The Greatest Cycle

Everything thing you see,deal with or know has a cycle.

Even us -Humans- have cycles,from the smallest particle in our body to our whole life from birth till death.

But the cycle I'm talking about here is the greatest cycle of them all which is the "Bing Bang - Crunch cycle".
Before that, I want to mention some cycles that are great but not as great as this one,since the latter involves the existence of the Universe itself,how it all began including time and space.



From Top to bottom, the first cycle involves the Sun.

The Sun goes through approximately 11-year cycles that range from peak activity to quiet and back again. We are near the low point of the current cycle. Scientists have tracked the cycles for decades but have been unable to predict when their durations and intensity.
The new model, known as the Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model, has simulated the strength of the past eight solar cycles extending back to the early 1900s with 98 percent accuracy.
Using the model, researchers predict that the next solar cycle, known as Cycle 24, will produce sunspots across an area slightly larger than 2.5 percent of the visible surface of the Sun. They also expect that the cycle will begin in late 2007 or early 2008--about six to 12 months later than earlier predictions--and reach its peak in 2012.

For more info read this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7837036/Nasa-solar-flare-space-storm-warning-a-British-scientist-writes.html

The second cycle is the “Great Cycle” of the “Long Count” calendar (Mayan Calendar)equates to 5,125.36 years. This cycle is claimed to be a great year of spiritual transformation or apocalypse. The current Great Cycle is due to be completed on the winter solstice of 2012, December 21. So, it has been interpreted that on this day, the Great Cycle ends, time ends, so the Earth might end as well. Not everyone agrees however some say it is the era of a new age,which I think is the right opinion.

Scientifically, on the 21st of December 2012 the Earth,Sun and the Black hole - that is at the center of our galaxy- will align. What could be the consequences of this alignment ? No one really knows.
Btw, It's now believed that at the center of every galaxy there is a black hole which actually causes the galaxy to spin, but what is stopping the black hole from sucking in the whole galaxy? Or is it already sucking it but due to the unimaginable enormous size of galaxies it takes a heck lot of time to suck it all in?.

White holes are also believed to be there, but instead of sucking everything in even light, it sprays out matter and light. I can't say it's not there, cuz we know that everything was and is created in pairs, the thing and it's anti. Like antimatter, the mirror image of matter and so on.

The Greatest cycle of them all is the one I mentioned as the "Bing Bang - Crunch cycle".

Some scientists talk about something called "The singularity".
Singularity is actually something but nothing. Once the universe was all squeezed into a spot so infinitesimally compact that it has no dimensions at all.
Outside the singularity there is no where!. When the universe expands, it is not expanding or spreading to fill a larger emptiness. The only space that exists is the space that it creates as it goes.

There was no even such thing called Time, this was also created after the Big Bang.

So what was this Singularity and where did it come from?

Scientists who doesn't believe in God ironically admit that singularity can actually be called "nothing".So according to them from nothing our universe begins!.

Some say that this singularity is actually what the previous universe ended up to after collapsing.According to some the Big Bangs are going on and on all the time. That space and time had some other forms altogether before the Big Bang-forms too alien for us to even imagine-and that the Big Bang represents some sort of transition phase, where the universe went from a form we can't understand to one we almost can.

The "Bing Bang - Crunch cycle" theory is supported by the holy book "The Quran". There it is mentioned in a Surah called "Al Anbeya" verse 104 where it says :
"And (remember) the Day when we shall roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for Books, as we began the first creation, we shall repeat it, (it is) a Promise binding upon us. Truly, we shall do it."

There are many questions that we can not answer right now, or maybe never. I mean the sun is already burning up, and a star of this size will be burning for about 10 billion years before expanding and cooling to become a red giant,ultimately using up its fuel. Unfortunately, the Sun is already about halfway through its life time so we have about 5 billion years left.That is of course if nothing bad happens like a comet or a meteroite crashes into Earth. Or the burning up process of the sun exhilarates for some reasons.I mean we discover something new everyday.

Here is something that we can never challenge: God.

What's up with the chick? ?! ...

"Here I am coming out to your world ... I'm pointing to my creator who gave my pitiful , helpless self the power to break my shell and show you all the knowledge he embedded in my genes to help me come out to your world."

Today , my post is short , and it's all about the story of a chick.

Materialists say:

In the Theological stage (when people used to refer the happening of every event to the direct intervention of God) people were so ignorant that they explained the process of hatching of a chick by saying “A supreme power helped crack the egg’s rigid shell for the chick to come out.”

BUT now, that we KNOW how this process really works we don’t need to refer this event to the intervention of god. As we have seen by our own eyes (via specialized instruments) the following facts:

We have discovered that after 21 days from the day the hen lays its egg a very small horn shows over the chick’s picker which is used by the chick to break its way out of the egg’s shell, therefore we don’t need no more of this nonsense. ( I say : btw this horn disappears after it has done its goal, while the picker remains , cool eh?! )

I say : Is that true?, I mean is that what you really think?, I’m not arguing with the fact you have discovered I’m just questioning the end result you came up with after this discovery!

My question to you now is not about the hatching process, it’s about this small horn that shows over the chick’s picker!

What is the cause behind this magnificent plan? What natural cause knew that after 21 days the chick will need this small horn to break on through to the other side?

Coincidence !? … Such an event that happens in every single hatching process is merely a coincidence!?.

This is one of millions of millions of events that itself needs an explanation!

Why do these powers ALWAYS target a predetermined goal for the benefit of the being involved ?

To sum up :
"Nature does not explain , she is herself in need of explanation"

Do you know what I mean?

Isn't it ironic ..don't you think?

Please have some patience while reading this for you'll find it useful.















This photo is so self explanatory but pretty much Ironic eh?

 Mr. Smarty J. Pants here is not the first to insult our minds in this manner.

However , Some materialists do act with more common sense on this subject.

The British Materialist H. P. Lipson accepts the truth of creation, albeit "unpleasantly", when he says:

"If living matter is not, then caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces,and radiation, how has it come into being?…I think, however, that we must…admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (source: H. P. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 138, 1980, p.138).

Lets examine Mr. Smarty J. Pants's theory a little closer. I would like to ask him : What are the chances that this harmonious universe came into existence with this predetermined design by coincidence?

Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability. Let's do so. Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10 to the power of 123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10 to the power of 123 zeros.

Or consider: 10 to the power of 3 means 1,000, a thousand. 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 3 is a number that  has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion;  if twelve, a trillion and so on.

There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10 to the power of 123 zeros!.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 10 to the power of 50 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the power of 123  . This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10 to the power of 123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figures needed."
(source: Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind,1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9).

Finally :

Here is a picture  that sums up all the headache mentioned above :

So ...? What do you think?  Is there a chance?

Till the next time ...c ya

Meet my great great great grandpa....

There he was  ... this picture was taken while he was sleeping , I had to sneak to get it cuz I heard him snoring so loud that I had to show him how he looked like when he snores , you can even see the flash of the camera reflected from his eye!


Believe it or not thats what Darwinists think we were one day !

Ewwww....

Anyhow , lets get more scientific/serious and refute this claim.

The physical Obstacles to Transition from Water to Land


The claim that fish are the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is invalidated by anatomical and physiological observations as much as by the fossil record. When we examine the huge anatomical and physiological differences between water- and land-dwelling creatures, we can see that these differences could not have disappeared in an evolutionary process with gradual changes based on chance. We can list the most evident of these differences as follows:

1- Weight-bearing:

Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea, although the structures of their bodies are not made for such a task on land. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40 percent of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

The basic reason why evolutionists imagine the coelacanth (my grandpa) and similar fish to be the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is that their fins contain bones. It is assumed that over time these fins turned into loadbearing feet. However, there is a fundamental difference between these fish's bones and land-dwelling creatures' feet. It is impossible for the former to take on a load-bearing function, as they are not linked to the backbone. Land-dwelling creatures' bones, in contrast, are directly connected to the backbone. For this reason, the claim that these fins slowly developed into feet is unfounded.

2- Heat retention:

On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly, and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

3- Water:

Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something that sea-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4- Kidneys:

Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials,especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment: In freshwater fish, most of the nitrogenous wastes (including large amounts of ammonia, NH3) leave by diffusion out of the gills. The kidney is mostly a device for maintaining water balance in the animal, rather than an organ of excretion. Marine fish have two types. Sharks, skates, and rays may carry very high levels of urea in their blood. Shark's blood may contain 2.5% urea in contrast to the 0.01-0.03% in other vertebrates. The other type, i. e., marine bony fish, are much different. They lose water continuously but replace it by drinking seawater and then desalting it. They rely more on tubular secretion for eliminating excess or waste solutes.Each of these different excretory systems is very different from those of terrestrial vertebrates. Therefore, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5- Respiratory system:

Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden. It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

to be continued....

Darwinism's formula...

Before digging deep into the scientific evidences that refutes Evolutionism/Darwinism/Athiesm , I would like in a short brief to address your rational mind , of course you "Athiest" have given repeated instructions to your subconscious mind that there is no God  - for some reason , maybe cuz you are really convinced , maybe cuz you don't want someone to have control over you "God" , or maybe cuz you're just an ass hole (dumb ass) - so anyhow , those instructions you gave have made your poor subconscious mind believe this big illusion , since it doesn't question or object your orders , it just stores whatever you dictate and manifest it into reality(belief).

But when you wake up and see with your own eyes :  God , throwing you into hell you will say :

"Had we but listened or used Our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the companions of the Blazing Fire!" (Quran 67:10) .

According to evolutionists, human existence is the end result of millions of years of progress, up from muddy water with the help of chance. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory. So it is that evolutionists regard these three forces—time, mud, and chance—as their gods, and believe that over the course of time, these false gods created the human intelligence that can examine the heavens with a telescope, produce fiber-optic cables, use computers, develop holograms and invent cellular telephones. The power they impute to this threesome is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. Holding tightly to their deviant ideas, Darwinists do not forsake the crushing defeat of their logic which they suffer, only to deny the existence of Almighty God.

I liked what Paul Davies, a well-known professor of mathematical physics at Australia's University of Adelaide said :

" If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? "

So , In conclusion here is Darwinism's formula :

Time + Mud + Chance = A human being

HEH , what the heck ?

to be continued......

Evolution, a theory in crisis....

Refuting athiesm ...soft opening!

Actually I was was gonna go on and write more about the silly Quranists, but due to a special request from a friend , I'll write some about this subject then get back to finish what I started.

Despite having its roots in ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was first brought to the attention of the scientific world in the nineteenth century. The most thoroughly considered view of evolution was expressed by the French biologist Jean Lamarck(1809).

Lamarck thought that all living things were endowed with a vital force that drove them to evolve toward greater complexity.

He also thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes.
As an example of this line of reasoning, Lamarck suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of on grass.

This evolutionary model of Lamarck's was invalidated by the discovery of the laws of genetic inheritance. In the middle of the twentieth century, the discovery of the structure of DNA revealed that the nuclei of the cells of living organisms possess very special genetic information, and that this information could not be altered by "acquired traits." In other words, during its lifetime, even though a giraffe managed to make its neck a few centimeters longer by extending its neck to upper branches, this trait would not pass to its offspring.

In brief, the Lamarckian view was simply refuted by scientific findings, and went down in history as a flawed assumption.....done ! I DEFEATED ATHIESM...

You will say : Is that it ? do you think you defeated athiesm by these simple words ? Nah , you are just an amateur who doesn't know what he's talking about ...

I say : No smart ass thats not it , I know your messed up minds - cuz I was about to become one of you oneday in the past - I know the twisted comments and asnwers your gonna come up with , but trust me , I'll make them all a vapor in the wind...

My intention is to show that the theory of evolution is not indisputable scientific truth, as many people assume or try to impose on others. On the contrary, there is a glaring contradiction when the theory of evolution is compared to scientific findings in such diverse fields as the origin of life,population genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, and biochemistry.

All these subjects are gonna be discussed in my following posts - If God wills - In addition to that , what is the hidden agenda behind backing such an ill therory till the day we live in although most scientists today have repeated the phrase "Science found god" so many times.

Even In 1998 Newsweek went so far as to proclaim on its cover, "Science Finds God."

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/NewsweekCover.jpeg


to be continued.....