Your Subtitle text

For the first time in Publishing history...Reversing 160 years of falsehood –– sharing the true spirit of quantum science from Albert Einstein and Max Planck both, this book goes where no one has gone before –– showing not everyone even agreed with Darwin, especially not the most revered and famous science minds of our time...
 

 



“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.’

Albert Einstein

Consciousness is SUBLIME. And thank god it’s connected to taste buds, not to mention seeing, hearing, etc. See, consci-ousness could just be by itself. Imagine you are blind and deaf, and have no taste buds, or nerves to touch, etc.. But you are conscious of self awareness. Hmmm. Perhaps the word boring comes to mind. Perhaps the word frightful comes to mind. All I am is conscious of consciousness? Ooh.

There is no specificity. No thing, no tastes, no sound, no vibrations anywhere, no touching, no reaching out to feel companionship, no hugs, no kisses no fingers caressing. All we are is pure awareness of awareness? (Not sure you like the sound of that?) Sure is nice to have consciousness tied into Senses.
You have just imagined and just “tasted” (in an ephemeral fleeting moment) Divine Being's being. Incidentally the above description of no thing awareness is WHAT meditation is all about. When you do this you are joining with the One in that ‘space’ of unconditioned awareness. You are saying hello to The One and saying I am going to spend some time with YOU, who holds all this together, and thank you too. Thank you, Infinite One, for being the background consciousness in all this, everywhere, in me, her, him, us. It is all so wonderful. We even have music to enjoy, cheese cake, roller coasters, kisses, as well as our belov’eds arms and breath on us, and then, our beloved children to love too.

Something From Nothing?

Darwin is essentially the first time someone (anyone of note) ever postulated no Prime Mover and no prime moving Power of creativity in the universe – in stating that Nothing gave rise to Something. Can we state any logic for ‘Something coming from nothing’? Can anyone anywhere? No. No one has ever done it.

How could they? Even mathematic Laws like the Associative, Distributive and Commutative Laws, tell us this simply cannot be.

In simplest terms, mathematicians and mathematic laws appreciate that all realities only describe related-realities and the descriptions of them in equations, are the results of the prior realities. Mathematic science describes or guides in its descriptiveness, for the seekers of facts or knowledge. In emptiness, math has no object to describe. If something is here something preceded it to give rise to it.
Please understand right now a sublime fact. Equations do not spring out of nothing. E=mc2 and 2+2=4 reflect some reality that these equational statements illuminate. “Those 2 apples when put with those 2 apples will give us 4 apples.” Without the reality of things in pairs being here to make four, we would not have the equation, or the comprehension of feeding 4 people, (with and in mathematic wisdom).
Without a reality equations do not ‘reflect’- and mean nothing and will not even be put forth. Einstein’s famous equation above Represents a reality of ‘Energy, speed of Light and Mass’. It makes no sense and has no meaning in a Void of emptiness or nothingness.

Equations of math represent realities in the cosmos. Something always gives rise to another thing, and then we describe that thing or relation with words, ideas, sentences and math equations. If we were to attempt to imagine an absolute nothingness (which we can’t do) how can we then say E=Mc2 would, could, should arise from there – from emptiness? When there is nothing to be represented by the discussion of mass, speed of light, or energy Einstein’s equation means not a whit of anything at all.

So mathematicians (and mathematic laws) reveal ‘Something can only give Rise to Something’ – else (describing it). Math and Reality are one. Nothing does not give rise to Something and Nothing can ever give rise to exquisite mathematics.

The commutative law of math shows this very well. Why? If you “commute” a thing, principle, fact or equation from here to there you must have it there first, to be able to commute it. We cannot commute nothing from there to there. We still have nothing. Zero + Zero is still zero.

Darwinism Starts Half Way Through The Show

Let us start our examination of Darwin’s basic premise. This may help uninformed folks. When Darwinians do start their explanation of all things they do something very telling. They do not really start at the beginning of anything (they never explain how Something comes from Nothing) they always leave it unspoken. They hope we won’t catch it, or them.
 
I remember Carl Sagan in a TV special circa 1980 and he had an ocean depicted onscreen (as a soupy birthplace of life) and he simply stated, an early form of DNA Was there (he had a graphic of it there) but Never did he say how something way more complex than an IBM Deep-Blue Super Computer (or even many placed together) was Present in its wondrous form (even an early form).
 
Never did he say how the liveliness of a living-life-force was Part of the DNA. It’s challenging explaining how DNA came to be alive-living. How did DNA come to life? It’s Never told. If we do not understand that there is an endless energy of tirelessness in DNA- never being exhausted - it keeps directing everything tirelessly every moment until that cell finally dies and gets sloughed off.

So Darwinism starts at J or L; they never start at A. Now ask why do they start in the middle? I did not have the awareness to question with when in my youth learning about the theory of evolution. Now after five decades of scientific absorption for many reasons and purposes (into so many fields of science it synthesizes quite well now, particularly Quantum science) I find no basis for evolution’s theory whatsoever.
 
Once, what is known is known, evolution simply cannot be entertained by the one knowing. Oh one may talk of it with others but one never really pretends to assume its veracity. It’s impossible when we know what we know, because we truly have all the evidence against that fantasy from 1859 that we ever could need.

Even the destruction planting statements from Darwin found herein provide the proof against it. He couldn’t help himself. Also, incidentally, they provide no evidence in their work. Is it curious to you? No verifiability, no repeatability, etc. to their theory, how could they – it’s all in and from the ancient past. It postulates of how somethin’  – maybe happ..’

Once we understand that in small amounts of opened-eyed-looking their science is not like science (where there’s verifiability, reproving, retesting and coming around from different angles again on a thing studied) we then see that other sciences have a rigorous foundation to their arts of Knowing – evolution has none. They can’t even define what a species is; really. It’s all simply a grouping of postulated assertions on assertions from an invisible past. Time blocks their knowing.
 
I once listened to a man explain evolution in a very loquacious and artful way.  He did well, and even was charming, smiled knowingly. Yet no one in the room challenged his assertions. I often wonder if folks Know what an assertion is? But most of us let others have their pet theories without challenging them – it’s not nice to do. Had I cared to ask, he’d have no defense to fifty ‘illogics’ I could’ve pointed to.
And I can tell now, here that quantum science disproves Darwin’s evolution theory totally. He, they never address quanta. How could HE have? He was too early. When we realize that Darwin never knew about quanta of energy, it’s kind of sad. What would he have offered up? Today evolutionary biologists do not address quanta at all. Hmmm. Evolution does not even go into quanta of energy; nor touch quantum science.  It’s too advanced, too deep.

The Nearness of Dirt

Darwinism goes back too recently, to too near a time frame – to dirt, to bones, to tails, beaks and claws. In his famous The Origin of the Species book, Darwin did not even reveal HOW or WHY the first cell came to life, or where life arose, or why. He left it unspoken. Why then does the word ORIGIN appear in the title?

Darwin never said where the Earth, the sun, solar system, galaxy or universe came from either. He did not explain the origin of the ocean, where the slime of life came from, nor how the slime of life arose. How any proteins ever came together for life is unspoken.
 
About 250+ proteins are the building blocks of cells. Notice I didn’t say building blocks of life. Cells are compartments. Life IS An Invisible harmonious constructive order tendency to expand replicate, and become more complex within-matter-energy.

Now just Why were proteins in an oceanic soup anyway? Was it salt water yet? And where did the proteins come from, space, volcanoes, aliens? It’s all untold. Where did an electric bolt of lightning come from, that supposedly gave energy to it all (as in Frankenstein’s laboratory)?

It’s fascinating this ‘Electric bolt’ theory is out there. It shows that even Darwinians see the need for something energetic to enliven or turn-on the cells. JUST like that infinite energy pulsation is shimmering everywhere in the cosmos as a trilli-second-pulse, referred to earlier, they Know Life is some etheric-energy. But where did the sky, the clouds, the methane and This and That come from?
See, beginning at A is difficult for them. They always say, let’s start at G or J and explain from there. I’m amused though, that the most famous current evolutionist, Richard Dawkins recently said on international TV and film that perhaps aliens sent life here (all so they have no deity). Well that just puts the question back a little farther doesn’t it – how did the aliens come to be alive? Come on. Let’s be scientific.
 
Understand they are frustrated because they can’t explain the how or why of the big things. In this book we should get all the big things addressed, for you. When Darwinism speaks to others to listen, it is eloquent on a speech rehearsed many times speaking with verve, smiles, and energy, but they are not answering any of these unanswerable questions that we or scientists have for them, as their explanation of things from their point of view. But in this book we’ll do that.

They say that we are religiously full of faith because we have a Prime Mover of infinite energy, intelligent creative expressiveness operating through a lawful, beautiful Mind and systems infinitely manifesting, moving and acting everywhere as Einstein and Max Planck say. But they never look in their mirror – to see a person ‘postulating from a high level of faithful optimistic hopes’ (that what they think is true) is indeed true. But they never even have or offer evidence, to prove anything, though they speak as if they do.  Where is the Evidence? Why don’t they start at A?

Now, they cannot disagree that there are reliable, incontro-vertible laws in the cosmos, incredible creations, ideation, design, systems, miraculous variety IN it all, Of and In every strata, form, species, energy, field, space, segment or chapter but they say the organization came from nothing.
They can see all this Order just like the rest of us can, they simply see it, and say, that it is springing from dumb luck and accidents. Are they serious? Can intelligent folks let that pass – dumb luck IS cosmic CAUSE?

Sir William Dawson, Canada’s great geologist said of Evolution: “It’s one of the strangest phenomena of humanity – it's utterly destitute of proof.”
 
Web Hosting