If your sound is on you are listenting to “When the Morning Comes” aka “We’ll Understand it Better Bye and Bye”

PULLING STRONGHOLDS DOWN AND CASTING AWAY THE IMAGININGS

2 Cor. 10:4-6 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Before America can complete the task that God has set before her we must see a spiritual awakening akin what was happening in the early 1830’s. I believe that before such an awakening can occur we have to unlearn the things that have led us into secularism since that time. It is no coincidence that at the same time that Alexis De Tocqueville was witnessing a great spiritual awakening in America, Charles Darwin was serving as a naturalist on HMS Beagle. The stage was being set by the Spiritual Forces, both Good and Evil, that are behind the culture war in America. In his speculative book subtitled: Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, “I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection.” With this statement Darwin single handedly destroyed the Scientific Method that had been the foundation of scientific discovery since the Renaissance first began to unlock the secrets of nature to the Western World. This statement is the prime example of something we will talk about in this section: How self proclaimed “scientists” expect the rest of us to believe they know something about anything simply because they have given it a name and have thought about it for a while. It is essential that we understand this situation completely in order to dismantle the strongholds that have been erected by scientists, falsely so called, since Darwin first got away with giving something a name, thinking about it for a while, and then declaring it a science. It is also useful to note that Darwin’s form of “natural selection” has now been abandoned by the majority of scientists (falsely so called) Neo Darwinists and Punctuated Equalibriumists who have noticed, as did Darwin, that there is no support for natural selection in the fossil record that would indicate even a slight chance that Macro Evolution has ever occurred anywhere on Earth. Darwin thought the reason there were no transistional forms in the fossil record was because there had been too few fossils found in his time, but it has now been shown after examining millions upon millions of fossils that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.

The word translated as “strong holds” in verse 4 of 2 Cor. 10 above is “ochuroma.” It can mean anything from an actual fortress to the rhetoric used to prop up an argument. In the context that it is used in the two verses above it obviously means the latter. We are told that our weapons of spiritual warfare are mighty through God for pulling down the rhetoric used to prop up the arguments that men use to exalt themselves and their imaginations above God. The truth of this verse can only be realized when we understand and begin to use the mightiest weapon that God has placed in our arsenal against the imaginations and high things that are now exalting themselves against the knowledge of God. What people used to call plain old common sense is one of the mightiest weapons God has placed in our arsenal for use against such strongholds. When used in a Godly manner, common good sense is irrefutable. What is happening today is that a lot of highly educated elitists would have us believe that they have better sense than we do, that their ideas and beliefs are more valid than those of the rest of us because they have been better educated. Education has become the shrine of American Humanism, and Humanists worship therein without a drop of understanding, wisdom, or truth.

The Holy Scriptures teach us that God made mankind in His own image. Therefore, we ought to understand that the good sense God gave us is like unto His own good sense. It is this good sense then, which God has given us that we should be using to engage in spiritual warfare. The best arrow in the quiver of good sense is sound logic. Logic is just good sense applied. You should be aware that when you begin to use your good sense against the rhetorical strongholds of the intellectually elite they will certainly try to ridicule you and accuse of being unsophisticated in your thinking. This is a good thing to be accused of because sophistication is that trait most admired by an intellectually elite humanist. The sophistry that gives sophists their sophistication is the rhetorical ability to argue in favor of anything that is an apparent lie in such a manner as to give it the credence of truth. The lies of the sophists cannot endure against the logic of the Truth because the essence of God is LOGIC. Humanists know this and fear. That is why they have intentionally and surreptitiously cheated in the debate by limiting arguments to their side only.

“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” (John 1:1)

I have replaced the English word, “Word,” in the verse above with the Greek word “Logos” from which it was translated. The reason I did so was to show that God’s foremost characteristic is LOGIC. God cannot be unintentionally illogical, his very essence is LOGOS. God is the definition of Logic. He is the eternal LOGIC. Therefore, if we want to understand anything that God has done or said, we must use the same common good sense that He has given to us, and use it to reason logically. Our conclusions must likewise be logical. The Cosmos (Universe) that God has made must be examined logically if any progress is to be made in understanding the laws which God has put in place to govern it. What is happening in science today is that men are violating both the rules of logic and the rules of science in order to advance their godless philosophies as science.

In real science men observe some phenomenon and try to explain it with an hypothesis. They must then attempt to make some predictions that will be the consequences of their hypothesis if it is true. If they can come up with any predictions, they must next develop a method of testing their hypothesis to see if their predictions were correct. Only after some predictions based upon the hypothesis are developed and a method of testing for those predictions is found is a proposition considered to be a valid hypothesis. If the hypothesis is then tested and the predictions prove to be accurate the hypothesis becomes a theory. The theory must then be tested time and time again using many different parameters and predictions to see if it is true in all circumstances. If any of the subsequent tests prove the predictions to be untrue, then the hypothesis must be revised until the predictions demanded by its suppositions can be proven to be consistently true . If the hypothesis proves unpredictable or inconsistent, it has been falsified. If no method of testing the predictions of the hypothesis can be formed the hypothesis has been shown to be invalid, and it must be abandoned, and a new hypothesis must be formed.

It has always been a principle of scientific inquiry that if a hypothesis proves to be true only under a very specialized or narrow set of parameters, there is something wrong with the hypothesis. Further observations are then required to try and develop a better hypothesis. When a hypothesis proves to be accurate after several attempts to falsify it, it becomes a theory. Theories can only take on the force of laws only after several generations of scientists have tested the hypothesis under many different circumstances using many different parameters. The reason the “Theory of Relativity” has remained a theory is because some of its predictions have been proven false under some circumstances and the jury is still out as to whether it is even a good hypothesis.

Science is falling apart today because, when a hypothesis does not prove to be true under all circumstances, or, as is the case with the Hypothesis of Evolution, it can not be proven true under any circumstances, it still becomes a theory philosophically, and, also as in the case of Evolution, the hypothesis is continually plasticized to allow it include all contradictions. Also, in most cases today, the experimentation used to test a hypothesis is accomplished only by picturing it in the mind. This is pure imagination. When the experimentation process is only conducted in the mind, or at best, by using pen and paper to express what is going on in the imagination of the so-called scientist, the result is not science but religion. It is some kind of metascience.

We have become accustomed to such imaginings of Metascientists by the abject failure of any of its believers to develop any method to test to a single prediction of the HYPOTHESIS of EVOLUTION to see if the hypothesis is valid. In fact, no one has ever made the first prediction concerning the so called Theory of Evolution. No falsely so-called scientist has ever gone out on a limb and said the wombat is in the process of becoming a wombee, and these are the intermediaries that this transition is going to produce. The hypothesis of Evolution is invalid because it is incapable of Falsification. A hypothesis that cannot be falsified cannot be proven true. It simply remains a philosophical speculation within the religion of secularism.

Instead of using sound scientific principles to examine their hypotheses today, metascientists, who do not like to keep God in their science, have philosophically accepted bad hypotheses and called them Theories. Too often these scientific failures have become such successful metascientific theories that over the years they have been accepted as scientific law, when in truth, they are nothing more than philosophically popular “Just So” stories. Thus, metasciences, such as Metaphysics are blooming everywhere today, masquerading as advanced studies in science when they are in reality nothing more than philosophy some of which can be propped up by some theoretical mathematical equations that have no meaning in the real world.

A simple example of what is going on and called science today involves the substitution of one quantity in an equation for its equivalency from another set of equations and then looking for an equality that will prove the substitutions valid. The result of one such mathematical equivalence is that “time” here is “distance”elsewhere. If we use the real world equation for Distance we see that Distance equals Velocity (Speed) multiplied by Time. This is stated mathematically as, D = S x T. We can substitute D in the equation with its equality, S x T. Doing this we see the remarkable truth that S x T = S x T. We can then divide both sides of that equation by S and see that T = T. Therefore, we can see that Time does not equal Distance in the real world, but that is where ELSEWHERE comes into play.

In order to discover where Elsewhere might be located, it is necessary to use mathematical models that require the use of negative numbers. When we decide to go “elsewhere” in science we leave the natural world for an unnatural world. I could have just as easily and correctly said we leave the natural world for the Supernatural world for that is where Elsewhere is found. The strange part is that while most scientists do not believe in the supernatural realm, they hold vigorously to their belief in an unnatural world modeled by the use of negative numbers.

Alternate Reality, Unnatural World, The Supernatural -- they are all terms for the same concept. By any name Elsewhere is shown to exist beyond the natural world because scientist use unnatural numbers in their equations to model it. “Elsewhere” exists in this reality only as a belief. In Christianity it is called Heaven, in Science it is called anything they select to mean somewhere other than this reality. Elsewhere is as good a name as any other for this place for scientists because they refuse to believe in the Kingdom of Heaven.  Elsewhere exists only as a tenet within the religion of Scientists because they use the imaginary number, “the square root of minus one, ” to model it.  Scientists and Mathematicians agree that the reason that this number is imaginary is because it is impossible to find two numbers that when multiplied together yield a result of a “minus”, that is to say a “negative one.” They all agree that no number multiplied by itself will result in a minus or negative one, so the square root of a minus one is impossible. But the only reason they say such thing is because of their conventions. They have agreed with each other that two negative numbers multiplied together will make the result positive. They say that -1 x -1 does not equal -1 but rather equals +1.

This is a tangled web woven inside of imaginations running wild because there is no such thing in the real world as a negative number of any magnitude. There is no such thing in the real world as a quantity less than no quantity. If you were taught mathematics at any level from the 1960’s onward you probably were taught to draw a number line such as show below:

When you were taught to draw this line you were told that every number to the left of zero was a negative number and every number to the right of zero was positive. On paper you can see a minus one, but did you not ever wonder where you could find it in the real world. Has anyone ever eaten a negative apple? Or how many calories are there in a minus one pancake? A little thought on the subject will show us that even when we use subtraction in the real world we only get real results when we subtract positive numbers from greater positive numbers. You were shown on your number line that when you subtracted a larger positive number from a smaller positive number the result would be a negative number. But were you ever told where to go to find that negative quantity?

Thus eating positive 6 apples minus positive 1 apple is at least logical and possible even if it is not good for the digestion. But eating minus 1 apple when there are zero apples to be eaten will have no effect in the real world whatsoever. It is imaginary, and if we could survive by eating negative apples there would be no fad diets. Scientists and Mathematicians know that the square root of minus one is imaginary, and that is why they replace it with the term “i.” That way they can say i² = -1 and avoid the embarrassment having to admit that they are working with a number that does not exist in the real world.

Since the early to mid sixties Americans have been stupefied by this number line where we can visualize negative numbers that do not exist in the real world. But, since they do not exist in the real world, they must exist in the unreal world, which is just another term for THE SUPERNATURAL. The so-called New Math has almost entirely conditioned Americans to believe in the mathematics of The Supernatural Reality, but because they call it by other names they fail to see that the Supernatural by any name is still the Supernatural. It is a great mystery to me that American scientists continue to refuse to believe in the truth that their imaginary world is actually that Supernatural Realm that they deny so vehemently while daily using its numbers to explore it mathematically.

Using the number line again let us see if what I am telling you is true or false:

You can see the zero point and we kindasorta understand zero. Zero is nothing. But understand this, Zero only exists as a concept in our imaginations. I am not talking now of the ‘0’ in our numbering system that means, “this power of tens digit’s place is empty,” as in the number 3005 where the units digit holds the number 5, and the tens digit and the hundreds digit are both empty, and the thousands digit holds the number 3. The concept of zero as empty in place holder for the power of the base in a numbering system came to the Western World from the Arabs. But then it was a giant step into the unknown to say that nothing was really something, and assign it a value of zero, making the null character as real to the real world as any other character in the numbering system. After that, it was then just a small step of the imagination to think of numbers that were less than zero. Rene Descarte called these less than nothing numbers imaginary because they only existed in the imagination. Mathematicians still call these numbers imaginary today even though they think of them as being as real as any other numbers because they use them in modeling some real world applications such as explaining electrical phenomena and gravity, etc. But as we shall see later, there is nothing in the real world that is truly nothing. How is that for a conundrum? Someone may well say that they can stand in one place and take zero steps from where they are standing, and thus they have shown that zero does exist in the real world. But what they are really saying is that the units digit representing the number of real steps I am taking is empty. It cannot be said and have any meaning is that I am taking nothing steps. So Zero as empty and Zero as nothing are two separate concepts, the first is real as a place holder, while the second is imaginary as nothing.

If there is no such thing as zero in the real world, then there certainly is no such thing as less than zero. There is nothing in reality that is less than Zero. Nothing to the left of that zero point exists in the material or physical reality i. e. the natural world. Whatever you want to call the world of our physical senses, it only exists to right of the Zero Point. When we venture to the left of zero along that number line what we have actually done is entered the realm of the Supernatural, the realm beyond nature, the reality beyond the physical world the alternate reality. What this means is that we have been using numbers that only exist in the Supernatural World in our equations about our natural world and coming up with the wrong answers. Our convention that says that -1 x -1 = +1 is wrong.

TIME

Let us examine TIME for a moment. Can we use our number line for Time? We can, but it will only make sense to us as long as we stay to the right of zero because we do not understand any such thing as negative Time.  We can only go forward, or in a positive direction through time. If I say that I will be back from someplace in three hours, it is invariably understood that I am say I will return in +3 hours from the present. Never would anyone think that I was saying I would return three hours before I left.

So if someone were to that they were traveling at +70 miles per negative hour we would not know how fast they were going. But if we say we are traveling at -70 miles per -hour, we can at least imagine what our velocity is using our number line and imaginations. And even if we do not understand exactly where it is that they are traveling we can know that it is not in this physical realm. It is obvious then that mixing quantities from the positive world and the negative world is illogical, but that is what is happening all of the time in today’s physics.

What is TIME anyway? We do not know anything at all about TIME except how to measure its passing. TIME marches on. TIME waits for no man. TIME heals all wounds and wounds all heels. Moment by moment this physical reality moves through the fabric of time in only one direction. How then do we pass from one moment to the next? Is our passage through time an infinitely smooth transition or is it in a series of small, finite, and discrete steps?

1 Cor. 15:52 In a moment , in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The word translated as moment in 1 Cor. 15:52 is atomos from which we derive the concept of the atom. Atomos means, “that which is indivisible or cannot be further divided.” God has told us that there is an atomos of time, a piece of time that is so small that it cannot be further divided. This means that time passes in a series of extremely small, but finite and discrete steps. God has called a single instance of one of these steps of time an atomos.

So here is the proposition: If time passes, or if we are passed through time, (either way it is the same thing) in a series of discrete atomoses, what occupies the “place” between the small steps of atomoses? It is logical that something must exist between the packets of atomos. Could it possibly be that that which lies between the packets of atomos is eternal? Can the breadth, length, and height, all three dimensions of the physical reality be passing atomos by atomos through eternity such that in between every atomos we find the eternity of the supernatural realm? “For in him we live, and move, and have our being;” Acts 17:28.

Logic tells us that something must exist between the packets of atomoses, and this explanation is as good as any other. When we use things that depend upon negative numbers we are using numbers that only exist in the realm between atomoses. We cannot mix the numbers of this reality with the numbers from the eternal reality indiscriminately without getting the wrong answers. The implications of this are tremendous. What it means is that in between every atomos of time, spiritual forces from the eternal realm can be manipulating, influencing, inspiring, and directing the affairs of men on earth, and we are not even aware of it. What this means is that there is a spiritual warfare being waged, and mankind is the battle ground. What it means is that the weapons for spiritual warfare in the church are not understood. What this means is that “... the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14)

When God told us the weapons of our warfare were mighty for the pulling down of strong holds, the casting out of imaginations, and bringing every thought into obedience to Jesus Christ, that is what he meant. Every thought, idea, belief, or attitude in a human being is the product of them being influenced or inspired by a spiritual force from the eternal realm. Moment by moment our every thought has to be brought into obedience to Jesus Christ, and who is sufficient to such a thing? But we can at least examine our paradigms to see if we are in the realm of the redeemed or the realm of the lost by checking to see if we are trusting the Word of God above the word of men.

Today philosophers masquerading as scientists are proposing their hypotheses and testing them, not with real world laboratory testing, but with hypothetical mathematical models that almost always require the use of these imaginary numbers that have no meaning in the real world. If they can keep indefinitely substituting equivalent quantities in their calculations and simplifying them until they find something like E=MC^2, they think they have somehow proven a hypothesis. It does not matter if subsequent observations and calculations are found to be in contradiction to their original calculations, they just add caveats to their hypotheses that say, “Under some conditions A is true but under other conditions A is false.”

Metascience just does not get any more exact than that, and we end up with a lot of mumbo jumbo that says under one set of circumstances A is true, and B is false, but under other circumstances B is true and A is false, but under all circumstances either A or B is either true or false. This then proves that their theory should be regarded as a law of some kind, and that they should get the Nobel Prize for speaking out of the A and B sides of their mouth at twice. Such plasticizing of hypotheses to include all observed contradictions is not Science; it is imaginary make believe.

LIGHT

There is a difference between looking and seeing. A farmer, who was a deacon in a Baptist Church, once owned a fine looking specimen of a quarter horse. (Have you ever wondered what made up the other three quarters of a quarter horse?) Anyway, a neighbor of this farmer wanted to buy this fine looking quarter horse and asked the deacon what he would take for the horse. The deacon told him that he could not sell him the horse because the horse did not look good. The neighbor, sensing a bargain, asked him again how much he would take for the horse. The deacon told him he was very reluctant to put a price on the horse because it did not look good. The neighbor told the deacon to let him worry about how the horse looked and asked again what he would take for the horse. So the deacon said he’d take three hundred dollars but warned him again that the horse just did not look good. Looking at the horse, the neighbor thought that it would probably bring three thousand dollars at auction, and immediately paid for the horse, put him in the trailer, and drove away. The next day the neighbor came back mad as a hornet and told the deacon that the horse was a blind as a bat. The deacon said, “I told you three times just as plain as I could speak, ‘that horse don’t look good.’” So, now that we can see that there is a difference between looking and seeing, let’s look at light for a moment and see what we see.

Can we look at Light? Is it something we can see? If our point of view is perpendicular to a collimated beam of light we can look in the direction of the beam, but we will not see anything at all. We can stand in a totally dark room with a million candle power beam of collimated light passing right through the room, and the room will be in total darkness, unless there is something in the path of the beam that will reflect and diffuse the light and scatter it around the room. That is why the night sky of extraterrestrial space, though full of light, is black as pitch except for the pin points of light sources. We can only “sense” light received directly from its source or from the things that reflect it and have become a secondary source for it. In the case of reflected light the reflector effectively becomes another light source, albeit, one that is dependent upon a primary source for its energy. (This is somewhat the condition that church is in by being reflectors of the light of Jesus Christ. The world is a place where the light of Jesus Christ fills the space everywhere within it, but unless someone gets in the beam and starts reflecting His Light, the world will remain in darkness.)

No one knows what light is. No one knows what light is not. We call the “something” that excites some nerve sensors in our eyeballs LIGHT. Our understanding of light is little more than giving it a name, and attempting to measure its velocity, then thinking about what we have named and measured just as if we knew what light really was. Even so, for the purposes of clarity, just like a real scientist, I will continue to use the term light even though I do not know what it is. There now, you know exactly as much reality about light as do the “Lightologists.” All we can surmise is the uncertainty that something happens in our eyeballs that sends some sort of messages, be they impulses or little men waving semaphore flags, into our brains and Wow, the brain interprets these message thingies that were energized by the light thingies, and we say we have seen a thingy. All else about light is based upon an agreement among the conjecturers to consistently call all of the thingies by the same name.

No one can say with any certainty exactly what it is that is stimulating the receptors in our eyeballs. We think that our brains have learned to put these stimulations together into a picture of what we are sensing, and we have learned to think of that picture as reality. But what if it is not our brains at all that is interpreting what we see. What if it is the powers of eternity that are telling us what we see. It is just as probable that this is what is happening as it is that somehow we are all seeing the same thing in the same fashion. That is the question that comes to mind. How do all of the different brains in all of the whole world agree to put the same image together from the same impulses having never been taught by anyone or anything what the things we look at are supposed to “look” like. No one can prove conclusively that people interpret what they are seeing exactly the same as each other. It is only through agreement that what looks like a cat to you will also look like a cat me.

Even if I ask you to draw a cat for me, you will draw what looks like a cat to you and it will also look like a cat me if you are a good artist. (If you are not a good artist you will be an impressionist with no talent for art, and even though you will have to explain to me why what you have drawn is a CAT, you can still make millions of dollars for someone else who also has no talent or appreciation for art after you are dead.) But there is no way of proving that what we both agree upon as being a cat actually looks the same to both of us. A cat looking at the same thing as a human will certainly see the thing in a different “light,” for it is certain that cats’ eyes have different eye sensors than do humans. But it cannot be denied that both the cat and the man are sensing the same physical object. For example, if you place a sheet over a man’s head the man will probably be able to distinguish objects on the outside of the sheet only as vague shapes with little detail, but if you place the same sheet over the head of a cat it will probably seem nearly transparent to the cat because the cat can sense “light” frequencies beyond the upper limits of human sight. Scientists say that the thing that both the cat and the human are sensing is “light.” Ask a scientist what light is though, and you will begin a journey into the Supernatural, the place of those imaginary numbers.

One scientist will say that light is a wave of energy. Another will say it is a particle. Others (presently those in the majority) will say that it is a particle called a photon, that has wave like characteristics, whatever that means. The accepted “theory” concerning light today is that is a photon particle that is propagated as a wave of pure energy that has no mass until it strikes something, and then it mysteriously becomes a particle. (String theory is being developed to eliminate such nonsense as this duality from physical theories and replace it with its own particular kinds of nonsense called strings) This mysterious seemingly dual nature of light has been “proven,” by the use of separate mathematical models: one set for the wave and another set for the particle. But, neither set can be “solved” without using the imaginary number, the square root of minus one. In this fashion another “Just So Story” is professed and thrust upon us by those who do not believe in the Supernatural but will say anyway, “In our reality pigs walk, but, in the land of our imaginary numbers, pigs fly, but do not ask me to actually show you this place because it only exists in my imagination.”

When scientists want to look at a beam of light they have to blow some smoke. Literally, I mean it. While they have been blowing a lot figurative smoke our way concerning light for a good long time now, they have also had to be blowing a lot of actual smoke or dust or vapor or some such stuff into a beam of light so that the light illuminates them, and the path of the beam of light is then revealed by the stuff it is illuminating. Try to imagine all of those energy waves being converted in to photons by the smoke, and then back into waves to reach you eyes, then back into photons to trigger a sensory reaction inside you eyeball. It truly does take a lot of the blowing of the smoke.

So what is light? Our brains take some impulses from our eyes that have received some energy we call light that has bounced off of something and the brain and eye coordinating and cooperating with each other focus on something of interest, and VIOLA, we see the thing. But how? But why? But what? When we ask our masters such questions they ridicule us to scorn saying, “It Just So.” The truth is: Our masters have no better idea of what light is than the rest of us, and my proposition of spiritual forces at work on our brains is as good as any other. Light exists; we can see the source, or we can see a secondary source that reflects the light of the original source, but we cannot actually see light; if we could we might possibly be able to figure out what it is.

We know that light travels through the space of the Cosmos, and to certain degrees through “clear,” and some not so clear, media. It travels through our atmosphere but is somewhat scattered (much like the brains of metascientists) as it passes through the air. We “see” the sky because light is scattered by the atmosphere. But why is the sky blue? Scientists tell us that it is because the higher frequency waves of light are dispersed more than the lower frequencies so they illuminate the atmosphere more than the lower frequencies. In the twilight times of early morn and late evening when there are more of the larger particles of dust between us and the sun, the sky then begins to take on shades of red because the lower frequencies of light are dispersed more than during other parts of the day.

But light has some pretty magical properties if what the physicists are telling us is true. For example, it seems that light is bent as it passes from a less dense medium, such as our atmosphere, into a denser medium, such as water. Because metascientists say that the speed of light is constant, they cannot then say that the bending is because different wave frequencies travel through the denser medium at different speeds. This is what any person with any common good sense might assume since his experience teaches him that a person can run faster on land than he can in water. But, because we have allowed ourselves to be intimidated by people who write of lot letters that do not spell anything after their names, the person with common good sense allows the people with a different kind of sense tell him that the speed of light is a Constant, and the whole universe would implode if light slowed down. So, the people without any common good sense assume, because they know that the speed of light is a Constant, that the refraction has to be because the lower frequency waves bounce around more in the denser medium and must travel farther, but at the same speed, before they reach the other side of the medium.

Now the coordinated, synchronous choreography of all these dancing photons must be an amazing sight to behold if we could ever find a way to see light. Every single photon that is created by a wave of the same wavelength (and they are legion) has to bounce off of the exact same obstacles within the medium and be changed back and forth from a wave to a photon the exact same number of times and then exit the medium at the exact same time and place as all of the other waves of that frequency, or there would be no rainbow. The mathematical models of light bending are nothing compared to mind bending going on in all the imaginary modeling being done that region beyond the zero point of the number line. In that far land of negative numbers, a light beamed from one space ship traveling at the speed of light toward another space ship traveling at the speed of light toward it from the opposite direction will not only not be reflected back to the first spaceship, but the two space ships will not even exist in the same reality with each other. And, once again, is that not a lot of the blowing of the smoke?

But we are entirely dependent upon LIGHT to examine this UNIVERSE. If our assumptions about light are wrong, then our conclusions about what we are seeing will most likely be wrong. I was watching a mystery made for British Television the other night, and one of the scenes showed a man driving a tractor. The shot of the tractor was of the right side, and the big wheel on the rear of tractor caught my attention because the outer circumference was turning backwards to the direction that it should have been turning for the tractor to be going forward. I am sure most of us have observed this phenomenon in a movie at some time or other where the tires of a vehicle appear to be turning backward. The reason for this is the strobe effect between the timing of the wheel turning and vertical synchronization frequency of the camera. (In the prehistoric times of movie cameras, it was because of shutter speeds, but the results were the same.)

But, what was slightly different about this tractor wheel was something I had never noticed before. The outer circumference of the large tire appeared to be turning backward as is usually seen in such movies, but the inner wheel hub appeared to be turning in the correct direction. The hub appeared to turn in the opposite direction from the tire rim. Having a little bit of understanding about tractor wheels and tires, I knew right away that what I was seeing was not possible. BUT, and this is an important BUT, if I had been looking at something about which I knew nothing, such as a distant star or galaxy, I would have readily, but wrongly, concluded that the outer circumference of the galaxy was turning in the opposite direction of its center.

The point of all of this is that seeing or not seeing anything does not prove anything at all. Everything that we believe we are observing in this material reality is tainted by the fact that Time is “strobing” us through eternity because of how Time passes in atomoses. This sets up a strobe effect within the material universe whereby the only things we perceive are those things that are in synch with the atomoses of time. This can be compared to a strobe light in a discotheque that causes us to see people moving around in jerks. Just as the motion that is occurring when the strobe light is off is not seen, everything that is real in eternity cannot be seen when TIME is off. But, if time here is really distance elsewhere, i.e. in Eternity, then distance in this reality has an effect upon this strobing, and much of what we see in the distance is not actually occuring in this reality, but in eternity. But not only does this strobing affect how we see distant things, but it likewise has an ever present effect on things near by, because the things of eternity are always just as close to us as the next interval between TIME and ETERNITY. People are slipping out of time and into eternity every passing moment, but the world is oblivious to these things because they must be spiritual discerned.

ELECTRICITY

Everyone knows about electricity, right? Flip the switch, and zap, something happens. When we flip the switch and nothing happens we go outside to see if nothing is happening everywhere else in the neighborhood. If nothing is happening anywhere when the switches are being flipped then we call the Electric Company. But what exactly is happening when we flip that switch? The theory is, that closing the switch “completes” something called a “closed electrical circuit.” Within that closed circuit something happens that expends energy across a work load, such as a light bulb, or a heater coil, or a motor, etc. But why does this energy exchange occur? Where does the electricity come from? (I don’t mean from the Electric Company, I mean where do they get it?)

Men have been studying electricity for over two thousand years trying to figure out what it really is. There are, at present two theories of what electricity is. One theory is that positively charged ions flow from a positive potential to a negative potential through a circuit that has some sort of “load” in the path of the electricity. This is called the Current Theory of Electricity. The other theory is called the Electron Theory, and in that theory, electrons, what ever they are supposed to be, flow from negative potentials to positive potentials through loads to do work. No one knows which theory is correct or even if either is correct. Everyone knows about as much about electricity as everyone else.

Either the electron theory or the current theory can be used to design electrical gizmos that accomplish work for us. Electricity will work for us regardless of whether we believe it goes from negative potentials to postive potentials or vice versa. But, somewhere inside of the source, regardless of which theory we use, the “electricity” has to travel travel backwards towards the same electrical charge as itself. This defies all expectations of like charges repelling and unlike charges attracting. If this flow of like charges to like charges does not occur we do not have a complete circuit and there is no energy exchanged in our loads. Many a car has failed to start because a dead cell in the battery interrupted the flow of electricity within the interior of the battery. If you want to use the electron theory then electrons must leave the negative terminal of your battery, pass through the load, and reenter the battery at the positive terminal and somehow get back to the negative terminal by flowing this time from positive to negative instead of from negative to positive. The explanation for batteries says that the chemistry of the battery keeps generating the electrons or whatever as long as we have a complete circuit. But still at some point, whatever electricity consists of, like charges have to get back together in order to complete the circuit. The same can be said of generators, alternators or what ever else one might use as a source of electricity.

Let us say for example that 1000 units of electricity leave the negative terminal. They then travel through the load and loose their energy. But the exact same number of them that left the negative terminal must arrive back at the positive terminal or we will not have a complete circuit. This is not a case where close counts. There will never be a case where 1000 leave the negative terminal and 999 arrive back at the positive one or vice versa. Regardless of which theory we use, the number of packets of electrical energy leaving the source must always be the exact same number that return to it. And they each one have to get back to some place where the potential charge is the same charge as their own. Like charges calling each other back home. That is what eventually has to happen in all closed circuits. And it makes no sense in conventional wisdom about what electricity is.

From now on instead of trying to account for both theories of electron flow and + ion flow I am going to say packets because that is what they both represent; packets of energy. Now, here is another strange part: It is supposed that the packets that leave the source transfer all of their energy to the resistance, the reactance, and the conductors in the circuit, and then the same number of packets return to the source as left it. But those returning packets are said to have no energy to do any work. (One is amazed that they can get home at all being so extremely tired, but they always have just enough energy left to get home.)

We are told that electricity always takes the path of least resistance, but why then does it not all pass through the smallest load instead of distributing itself proportionately to the various loads of the circuit? Perhaps there is something happening with electricity and the loads it energizes that we do not know anything at all about.

We simply do not know anything about electricity beyond observing what it does, and then designing some experiments to control it. The explanations that it is either electrons, or positive ions, or both is just a theoretical description of what is assumed to be happening within an electrical circuit. If you ask a scientist what an electron is you should have your bags packed for another trip into the regions of the negative numbers beyond the zero point of reality. He will tell you that an electron is a point source of energy that has no mass, but that it has angular momentum, inertia, and charge. He will tell you that it is a wave of energy that behaves like a particle. It sounds like the electron is related to the photon. So, all of these properties exist in a dimensionless point that has no mass. How does something that has no mass have inertia? And how does it have angular momentum, since the real world formulas for computing both inertia and angular momentum involve the mass of the object under consideration? Sounds like something is amiss in the computations in the regions of negative numbers beyond zero. Like, maybe, someone is few electrons short of a coulomb. But what if those packets of electricity actually are points of energy that have no mass in this reality, but plenty of mass in eternity? What if they are getting reenergized in between every atomos in eternity? What if half of the electrical properties we are trying to figure out are actually manifestations of something going on in eternity between the atomoses of TIME?

FOUR ELEMENTARY FORCES

According to modern scientists the material universe is governed by four elementary forces, gravity, magnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. Let me tell you right up front that no one, not even the “Einsteins” that have modeled them, understand anything at all about these force “thingies.’ They all resolve into Make Believe stories. And scientists omit the force of Electricity from the four Elementary Forces even though it is by far the strongest force of any of the other four. The reason Electricity is omitted is because most scientists think electricity is too strong to have played a part in the formation of the macrocosm. This is what I mean about Einsteins. Because they think electricity is too strong to have a part in the working of stars for example, they just ignore it when developing their theories of how stars work. Imagine, that I am going to explain to you how cars operate and I tell you that we are going to ignore the explosions that occur in the combustion chambers because they are too strong to have any part in the operation of the car. But that is what the “Einsteins” are doing. They say that Electricity would tear the stars apart if it played by our rules so it is not allowed to play in our game. Anyway, here are the remaining weak sisters that remain in the “Naming of Parts,” that are called the Four Fundamental Properties of Matter. (The mathematical models of these properties all resolve into something more like the Four Fundamental Properties of Doesn’t Matter.)

GRAVITY

Neither Newton nor Einstein could explain Gravity. Both of the explanations, Newtonian Physics, and General Relativity resolve into the statements that Gravity is a force that makes things attract each other. But we have no idea why this force exists in the universe and can propagate itself from one end of the universe to the other while being mutually mingled with the gravitational force of each and every other piece of matter within the universe. Neither Newtonian Physics nor the General Theory of Relativity offer any explanation of what generates the force called Gravity. Gravity is named as a fundamental property of matter, meaning that there is no one who knows anything about it except its name. While logic tells us there must be a cause for Gravity, no one has ever developed notion of what that cause might be. And yet everyone who has ever studied Gravity has concluded that it affects everything in the Universe.

Scientists have given the cause of rocks falling a name. The name is Gravity. And now we know that on earth all things fall because of (for the cause of) Gravity. This is the same thing as saying that the cause of things falling is the falling of things. Everywhere in the real world an effect demands a cause, but when their formulas clearly point to supernatural cause, scientists would rather say there is no cause than to admit such a thing. But the Bible has declared for the last two thousand years that the power source of Gravity is the supernatural power of Jesus Christ. (Heb. 1:1-3) This is actually a superior explanation for gravity than that offered by either Newton or Einstein because it at least predicts, as we have continually seen, that the power source for Gravity is supernatural and cannot be discovered using testing methods developed for the study of natural things.

MAGNETISM

No one understands what magnetism is either. Ask anyone who has studied it why magnetism, like Gravity, does not weaken with use and yet, also like Gravity, it has no known power source. All explanations to date are once again merely the “Naming of Parts.” If you attempt to force the “north” poles of two rather strong magnets together you will have to exert some energy, and your muscles will certainly feel the resistance to this effort. While you are expending energy your muscles are tiring, but the magnets just keep on resisting you without any effort or loss of power. Such a power defies not only all logic, but all laws of natural science. There is no good explanation of why magnetism exists in some materials and not in others, or why it drives “electrons” crazy in conductors within closed circuits but not in open circuits.

A “not so good” place to observe the effects of a magnet is on the surface of your color TV set, for while you will certainly see some spectacular results, your TV picture will be un-cool for a good long time there after, and you will probably not recognize your favorite football team. To be sure there are many explanations that name the parts of what we have observed about magnetism. But there are none that can explain why there is such a thing as magnetism, nor how its power is generated, or why there are such things as nonmagnetic materials. All explanations depend upon the supposed alignment of “electrons” and molecular domains about which no one can tell us the first non imaginary thing.

Rather than admit they cannot tell us anything real about Magnetism, everything scientists tell us about it is unreal except for its name. No one can say why the Earth has a magnetic field in a supposedly molten core. Neither can anyone explain how magnetism is propagated through space with out any magnetic medium through which to travel. Scientists say magnetic fields are propagated through space because they are fields of force that exert their effects over distances. Once again they are only “Naming the Parts.” Ask them why something has a magnetic field and they will tell you is because it is a magnet. And ask them how they know it is a magnet and they will tell you because it has a magnetic field. And so we can clearly see now that magnets are magnets because they are magnetic. The formulas for magnetism point to a supernatural power source but no “real scientist” will admit to it.

A very promising thing that is happening with magnetism by some people is the development of magnetic engines that require no power sources except magnets. You can see this at http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/06/30/6900029PerendevPowerMagneticMotor/index.html One has to wonder why such remarkable things are kept nearly secret. It is no wonder that so many conspiracy theories abound when we are kept in the dark by our media about such things as this.

THE TWO NUCLEAR FORCES

If there were two humans so devoid of common sense as the two nuclear forces they would be committed. The two nuclear forces came into being to explain why particles with supposed like charges can stick together to form the building blocks of the Universe when everyone knows from observation that “like” charges repel each other. So Viola! We have the plasticized Quantum Theory that says there are two nuclear forces. The one nuclear force causes like charges to repel each other until they are forced so close together that the other nuclear force causes them to attract each other. How marvelously can science explain things through the “Naming of Parts.”

ATOMS

You have probably heard that the Universe is made up of thingies called atoms. Belief in Atoms originated not with Einstein, but with ancient Grecian Dreamers like Lucretius and Epicurus. These philosophers were not scientists, but like all philosophers, they attempted to put their observations of the universe into their religious beliefs. Atomic theory, that has come down from these ancients, holds that it is the Atom, not the Creator, that is self existent. The Atom was before all things and in the Atom all things consist.

Because things happen that cannot be otherwise explained, like atoms spinning, and atoms forming molecules, and molecules forming compounds, and compounds forming such inexplicable things as a Universe full of spinning, revolving, racing things, and the earth within it, abounding with such a remarkable thing as life, the atomists had to develop some concept to explain all of this, and after many generations of pains taking research on the behavior of atoms, which they could not see, and which they could only imagine, after the fashion the square root of minus one, they discovered the cause of all things, and they called it CHANCE.

Chance has no cause. Chance has no source of power. Chance is random which means that it has no order. No one has ever been able to explain how some single atoms, presumably of hydrogen, ever got together to form Helium, for example. But that is what Lucretius said they did, so they must have done it somehow. Lucretius did not have a clue about the complexities of an atom, and neither do we today, if in truth, they really exist at all. And no one can say for sure that they do exist. We supposedly have split the atom to release its power and used the disintegration of Uranium to produce electricity, but such things are merely using the effects of something we don’t fully understand like using the power of Gravity in a waterwheel without knowing anything at all about Gravity itself.

LIFE

What is life? This is not an idle question. How you answer it will determine the paradigm within which you live out your Life, and where you will spend your eternal life. Can life have a purely mechanistic origin? Is there some innate property of matter that makes it form itself into ever more and more complex molecules until something comes alive within it? You have probably heard that a few years ago scientists mapped the human genome. What that means is they have pretty well figured out the double helix spiral of DNA and what information is contained within those spirals. But, this is yet a very long way from understanding what Life is.

If you take a DNA sample from my body while I am alive, and then wait until I am long dead, and take another sample, the two samples will match exactly. But something will have to be missing that does not show up in the DNA. That something is life. If you take some beans and analyze them chemically. And then put some of those beans into a microwave oven and heat them up for a few seconds and analyze samples from both sets of beans a second time, the analysis of the two sets will match. But when you plant the beans, only those that had not been put in the microwave oven will sprout. The reason that the beans that had been put in the oven did not sprout is because they were dead. They looked the same as the other beans, and they were chemically the same as the other beans, and I dare say their DNA’s would match. Something is missing in the second set of beans. That something is a thing we don’t know anything at all about except to give it a name. We call it life and that is where our knowledge of it ends.

You have probably been told by some one at some time or other that it is your life and you can do with it as you will. Well, if you believe that to be true then you must tell me when you have decided to die, I mean, after all it is your life, when do you plan for it to end. If it is truly your life, then every death is a suicide. Also, you must tell me how tall you have decided to be, and how heavy you have chosen to be, and what color of hair you are going to have, and how often you are going to get sick, and what diseases you are going to fight off and to which ones you are going to succumb. “Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.” James 4:14

All life on Earth is carbon based. That means that before life can appear as described by Darwinists, there must be plenty of Carbon atoms available in the environment. It has been computed that the CHANCE of a single carbon atom forming from a bunch of hydrogen atoms is one in 10^40,000. No one can comprehend the magnitude of that number. By comparison, it has been calculated that the number of “electrons” in the entire Universe is only 10⁸⁰. The number of atoms in the universe then can be no where nearly that large as the number of electrons since all atoms supposedly have more than one “electron.” It is purported to take 12 “electrons” to make up the “electron” shells of a carbon atom, and who knows what is actually in the “protons” and “neutrons” of the nucleus.

But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that all of the 10⁸⁰ “electrons” in the entire universe could somehow become involved in the making up of just one single carbon atom by Chance. With every electron in the Universe involved in making this Carbon atom, and it if it is somehow happening that they were attempting to make this carbon atom at a rate of ten thousand times a second, it would still take 316.86^39,087 years to form the first Carbon atom by random CHANCE. By comparison, there are only 4.5⁹ years in the four and one half billion years that “scientists” estimate to be the age of the Universe. Compounding the silliness of this Atomistic belief is the fact that Carbon does not equate to life. There are still a jillion jillion additional things which must happen for Carbon and other atoms to form the building blocks of life, and no one know just what life is. Life is such a complex thing that it is impossible to understand what the difference is between a living person and a dead one. I understand that you can check the vital signs, but those do not explain what it means for one body to be alive with breath and beating heart and another body in which those have ceased.. Vital signs of life are just the “Naming of Parts.” What is the stuff of life? No one knows. But it is for certain that it cannot have arisen by chance because there is away and gone too much that has to happen to atoms in order to bring them to life.

THE HYPOTHESIS OF EVOLUTION

And now we come to the grandest “Just So Story” of them all. When Darwin sailed on the HMS Beagle he carried with him Charles Lyell’s fairy tale book, “The Principles of Geology” in which Lyell made popular the doctrines of Uniformitarianism Geology first professed by James Hutton. Like Hutton, Lyell did not think the proposition of a World Wide Flood such as described in The Genesis account in the Bible could explain all of the rock strata, the fossils, etc, that he observed in his study of Geology. You must take note that neither Hutton nor Lyell had ever seen a world wide flood such as described in the Bible, but they just thought about it for a while and decided that such a flood could not explain the geological features of the earth as we see them. No proof, no experience, no evidence, not data, no testing, no science -- they just did not think that a world wide flood could explain what they saw in geology, and so they wrote books and declared that science had proven the Bible to be wrong. When Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980 it proved all such uniformitarianists to be “filthy dreamers.”

Both Hutton and Lyell believed that the earth had to be much older than claimed by the Bible in order for it to exhibit such an aged appearance. So, what I want you to do right now, is to go outside and pick up a rock. Look at the rock, and ask yourself, “How old does this rock have to be in order for it to have this appearance?” Now go and write a book. You will certainly find someone who will publish it for you. That is a close to science as Hutton, Lyell, Darwin, et. al. have ever gotten. Darwin was so influenced by reading Principles of Geology that he admitted that every time he looked at something he was looking through Lyell’s eyes from that time forward. When Mt.Saint Helens erupted it should have forever silenced the tongues of Uniformitarian Geologists, but some are still holding on even though Catastrophism is now becoming the order of the day. But that does not mean that geologists are coming to believe in the Genesis Flood. Far from it. They are coming to believe in hundreds of thousands of local catastrophes like Mt.St. Helens.

Evolution is a faulty hypothesis so devoid of any semblance of real science that it has now become plasticized enough to take into account even the fact that there is no scientific proof for it. Without going into the inane speciationsof Ernst Mayr, who I have not actually wasted anytime reading, I will attempt to describe its sibling, Punctuated Equilibria, for you. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge are credited with establishing the principles of punctuated equilibrium in a paper published in 1972. Did you notice that they established some principles by writing a paper? You can bet the farm that their paper did not include any falsification proposals. They just wrote, and, Viola, the principles were established. It amazes me no end that these so called scientists will believe anyone who just writes a paper and establishes the principles by which the universe and life have automatically formed themselves, but they refuse to believe that God did it all.

The reason the Principles of Punctuated Equilibrium had to be developed was to account for the fact that there are no transitional forms, none, zilch, nada, zip, that have ever been found in the fossil record. The truth of this fact is clearly stated by many evolutionists, including Darwin who acknowledged when he published Origin of Species that he had not so far found any of the transitional forms that were absolutely essential to establishing his proposals as an hypothesis. But Darwin stated his belief that others would eventually find what he had failed to produce. So finding intermediary species in the fossil record was the falsification test Darwin proposed for his Hypothesis of Evolution, and after millions of man days looking for them none have been found. Evolution has been falsified according to Darwin’s proposals. But that has not stopped the filthy dreamers from modifying the hypothesis to take into the account that no intermediary fossils have ever been found.

Not one intermediary form, out of the millions of fossils that have been unearthed from every part of the Planet, has ever been discovered. No Frinces (frogs in the process of becoming princes) have ever been found. It was becoming increasingly evident that no intermediary forms were ever going to found so the so called “Theory” of Evolution had to be further plasticized to account for that fact. Thus, the Principles of Punctuated Equibria became science with the wave of paper. The Principles of Punctuated Equilibria are simply stated as follows: The reason that there are no intermediary fossils found in the fossil record is because Evolution does not occur gradually in species as previously assumed. Rather, Evolution occurs sporadically and rapidly with long periods of stasis in between. There are no fossils in the record that show where Evolution was occurring because it happens so infrequently as to make them extremely rare. (They just cannot bring themselves to admit that in truth they are absolutely non existent.) And when Evolution does occur, it happens so quickly that it does not leave a record. Gould and Eldridge will probably one day receive a posthumously awarded Nobel Prize for the discovery of NO FOSSILS.

It is appalling to see that by 1972 Evolution had become so entrenched in so called scientific thinking, without having a single thread of hard evidence to back it up, that it was possible to publish a “scientific” paper stating the reason there was no proof that it had ever occurred was because it occurs too infrequently for natural processes to capture and save it, and when it does occur, it occurs so quickly that it leaves no record. According to Plastic Man Science, the proof that Evolution has occurred is found in the fact that there is no proof for it.

The circle of reasoning goes something like this: There is no proof that Evolution has ever occurred, but we are here. There is no other cause (except, God Forbid, God) that can explain how we got here, therefore, Evolution has to have occurred or we would not be here. There now! Evolution has been proved to everyone’s satisfaction, except for those idiotic, dogmatic, pragmatists who still want examine things critically and empirically and test hypotheses to see if they are true or false. We now have to choose to believe in one of two propositions, 1) we can choose to believe in the dead and plainly falsified hypothesis of Evolution, or 2) we can believe that the Bible is accurate in every aspect of the description of the Creation.

In order to continue to believe in Evolution one has to disregard, ignore, or outright lie about tons of facts that deny it can ever have happened. Such things as the fossilized tracks of men and dinosaurs in the same rock, pictures of dinosaurs in caves drawn by people who lived there and saw them, and the Biblical description of a dinosaur called Leviathan. All such things point to the fact that man and dinosaurs lived on earth together in the recent past. Dr. Carl Baugh, the founder of the Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, TX, has found a complete dinosaur fossil, a human tooth, and an iron hammer in the same rock strata. The iron hammer is interesting because it does not rust. We cannot make an iron hammer today that does not rust, but someone more technologically advanced than we made one in the past and left it to be covered by mud that was suddenly hardened into rock by a source of great heat and pressure.

Dr. Tom Barnes, now deceased, proved beyond any shadow of doubt that no form of life could have existed on Earth beyond about 10,000 years ago. He did this by empirically studying the decay rate of the Earth’s Magnetic Field. Using real world data that was accumulated in a truly scientific fashion, he found that the Earth’s Magnetic Field has been steadily decreasing in strength at a rate of ~5% every 100 years. Extrapolating this data backward in time, Dr. Barnes proved that life could not have existed on earth beyond approximately ten thousand years because of the strength of the magnetic field because the strength of the Earth’s Magnetic Field would have been too strong for life to have survived. Because of his findings Evolutionists had to come up with a hypothesis that could explain how life could have existed beyond 10,000 years ago because even the most die hard evolutionist understands that Evolution, even the Punctuated Equilibrium kind, requires vast periods of time. Therefore, it was proposed that the earth’s magnetic field has to fluctuate periodically by reversing its polarity. Because men do not know anything about magnetism, beyond the fact that it exists, and the strength of a magnetic field which can be measured, they are pretty much free to imagine into a fact anything they want. All they have to do is imagine for awhile and then write a paper.

Dr. Barnes had some real facts and measured data, those who did not want to believe his findings had rock solid imaginations. Once again their reasoning went like this: Since everyone with any brains knows that Evolution is true, and everyone knows that the Earth’s Magnetic Field is decaying right now, it therefore has to be presently going into another phase where it will reverse itself. We cannot say for certain why this is so, but we now know that it must be so, because, if it were not so Evolution could not be true, and because people and the universe exist, everyone with any brains knows that Evolution has to have occurred.

Therefore: Bingo!!!. The Earth’s Magnetic Field comes from an alternating current dynamo that nobody can prove exists, and which no one can explain how it works, but which every one knows must be there, because if it is not there, Evolution would be false and if Evolution were false we could not be here wondering how the Magnetic Field dynamo works. Now you can sleep well at night knowing that the problem of life on earth in relation to Earth’s Magnetic Field has been resolved.

One other fact that they do not want you to think about is that an alternating current does not cause its magnetic field to decrease in intensity. It only causes it to reverse polarity. So an alternating current in the earth’s core still does not explain how the earth’s magnetic field can have existed for eons.

Another scientific fact that has to be explained away in order to keep from dismantling the Hypothesis of Evolution is that of the salt in the ocean. The rate at which salt is being delivered into the oceans has been reasonably well documented by measuring the amount of salt being emptied into the oceans by the world’s rivers. At present there is not nearly enough salt in world’s oceans for the process to have been occurring for millions of years. While this does not disprove the Hypothesis of Evolution, it does further dispute the assumption of Uniformitarian Geology that says that all present processes are sufficient to explain all topographical features now observed on the Earth. As noted earlier, Uniformitarianism was the foundation of Hutton’s and Lyell’s hypothesis concerning the age of the earth, and it is pretty much dead now. Darwin was entirely confident that the principles of Uniformitarianism would provide the time necessary for his Hypothesis of Evolution. The Eruption of Mt. Saint Helens in 1980 was God’s gift to true scientists, those who want to study things as they are and try to explain them logically using the scientific method. Mt.Saint Helens proved once and for all that Uniforitarian Geology is a fairy tale for those who do not like to keep God in their science.

The recent discovery of soft tissue and semi-fresh blood vessels inside of a fossilized T-Rex thigh bone has flashed like lightening through the Evolutionist community without a trace of evidence that they have heard the thunder. There are literally scores of Evolutionist taking note of this discovery without a word questioning how such tissues could have been preserved for millions of years. It is far simpler to ignore the truth than to admit your philosophy needs to be formed and shaped by it. Since first discovering this tissue in 2006, many other fossils have been found to contain such tissues preserved inside of a fossilized exterior. This discovery of nearly fresh tissue, blood cells, and blood vessels is proof beyond all doubt that fossils are not millions of years old, yet it is in complete agreement with what one would expect of a Creation that is only thousands of years old and where dinosaurs and men lived together before and after the Genesis Flood.

There are literally thousands of additional arguments that can be made against the Hypothesis of Evolution and for the doctrine of the Creation. But one more thing must be mentioned because it is used as an argument against a young creation even while used in support for the absolute necessity of a Creator. It is said that the Universe has to be old because it is BIG. Light has to travel millions of years to reach us from distant stars. Three things are assumed in this proposition: First, it is assumed that the stars came into being in the approximate places where we now see them. Secondly, it is assumed that after being created in those places the light from those stars had to travel through space to reach us. And thirdly, it assumed that the speed of light is constant.

There is no way of proving or disproving the first assumption. It is a belief, a religious tenet. But everything beyond our Solar System gives the appearance of being in motion and traveling in directions that are away from earth. So if they are truly moving away from earth as it appears, there is no good reason to assume that they are in the same place now as they were when they came into being. As to the second assumption, the Bible teaches that God created light before he ever created any sources of light. Now that is a statement of profound significance, but which no one can understand using today’s assumptions about light. But as I explained earlier, no one even knows what light is, so how do they dare say that light cannot exist before a source of light? The third assumption that the speed of light is constant has also been examined earlier, but one word further about that now. Since, we have seen, both time and the Universe could be passing through eternity atomos by atomos (moment by moment), things that we think should take a long time could have occurred in an atomos. The spiritual reality impregnates itself into the present with every passing moment and what God does in Eternity can come to pass in between two moments or atomoses, of time in this reality.

And speaking of Earth, the only way Astrophysicists can mathematically model a universe where Earth is not at the center of it is by assuming an initial state of a finite cosmos without boundaries? Even they cannot picture such a situation so what they do is use two separate sets of equations to model this proposition. Anyone who has even a passing interest in science now understands that the Big Bang is a dead proposition, but still they continue to model it mathematically. In order to allow for an exploding Universe where Earth is not at the center they have to use two sets of equations. One set describes a finite cosmos and another set describes a boundless cosmos and then they merge the two at common equalities, and all such equivalencies use imaginary numbers making their models likewise to be imaginary.

All astronomical data suggests that everything in the Universe is speeding away from the Earth. In every direction we look everything is “Getting out of Dodge.” Once again, what we are observing now is based upon the assumptions that the speed of light is constant, and that the red shift in the light spectrums of distant objects is caused by their motion away from us. These are two fairly presumptuous assumptions since we don’t know anything at all about light. The red shift is used as an indication of how fast the distant object is receding from us, then that is assumed to indicate how far the object is from us. But what if the speed of light is not constant, and what if the frequency of light is affected by other forces as it traverses the universe? All assumption would then be out the window.

The point is that we probably do not even know for sure how to measure the distance of distant things. But assuming we can, then everything in the Universe is moving away from Earth, and the things that are the farthest away are moving at the fastest speeds. In a real world when you observe everything around you moving away from you, and that everything that is equidistant from you is moving at the same speed as everything else that is at that distance, you would just kind of logically conclude that you were at the center of things. But, not in the minds of those who do not like to keep God in their science, because, if Earth were in the center of things, that would make Earth special. Earth cannot be allowed to be special, in a universe formed by CHANCE so the original universe is assumed to be finite but unbounded so that earth is not in the center of things. This is the same thing as saying the original universe was a finite infinity. Ain’t they clever?

GLOBAL WARMING

One last comment: The “hot button, smoking gun” issue for Humanists today is Global Warming. All of the evidence that Global Warming is being caused by humans is based upon the core samples of the Greenland Ice Sheets. These cores have been taken from the surface of the ice sheet down to bedrock 10,000 feet below. All data is interpreted under the assumption of Uniformitarianism, which, as we have seen, has been proven to be as baseless as a theory can get. These scientists, falsely so called, believe they can use a dead theory as the basis of their interpretations of data when it is convenient to the conclusion they wish to reach, but reject it when it proves false to another conclusion they wish to reach. This picking and choosing of assumptions is a profound departure from classic science, and it is going to prove to be our downfall.

The Bible clearly teaches that the out put of the sun is going to increase in the times before the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is considerable evidence that at least part if not most of what we see as Global Warming is the result of an increase in the output of solar energy. No one knows for sure why the climate seems to be changing, but it is an historic certainty that we have just finished coming out of a mini-ice age that ended around 1850. There are many factors that affect climate, and some, such as ocean currents are never mentioned is because they have only recently been studied.

We are being sold a bill of no-goods. We need to come out of darkness return to The Light. America needs to return to the belief in our Creator, and then to understand that everything we see, observe, and compute points us to the truth that there is an Eternal Reality that exists all around us, and we are being passed through this Supernatural Realm moment by moment toward an ETERNAL DESTINY. The Bible teaches us that we live and move and have our being in our Creator. Scientists, falsely so-called, are telling us that the search for the knowledge of God is not profitable because no one can prove His existence. Well, as we have seen, neither is their falsely so-called science profitable except to confuse and confound reality. I cannot go farther without telling you that some scientist, falsely so-called, will try to say that the development of such technological wonders as television, electromagnetic resonant imaging, men walking on the moon, and medicines that affect our very genes, etc. prove that their postulates are correct. But get them to show why any of those things depend upon their Quantum Theory, or their Theory of Evolution, or their theories of Relativity, and everything they say will ultimately be reducible to simple cause and effect reasoning using real world mathematics that are not dependent upon the square root of minus one. For example, it is assumed by most people today that such things as the space program could not have happened until we learned to use Calculus and gravitational theory from Relativity before we could send space probe into space and rendezvous with their targets. But that assumption is entire false, because we did not need anything but the geometric principles of planetary motion mathematically described by Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) to aim and hit a planet in orbit.

Additionally, one of the fallouts of quantum theory is that reality is created by observation. Now they are not going to come right out and say such a thing in their daily conversations to the rest of us because they know we would thereafter ignore them, but look at what one Quantum Physicist has said, “We now know the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks.” I’ll bet you did not know that the tides in the rocks that cause the daily upheaval and displacement of the earth’s crust is because you have been looking at the moon. There is no way a Near Earth Body can impact the earth if we will just stop looking for them. Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornados, volcanoes, and the like will go away if we just don’t look for them. Too bad the same is not true of quantum theorists.

The purpose of writing this stuff is to show you the nature of the philosophical strongholds that men are hiding behind today so they can take pot shots at the Word of God. It is also to confirm that the Creation is a logical place, that God is a logical personality, and that when He created man in His own image, he made a logical man. As I pointed out from the Gospel of John, first chapter, first verse, God is the Eternal Logos. For the last three or four generations Americans have been systematically moved away from the authority of the Word of God as the basis of our more`s. This has been accomplished by creating a paradigm of faith in men of science who are lying to us through their teeth.

Nearly every American today will say that they do not understand the things these liars are talking about yet none the less they will believe that what they are saying is the Truth. There is no truth in them; they are liars who receive their inspiration from the father of lies. Before we can experience the only kind of revival in America that will save us from the wrath of an angry God we must tear down the walls of these strongholds that are holding us captive and return to the Word of God as our only source of authority and inspiration. If we do not do so we will surely die as a nation.