If the Bang did happen, then all the universe should have been an empty, useless waste of space by now. Obviously, this outdated theory is now irrelevant.
If matter/energy had a starting point within our dimension, then it seems logical that the matter/energy came from a higher dimension. If you've ever written on a sheet of paper, then you understand the concept of adding matter to a simpler dimension. The paper cannot write on itself. Only an outside source can add material to any plane of existence.
I think it is pretty easy to see that our universe had an author, someone who not only put in place the foundations of our existence, but reached into our plane and added matter/energy. The name of this author is God.
And you thought this blog was going to be boring. Tisk Tisk.
With the discovery of the atom, scientists thought for a brief second they had figured it all out. Then they discovered the proton, neutron, electron, lepton, quark, and a new universe of tiny tiny things.
A question arises: do building blocks keep getting smaller forever, or is there a smallest particle?
The idea that size just keeps going on and on forever breaks our human minds. Mathematically speaking, forevers don't happen all that often. If matter particle blocks really do go on forever getting smaller and smaller, then it holds implications. The smaller blocks were not formed before the larger ones. Had the smaller blocks been formed first, then because of the infinite size scale, they would never have built their way up to anything we could see. Matter would never reach us. Thus, if there are infinite levels, we must conclude that all levels were created at the same time.
Perhaps matter is in itself a trick, and the idea of scale is only a concept of zoom. Zooming in on an atom, one could argue that it begins to look like a solar system (or even a galaxy). Could atoms be actual galaxies? Could they be the galaxies we look at in the night sky? This is the idea behind repeating scale. This hypothesis also has implications: the Andromeda galaxy is an atom in your shoe; you are currently standing on an electron; you are an electron; and so on. Again, no foreseeable way exists to test this idea, so we are left to question what would happen if the Andromeda galaxy in atom scale was ripped in half by scientists. Would the galaxy in our scale explode?
Perhaps we are over thinking this question. Even if matter was a self-repeating scale, we still wouldn't know what it was. It would still need to be made of something. If there is a smallest particle, then we have to wonder where it came from, and what made it.
Energy, on the other hand, is relatively self-contained. It isn't made of anything other than itself, and it takes up space. Scientists have also proven that matter and energy can be converted into each other. With this evidence, we feel confident in saying that matter is in fact concentrated energy within certain regions of space.
Where does this energy come from? Is energy eternal? The Laws of Thermodynamics demand that the amount of useful energy must have started high and will eventually dwindle to zero. Please note that this is a LAW of science, and thereby supersedes theories and ideas. So, where did all this useful energy come from, and how is it lasting this long? Could it have been the Big Bang? Nope. Explosions take energy to happen, thus the Big Bang could not have been the start of energy. Also, according to the LAWS of Thermodynamics, all the useful energy would be used up in under a million years. The Big Bang was supposed to have happened Trillions of years ago. If the Bang did happen, then all the universe should have been an empty, useless waste of space by now. Obviously, this outdated theory is now irrelevant.
If matter/energy had a starting point within our dimension, then it seems logical that the matter/energy came from a higher dimension. If you've ever written on a sheet of paper, then you understand the concept of adding matter to a simpler dimension. The paper cannot write on itself. Only an outside source can add material to any plane of existence.
I think it is pretty easy to see that our universe had an author, someone who not only put in place the foundations of our existence, but reached into our plane and added matter/energy. The name of this author is God.
And you thought this blog was going to be boring. Tisk Tisk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)