Psalms chapter: 52: verse – 1: it says: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none that doeth good”.
As most scientists do not believe in God, it does seem a bit harsh to say that those people who do not believe in a God are not possible of doing good, on the contrary there are many disbelievers who have no religion and do not believe in God who do great works in helping others and humanity as a whole. They have that inner sensitivity that makes them good people, and will help others in their time of need. But to say there is no God opens the door to a foolish belief that man alone has the intelligence to truly understand how creation works. This is but an arrogant belief that can and dose lead humanity as a whole into complacent ways of not seeing that the earth is but an illusion, and the reality of life is not material but spiritual.
Though most scientists say there is no God because it cannot be proved to them, they in turn also come up with theories that cannot be proved. Such as the latest fad they have claiming that there must be dark energy in the universe to make it what it is, but they as yet have not discovered it.
LOOKING FOR FULL PUBLICATION OF MY MANUSCRIPT
Scientists, as we know believe the universe was created by what they call the ‘big bang’. From that almighty explosion all the galaxies, the countless stars and planets, including earth were brought into being. In looking at this theory in more detail, it just doesn’t add up. There are many anomalies, explanations which simply do not make sense; even scientists have their varying theories of how the ‘big bang’ came about.
In the 1990s this was also observed by others one being Robert G Jahn who wrote in ‘20th and 21st Century Science’: “As we enter the 21st century, science seems poised to execute a similar evolutionary cycle of advancement of their comprehension and relevance. We are opening with a steadily growing backlog of demonstrable physical, biological and psychological anomalies…. Most of which seem incontrovertibly correlated with properties and processes of the human mind, in ways for which our preceding 20th century scientific paradigm has no rational explanations”.
“Thus at the dawn of the 21st century, we again find an elite, smugly contented scientific establishment, but one now endowed with far more public authority and respect than that of the prior version”.
“A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure for research, development, production and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true aim. It is an establishment that is largely consumed with refinements and deployments of mid-century science, rather than with creative advancement of a fundamental understanding of the most profound and seminal aspects of its trade”
.“Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genre of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed”.
When we look for knowledge like the purpose of creation and of man or with any other subject then we have to search for the whole truth. This is not always an easy task and it depends on the level of integrity and dedication of the individual without bias and without prejudice to include all data, all findings in their search for the truth no matter what it is. In the subject of the creation of the universe and other matters like evolution when things do not add up and anomalies occur then the whole truth has not been found.
On rare occasions a scientist will step beyond the boundaries of orthodox thinking, one of those people was Charles Fort who in 1919 published his book called ‘The Book of the Dammed’, which reported on anomalous phenomena. Then, and perhaps still today Charles Fort was looked upon as the enemy of science. He was a well-educated man and had gained much knowledge and understanding in many aspects of science. He doubted the capability of orthodox science to reveal a true reflection of reality in their findings, in learning to understand life on our planet. Scientists’ would make grand, pompous scientific statements that they could not back up with data. As the church had their religious dogmas with no flexibility of gaining a further spiritual understanding of life, the scientists’ also have their dogmas so they will deny, or ignore things they cannot explain, always reluctant to take a step forward. This still happens today in the scientific world. It is only when all anomalies are seriously investigated and understood even if they do not fit in with the orthodox views and theories of established science; will those anomalies disappear for they are a part of the whole picture of the truth of how all aspects of creation functions?
Though the world cannot do without scientists for in many ways they have greatly helped humanity, we cannot look upon them as some kind of material Gods who sometimes in their arrogance and complacency, believe that they alone are capable of explaining the creation of the universe. A scientist when learning of life tries to put happenings into certain categories, but this they cannot do. As there is rivalry between some scientists’ who want their theories to be accepted, and being born of their own minds alone, then confusion can reign in their differing conclusions. In their findings it is like putting together a jigsaw of data based on inaccurate information, with pieces either forced into a position favourable to their theories and pieces containing data unfavourable to their theories are left out and ignored.
Cosmologists say that the universe was created around 10 -15 billion years ago by the ‘big bang’. One hundredth of a second after that explosion a temperature, was thought to have been 180 – billion degrees {F} 100 billion degrees{C} was formed. Then the density of matter was over 3 billion times that of water, while electromagnetic radiation was compressed into a ‘soup’ nearly a billion times denser than water. Radiation is an emission of rays or beamy brightness. It is difficult to comprehend how this compressed into any kind of soup as water, it is like trying to compress the sunshine into a greater density than what it is now, it cannot be done.
The theory continues by saying the universe as we can see it today was pushed down into a volume less than one light – year across. This matter expanded as it exploded in an outward direction and the temperature and density fell. After 700,000 years the universe then, supposedly, consisted of a thin gas of around 75 per cent hydrogen and 25 per cent helium and was still expanding. The gas was then to have broken up into galaxy-sized lumps.
The question here is how could those two gases be a basic force to create the universe? Hydrogen is a gaseous elementary substance, which combines with oxygen to form water. It cannot produce material matter. Helium is an inert gas present in the air in small quantities. As the word inert means, destitute of the power of moving itself, or of active resistance to motion, lifeless and sluggish, then how could that gas be part of the very essence which began the life force of the universe we see today? We know that if we fill a balloon up with helium it quickly rises into the air so how could that gas condense it the universe? Gravity could not have pulled it together for gas has no gravity, nor dose the universe, the gas would simply have spread out in all directions of the universe, until its strength became so weak it would not be strong enough to form anything.
It is gas that creates explosions, explosions do not create gas. Gas is only formed when actions and reactions take place in certain substances. For instance we have learnt over many decades how methane gas can build up in waste disposal tips. This is due to the compressed rotting rubbish decaying and then forming this gas. Councils have then had to install pipes burying vertically into the ground to release the build up of that gas. We know that we receive natural gas from the North Sea that has built up over millions of years. When oil was being formed it was the decaying process of organic matter and chemicals substances that formed the gas. With the big bang there would have been no substances no decaying or rotting matter or any other means for gas to have been formed.
If those gases of hydrogen and helium formed the different galaxies and the many planets, then how did they achieve their own individuality, with only earth being able to support life? We know that the moon has a tranquil atmosphere with very little gravity. On Mars the thin atmosphere consisting of carbon dioxide cannot be breathed in. The temperature is below freezing point, and the only water is contained in the polar caps. Other planets within our solar system such as Venus and Jupiter have hostile environments. Therefore, if they were all created by the same explosion and gases why earth is the only one able to support life? If hydrogen and helium were the only two gases that gave birth to the galaxies, the planets, and stars then they would all be the same in their level of life expression. There would have been no other generated influences, to create the different kinds of planets in the universe, which we see today.
Steven Hawkings the well-known scientist has a slightly different account of the beginning of the universe. He contradicted himself when first saying there was no space, time or matter, not even a God before the big bang took place. Then later he went on to explain about time and how this played a part in the big bang theory. At one point in his life he had been on this train which had pulled into a station. As it moved off then in order for the train to get on to the right track for its destination, for a time it had to move backwards. This movement then gave him the theory that time had reversed itself which created the big bang. The theory says, imagine the sun reversing in time and getting smaller. As it does so, the concentration of matter then becomes more intense as the sun becomes denser. It then comes to a point where it explodes and falls into another part of the universe where the laws of physics do not work. Scientist’s say this also happens with dying stars where they eventually implode causing total collapse. Time could not have played any part in the big bang for it is not an energy, and it cannot be reversed nor collapse upon itself. You cannot reverse time for how can you reverse today back into yesterday or reverse this year back tens years, it is impossible for there is not the means to allow this action. Time is not always what it appears for instance the past, present and future are in reality are but one and the same.
A slightly different theory of how the big bang started is that all matter was composed into one primordial atom, which created such pressure on its own core that it exploded and the planets originated from the shower of pieces produced by this heavy mass of matter. The time old question arises here in a different form, some ask if God created everything then who created God. On the one hand scientist say there was a void of nothing before the big bang, but someone or something must have created the atom? Some scientists say that the big bang came about by accident but how could that be if there was a void of nothing. if there was an accident that created the big bang then that says everything was working perfectly before that accident took place.
No one has stated how big the atom was, for the size of it would depend on what level of explosion was created. As we see the world today and the universe everything is made up of atoms on varying levels of ability and expression. Even the human body is made up of atoms. These atoms whether in man the environment or the universe are so minute that they cannot be seen.
The atom which created the big bang could not have been this kind of atom, for it would be too small. It would have to be larger than the largest planet in the universe to create some level of explosion to form at least a part of the expansion of the universe. It is impossible to comprehend under physcal laws how an atom can put pressure upon itself and then to implode. It would need extreme external pressure in the universe to heavily pressurise the atom like squeezing a nut with a nutcracker even then it would only be crushed and would not explode.
In addition, for the size of the big bang and the continuing expansion of the universe it would have needed more than one atom. When setting off a nuclear bomb the explosion is not reliant on just one atom exploding, but millions of them exploding at the same time. We can compare the big bang with the atomic bomb. When a blast of that size takes place on earth, then it does not develop material matter. A force of that magnitude only destroys, because the atom bomb is built on negative energies. We have seen what vast destruction it did when it was dropped in Japan, near the end of world war two. So how could an explosion, billions of times greater than the largest atomic bomb, take place within an empty void and begin to create the universe and the countless planets we see today? It is a well known fact that deep within other galaxies in recent times and still today stars are born then they die continuously, and they are not brought about by an almighty explosion such as the big bang. Nor do they implode but become lifeless dark barren planets.
The theory continues by saying that after the big bang took place the energy then created material matter such as rocks which were blasted into space, and came together under their own gravity, and formed planets. Next a tremendous heat was generated within the core of those rock planets where they eventually turned into molten lava. All this action and reaction embraced Einstein’s theory energy creates matter. However, surely those rocks would have been blasted hundreds of millions of miles apart, and some even greater distances.
We know that if we take two magnets exactly the same size and same density of magnetic energy then it depends how far a part they are placed as to their level of magnetic attraction to each other. If placed near together, the pull will be greater than if they were further a part and there comes a point if the distance is too great their magnetic attraction is no longer there.
The same situation would apply to those rocks travelling vast speeds due to the explosion they would not be near each other enough, for their own gravity to bond them together. The on going pulling force of the explosion would have been far greater than any gravity within the rocks, making it impossible for them to be pulled together to form planets. We know that in space today, there is what is known as the asteroid belt where countless rocks being of all shapes and sizes flow in an orderly orbit. They do not come together under their own gravity for they are without gravity. If they did have that force of energy then surely they would have formed other planets as in the first instance of creation?
LOOKING FOR FULL PUBLICATION OF MY MANUSCRIPT
In the rest of this chapter we will examine many other theories of the scientists of how they say the universe was created and of how it functions, which again do not make sense. If we were to take a large piece of paper and to draw a circle in the bottom corner and call that the earth. Then to draw another in the top corner and to call it the moon how could we bridge that gap?. You could say we could draw a number of short ladders joined together from both circles making a bridge from the earth to the moon. Then we could draw some hot air balloons to those ladders so they would hold them up in space. so on paper we could walk to the moon from earth. This is an example of something that works on paper but not in reality, like some therioes of the scientists.