Sunday, 15 June 2008
"The theory of expansion and contraction of the universe is remarkable. But the assumption that it is an ungoverned, infinite cycle, robs the meaning of life of moral and scientific senses, from mankind"
Guth’s elementary particle theory which relates itself to the truth of the existence of a beginning of the universe from nothingness or in other words; the creation of the universe, shattered the dreams of materialist scientists. This finding is in phase with that of Hawking’s and other great scientists of the past who were not in the state of denial nor in the state of being forcefully irresponsive.
Later on, we learnt that the God-given proofs are not sufficient for the perplexed reasoning of the materialists. With Tryon, Guth concluded that our existence on this life-supporting planet earth might just be a coincidence if examined in a larger scale because there exist no studies whatsoever to track the failures of life existence at other unsuitable planets in other galaxies of other universes.
The theory of Big Bang or ‘Urknall’ is itself; perfect. The creation of a vast universe from nothingness and its expansion at a short interval of time (what in German is described as ‘unvorstellbar’) and at a proportionate speed and the arrangements of protons, neutrons, electrons and photons which formed entities which matter and even correlate with each other, backed strongly by the background radiation or ‘Hintergrundgeraeusch’, is too complex and too perfect to be a coincidence.
The problem with examining something humongous as it is at a time is that you don’t really examine it. You might see a big picture but you don’t understand it. To examine it requires you to study the parts first and later put it together. Otherwise, mankind, collectively speaking, might end up doing the same mistake as Wilson and Penzias of the Bell Laboratory. Looking at the scientific universe and creations the way you look at Mona Lisa is a total fallacy.
Creationists are to me, able to see and conceive, the later which materialists lack. Basing their premises of reasoning on the theory of evolution would make them look more ridiculous for they formerly accepted the fact that arranging the constituents of a biological cell, say, to form one, would not give it the special ability of knowing that it is there or the sense of ‘Dasein’. So how can there possibly be a transition from an Ape or a Totenkopf to a human? So let’s reroute the subject of debate to about something which is not alive: the universe or the space and time.
Then again, the materialists tend to make the same mistake. What was the estimated range of amount of each protons, neutrons, electrons and photons right after the Big Bang? The answer is about 10^79 to 10^89. Should I be surprised by the tolerance of this estimation? This description of the transition period is vague and like other intermediates which materialists fail to explain, the uncertainty of the details increases with increment of the size of the frame of reference.
If sending Kobe and recently; Opportunity and Spirit (to Mars) has a lot to do with justifying anti-God scientific sentiments then it shall fail miserably because truth prevails and it takes on uncertain beliefs.
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is stupefyingly absurd.
'Zu viele Zufaelligkeiten um ein Zufall zu sein'