Thursday, July 13, 2017

AMBIOGENESIS - Miller-Urey the Insipid Dunderhead's Version of Genesis

The Sentience Thesis concludes the energy that constitutes the human soul, and provides life to man and animal, is not yet comprehensively identified or comprehended by science/quantum physics. New quarks are discovered regularly when new technology (and God) permits it. This life energy is unique and different from the generic electricity and light (Electrons & Photons) seen and encountered each day on earth and the universe.  
In order to arrive at a human consciousness, human life must first be assessed and qualified. The fundamental energy animating life - is a mandatory component needing clarification, and, a question produced from phenomenon wanting an answer. Science and physics contend electrons/photons are generic, universal pieces of energy. Science further asserts life is powered by electrons.  True - the electro encephalogram (EEG) is used by science and medicine to verify life energy (electrons) are present in a body. Science additionally contends biological evolution explains the variety of life forms present on earth, and, how life initially arose. Science condescendingly adds: no God(s) ever existed. Science acted to prove the integrity of their claims. They devised an experiment to forever end consideration of a Divine Causality for life as we know it. 
 The Miller-Urey experiment was exclusively designed and devised to prove; if man acquired the proper ingredients, and introduced those ingredients into a viable environment, AND, literally provided the spark – life would spontaneously arise. (Please note, assembly is required with the Miller-Urey experiment. Comparatively, it is an insipid dunderhead’s version of Genesis. In no interpretation can the potential results be termed Spontaneous. Results are a product of experiment’s design and human interaction! Ergo, applying the term spontaneous to any explanation of how life arose in the universe is preposterous, dishonest, and ungrateful.) 
Miller-Urey’s spontaneous life is ignited when the small, controlled, electrical charge (literally the “Spark O’Life”) is introduced to the vessel containing the essential ingredients for life. Miller-Urey’s specific purpose to provide evidence (PROOF!) that when naturally occurring, and essential for life, materials found on earth, irrespective of their initial point of origin, are assembled in the proper proportions, and stimulated by energy, Life (as we know it) will spontaneously erupt - ostensibly. The first use of Miller-Urey was 1952. Ambiogenesis is the term “created” to describe the experiment’s purpose.  The definition of Ambiogenesis in the lay science dictionary: “…an experiment using natural materials and methods to eliminate a divine causality from the potential life creation process(es) considered.”  
 If a person takes the time to investigate this experiment and the results; and, if a modicum of objective rationality and rudimentary logic are introduced in the investigation; significant problems are witnessed, and easily detected in the Miller-Urey experiment.  Science currently claims the experiment produces the “Building Blocks for Life”. That term is overtly nebulous and purposely misleading. The Building Blocks for Life - MAY include: amino acids – although the specific quantities and types are unstated. The building blocks may involve: organic matter, inorganic matter, unspecified quantities, and indeterminate concentrations, configurations, etc.  Astoundingly, science consistently claims creating life is (using the modern vernacular) “Cake” – way easy. Curiously, and to science’s continuing consternation, no scientist has ever produced an organism (of any variety) i.e. “Created Life” - using the Miller-Urey experiment.
 This presents a conflict. Science’s own “Method” contains specific instructions on experiments with outcomes like Miller-Urey. They are to be documented and set aside as a failure – pending any future experiment with more positive results. Moreover, the actual results on an important foray into the creation of life as we know it deserves copious public reporting. Betraying their own Method, the Miller-Urey results science published are nebulous and over stated – to be kind.
 Any honest confederation of highly educated people who claim omniscient integrity and absolute authority in matters of fact and truth, would piously declare the results of their Miller-Urey labors for all to see.  No matter the outcome of their work, success or failure being irrelevant, when a group is endowed with the supercilious domain science gratuitously grants itself, they fear no challenge. Incoherently, science has yet to copiously publish the results of the experiment, or, the details explaining the “Building Blocks for Life”. This leads one to posit a reasoned alternative analysis; IF, any form of life, or an arrangement of matter that could host life, arose from the experiment, it would be published in large, bold, type and broadcast relentlessly. Science hasn’t. Inexplicably, the results of the original Miller Urey were buried in an obscure professional journal. Using that avenue of reporting exposes the insignificance and dubious usefulness of the product generated by the experiment – Black Goo. Black "Goo" is the substance produced in Miller-Urey from an objective perspective.
 In 2007 scientists opened the vessel sealed in 1952 and concluded amino acids were present. I don’t recall much fanfare and doubt the credibility of the findings published.  However, following the comprehensive Miller Urey postulate - potentially, one billion odd years from now, the amino acids produced in that first Miller-Urey experiment, if, and when, who knows what, additional, specific, and essential, matter and energy align, they might erupt into a “Life as we Know It” organism. Miller Urey apparently uses secular, subjective, and relative, interpretations of life. Another “potential” explanation exists. Science lied stated overly hopeful conclusions, because if the Miller-Urey experiment realized nothing, it pushes science backwards into God’s lap.  
 Still, there are useful lessons in Miller-Urey. It is an experiment that consistently produces the same outcome. It has never failed to deliver that outcome. It is a wonderful experiment to produce Black Goo. Science claims the Goo contains the "building blocks of life”. An unscientific, but objective analysis might contend it is Black Goo and nothing more. Unless and until, science produces verifiable physical evidence that proves what science alleges – using the same stringent standards science demands from religion - Miller-Urey remains an abject secular failure. The life energy needed to actually animate inert matter is not currently discovered and therefore available to science. The secular scientist’s worldview asserts God is a super natural, wrong-headed and simpleminded belief that ignores reality. The irony is stupefying.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Why Obama Lies

Barak Obama has mental issues. Whenever a child's father abandons him, severe "self esteem" conflicts ensue. When the same child is raised in a household, by grandparent (his mother had little time for him either) and he learns from the white bread Kansas grandparents behaviors and words - he was not the first grandchild option the grandparents envisioned - the child's mental issues expand and take root. The child begins lying to himself. He creates fantasies to sooth his loneliness and hurt - and explain away his father's callous disregard. 

When the child is next thrust into the care of Frank Davis - the instructor's anti-white prejudice and Communism biased lesson plans, instills an all consuming hatred. The child's focus is honed towards what he believes caused the father's disregard - racism & capitalism. Sympathetically, he aligns himself with his absent father's political beliefs (to grow more close to his father) - if only in his mind. The child refuses to accept a reality where his father didn't love him. 

Factually, Stanley Obama, his father, was a ne'er-do-well rabble rouser. He railed against capitalism to excused his own professional failures. He died a drunk.

To avoid facing reality the child must develop a separate reality. That separate reality is pure fiction, but preferred to the emotional devastation bound up in the father's disregard. The child cannot prevent his peers asking questions like: Who and where is your Dad? To protect his fantasy, the child lies.  Lying eases his emotional turmoil. Lying provides an  answer to questions in a way that protects the father and excuses his distance. Lies preserve the child's fantasy - his father really does love. 

Overtime, the child becomes skilled in lying, retelling the lies, and inuring the fantasy cocoon. An absence of paternal affection is filled with hatred for the people that (in his mind) kept his father away.  

Having white liberal professors and student peers fawn and genuflect at his skin color, he learned the power of race and racism. He saw the fealty to affirmative action, and used it first hand to obtain power and influence his intellect and abilities precluded. His peers and professors believed his lies and lauded them.  Lying became the practical means to fool and get even with the people he despises, and, attack their accomplishments. Practicing lying reveals the scope of his influence and prevarications.

Then add a Jeremiah Wright to provide him a forum, to refine and indoctrinate hatred. Perfect the the ignominious ideology In a church where hatred of whites was preeminent and intense. This background sums to only one end. It produces a Sociopath with an agenda - proficient in lying. 

Obama's ability to differentiate reality from fantasy in critical areas of his life is dubious. He is motivated to find peace with his father and himself. He works to carry his father's Communist agenda and beliefs forward. Punishing the people who made his father go away (against his will) is the concordant objective. If lying is required to accomplish his ambitions, he will lie and not believe he is lying.

Enter politics and find a press that will protect you, lie for you, hide your failures, cover your illicit actions, ignore your foibles, and a deranged monstrosity bent on vengeance forms.   
The Democrat Party and Progressive Left are literally stuck in a legacy not unlike Uncle Remus' Tar Baby. The War on Whites is the legacy. WIll Democrats admit the mistake? Don't count on it. See Ferguson, Baltimore, etc. Obama lit a fire to destroy a white society that persecuted his father and drove him away. Democrats must continue the destruction - or else admit they are complicit. 

Monday, July 10, 2017

"Scientific" Stand Up Comedy

Cosmologists and Quantum Physicists must want an avocation - Stand Up Comedy.   Their calculations and conclusions regarding the origin of the universe - the Big Bang - are hilarious and stands to prove my assertion.

Edwin Schrodinger was a brilliant man... a lady's man... a mathematician... a physicist... a closet philosopher... and author to name a few of his accomplishments.  Ed was on the cutting edge when quantum physics was codified into a  discipline.   Ed was so instrumental in those days he was honored with his own a math symbol for the work he did with "UNCERTAINTY". 

 - Thanks to Physics for

Aside: I proudly wear this equation and many others.  They are my Cheat Sheet for the afterlife.  I had them tattooed on my body beginning at age 57.

Schrodinger's equation calculates how the electron/photon behaves when it is hypothetically presumed to occupy a wave state, at a hypothetical position.  Hypothetical?  Yes.  Keep reading...
Schrodinger's Cat Paradox was his reply to science's interpretation of the uncertainty surrounding Not Knowing the STATE or the POSITION of an electron/photon when studying sub-atomic matter.  

The electron/photon can and does occupy the same place, at the same time, they are the same piece of matter - and a different piece of matter.  Are you keeping up?  

The Paradox:

A cat is placed inside a box with a deadly, diabolical device that will eventually, at some unknown point, self activate and kill the cat.  No one knows when the device will set off - only that it will.  Ergo... when a person opens the box, the cat will either be alive, or dead.  No S__t Sherlock!  I'm not throwing stones at Ed - he got it!  He knew how preposterous it was / is for scientists to speculate on the state and position of an object they wish to investigate and make determinations.  

Schrodinger wrote a book - What is Life? - presumably to reconcile and/or give comments on his opinion regarding quantum physics, it's study, and how it and other considerations relate to life - as we know it.  

Ed's other comments encapsulates his views on quantum mechanics/physics.

"God knows I am no friend of probability theory, I have hated it from the first moment when our dear friend Max Born gave it birth. For it could be seen how easy and simple it made everything, in principle, everything ironed and the true problems concealed. Everybody must jump on the bandwagon [Ausweg]. And actually not a year passed before it became an official credo, and it still is."  

What Ed is politely suggesting is uncertainty is entirely hypothetical and scientists are being disingenuous.  Just because great mathematicians can make equations align hypotheticals, does not make the hypothesis true!  It is their job to make equation agree and find the means, or create a new means, for the math to agree with the hypothesis.  They use this junk methodology ubiquitously in physics and in cosmology and an area when time/space or size restricts their investigations and make their expanding new information on the subject impossible.  Consider any atom... it is very very very small, the electron is smaller than the atom and moves at light speed (or faster), it changes states at will, or when a human investigates it, it transmit information over vast distances instantaneously and possesses other abilities that make its study extremely difficult - impossible really.  


Approximate???!!!  For objects that are nanometers apart?  Seriously? 

The same, but opposite conditions, confront cosmology - huge objects billions of light years distant, etc.  Both branches of science hate God.  They hold no place for God and have worked since Darwin to murder God and keep him dead.  They greatly fear resurrection - as they know that has happened before - at least once - which is more times than science has localized and stopped an electron - performed the calculations they presume are correct, and validate their hypothesis(s).  Science did not could not admit an unknown entity helped arrange, form, or create the universe and all the matter and life within it - they had murdered God.  For God to remain dead, they needed an explanation other than Genesis.  

Science needed an UN-Godly explanation for the creation of the universe.  They came up with the Big Bang...

The “Uncaused First Cause” - and the origin of the matter resident in the Big Bang - are obstacles science blatantly ignores, or, Presumes into existence.   Presumption…  That’s just like God creating the earth out of nothingness!  (Creation is an incorrect scriptural translation in my studies.)  Creating something from nothing is apparently A-Okay if science is doing the creating.  Science must not comprehend or refuses to comprehend there is an omnipotent scientist / engineer, or group of them, who overcame time and the physical restraints of our physical existence and mastered many other physical “laws” and restrictions organized and formed the universe and the matter and energy within it.  The God(s) aren’t something science will consider, let alone believe.

Going back to the first sentence - presumption and science are antithetical and off limits – UNLESS- Darwin's theory or God(s) are factors.  Most of the conjecture on the Big Bang version of the universe’s creation presumes matter existed in situ (matter was inexplicably present) and the matter underwent movement caused by forces unknown…  People, we don't even have gravity yet!  The Pre-Universe, or Proto-Universe, and any matter, energy, and/or physical rules therein  - are unknown.   Very importantly – they are undetermined.  What is present in the universe now is not reflexively distributive to the Pre or Proto - Universe.  (Misapplying commutative and distributive math functions are how exclusive reliance upon mathematics can bleed into other areas and gum up the substance and accuracy of the theories proposed.) 

The Red-Shift is asserted as proof the universe is expanding.  The light received on earth shows a red color tinge.  Science asserts that color is a result of the sources of light moving.  Expansion is the term applied to the continuing movement of matter that followed the Big Bang. If the universe is expanding it must be set in motion by a creation event – so says science.  Really?  This again is preemptive.  If the Red-Shift conclusion is at all accurate, does not axiomatically infer expansion from an explosion or Big Bang. Other, analogous findings actually reveal nothing about the matter, energy and origin of the universe - save the assertion, the interpretation offered proves the theory offered!  A hypothesis and a hypothetical explanation that suits all the conditions of the hypothesis does not equate to fact.  The claim, the universe is expanding, is not provable with the tools currently available.  

The objects used in that red shift study, and their current state, used to develop the equations proving suggesting expansion, cannot be known.  More importantly, even if objects in the universe are moving, uniformly, in no way means a Big Bang occurred.  No one can know the velocity of the Big Bang, ergo, the speed of objects moving through the vacuum of space cannot be compared or verified and tied to the Big Bang.  Theoretically, since space is a vacuum and nothing stands to impede the object released at the Big Bang, the object will continue to move at the same velocity – per Newton’s first law.  This cannot be known.  However, an unethical person can guesstimate, or analyze what they see and attempt to measure the current velocity of the object.  The may construct equations and back into these object’s velocity and other variables.  THAT is the process most commonly used. 

At least those calculations provide work and mental stimulation. That is a better alternative to sitting around staring at stars and not being able to actually prove a thing.

The potential causal forces moving objects through the universe are many; gravity, solar explosions/Nova, solar wind, black holes, etc.  and combinations of these forces.  The Nova and Super Nova are what moved science to conclude something like them created the universe.  That is unmitigated conjecture!  Not knowable!  It is one of innumerable potential explanations… 

Planets orbit stars.  Stars orbit in galaxies.  Gravity is causal for the orbits.  Galaxies orbiting around each other is likely.  The entire universe in motion is plausible.  I agree.  That gravitational motion does not mean the universe is expanding because of a Big Bang.  Facts and evidence needed to substantiate the Big Bang - using an appropriate comparative and time scale is not currently available.  Ergo - What is needed to prove the Big Bang is unavailable.  What we have is scientists agreeing to codify a guess and use the guess to make other guesses.  Not scientific. 

One of my theories:The entire universe COULD be in a grand orbit around a central point – maybe a gigantic black hole that exerts gravity sufficient to set, and keep, the whole universe in motion.  This theory satisfies all the conditions of science and uses facts known.  Why is it not codified by science suggests science is not being honest, nor are they declaring their reasons for their choice of theoretical assumptions.  

The Red-shift stars used in this Big Bang theory are billions of years away from earth.  The light emitted from some distant star that arrives at earth in the red-shift termed condition, is light energy released from matter that long since dissipated or was destroyed (Nova), or….? 
If those stars are not there, if they no longer exist, the stars cannot move. 

The light those stars released eons ago is moving and we know gravity can bend light.  We have no way of knowing the number or size of the gravitational sources between us and the source of the light.  Nor can we know the gravitational effects each planet or galaxy exerts upon the emitted light – making it change color.  More importantly, we cannot know, we will never know, the status of those objects.  We will not live long enough to know. 

Undeterred = these FACTS do not sum as enough of a reason to silence many scientists whose short earthly lives predicate they will never have answers to the questions they ponder.  Sad. I appreciate they want to know, but they won’t and guessing makes their efforts “invalid”.  Why do they do it?

There is wealth and fame available for the taking.  So few people can, or will, investigate what scientists claim, and other scientists are equally determined (willing to sacrifice their ethical credibility) to make a name for themselves, on a topic, in a discipline, where most recent discovery or theory cannot be proven or disproven.  They may conspire to deceive for the purpose of self aggrandizement and reap the benefits of fortune and fame.  Who cares if centuries later when actual evidence makes their work laughable.  They’ll have spent the money and enjoyed the notoriety while alive.  Since they believe no God exists, they won’t have to explain their actions and there is no hell to encounter for their deceptions.  

“Incredible” Madness comes in many forms.

Since the universe moves on an eternal time scale no one on earth will be alive in a billion years to learn the actual fate of the stars in question. The state of the universe - as seen through telescopes examining light billions of years old – is… Unreliable.  It is not an accurate measurement device and it is extremely suspect – again using science’s own standards. Drawing conclusions from billion year old light is like an extraterrestrial alien concluding all live on earth is Stromatalite - because they studied a fossil from earth that landed on their planet.  The fossil was ejected into space when a large asteroid struck earth a billion years past. 

The Big Bang theory is a mind boggling journey into infinite irrationality. 

 Let’s examine what The Big Bang proscribes. All the matter and energy in the universe, before the universe was even a universe; was gathered together by some unknown, undetermined, “force” (remember gravity is not yet created). Amidst this nothingness, the undetermined force created a singularity.  The singularity occurs when all the matter and energy in what would become the universe are randomly gathered together and compressed – gravity is presumed the force.  But, I’ll repeat, gravity is not yet a verifiable, legitimate force in the pre-universe.  Somehow, the force compresses all the matter and energy in the proto-universe smaller than the size of one atom; not the size of one atom – smaller!  You read that right – all the matter in the universe compressed to a size smaller than one atom…  Let’s also examine the components of what is supposedly compressed, smaller than an atom.  These are collections of masses so large it take hundreds of thousands of years to travel across them moving at the speed of light.  All the planetary and solar matter in an estimated two billion galaxies was compressed… to a size smaller than one atom. 

I’m getting redundant but want the moral disciple to truly consider the lunacy of this Big Bang theory.  It is preposterous, and idiotic.  Staring into the universe and trying to measure and comprehend the infinite scope and variety of events occurring is mind numbing. The universe is too immense for my mind to thoroughly grasp.  It’s like wrapping the mind around the concept of eternity.  I don't believe humans can do it.

The Big Bang is want, hope, and need - unchecked.  There is not a way to prove the existence of the objects used, or that a force existed, or that they were compressed – to a size smaller than one atom.  The theory is hyper-ventilated wishful thinking and not very scientific despite the dubious measurements taken that prove – WHAT – exactly?  A snapshot of light, billions of years old, (red-shift) reveals evidence of what?  That snapshot from the past proves nothing… exactly… precisely. 

On its face, the Big Bang is a ridiculous proposition.  All the matter in the universe compressed to sub-atomic size is gratuitous, unsubstantiated, all the physical laws surrounding us defying - Nonsense!  It is an impossibility - if what we currently know and can prove is considered for comparison.   There is no evidence available anywhere that supports the proposition.  NONE!!!  Undeterred, cosmologists plodded along and concocted the most outrageous origin for the universe possible – they had to concoct even more idiotic nonsense to validate the Big Bang.  It is so beyond rationality, it cannot be properly challenged – and science knows this.  Most people are intimidated by science and afraid to state the obvious.  Not me.  I've study their assumptions and what they used to create them.  The Big Bang is another blind faith tenet of the liturgy of Lucifer - Evolution.  No "credible" scientist is permitted to doubt or question the Big Bang.  One of my heros - an honest man who coined the term Big Bang was Fred Hoyle.  He tried to explain, but keeping God, dead so people could indulge their sinful appetites, was more important that truth and fact.

These guys make me laugh - really they do.  Stand Up Comedy is an option.  They should investigate another profession since they refuse to act honestly.  Palm reading suits their behaviors.