By Lisa Grace
Many in the scientific
community lie. They call “theory”—“fact.”
For the purpose of this article, *real* science is that which is
provable, (you can get the same results every time when tested).
Lazy scientists are
comfortable misleading people because many of their degrees were earned on the
backbone of theory—not fact, and since they are willing to lie to themselves,
they are willing to lie to everyone.
Many in the public would
flunk a fifth grade test on basic scientific principles as we see so often see
on the show “Are you smarter than a fifth grader?” Is it any wonder they take “theory”
as “fact” so easily?
So it’s not surprising that
carbon dating, evolution, dinosaurs living before man not during man’s time,
the speed of light, the dirt layer theory, big bang theory, etc. are all taught
as fact when in reality they are not. They are all theories of
which there is *real* science available that disputes and proves they are
wrong.
What happens to scientists
who disprove that commonly held scientific *beliefs* (which take faith since of
course, there is no real science backing them up) are wrong?
Since Galileo’s time,
including Galileo himself, THEY GET SHUNNED.
Cut off from the equipment,
funding, and academic institutions that they need to continue their real
scientific research.
Halton Arp (Hubble’s
assistant) found the difference in the z shift anomaly (which is an anomaly
itself in the red shift) fit a formula
(the anomaly of the Z shift, not the Z shift itself.)
Any amateur with the right
equipment and knowledge can measure this. ALL of Halton Arp’s research (books
and books of it, all the numbers, measurements, and formulas the real data) is based on actual
provable measurements and been replicated and confirmed by dozens of others
world wide who have a “real” scientific back ground. Thank God for real number
geeks.
WHY is this important?
Because it disproves the big
bang “theory“, and we know the big bang theory has been taught to be fact. The
fact that big bang is wrong (and they’ve known for years there are huge
problems with it) is a horrifying concept to all the scientists that were
trying to build fact on a quicksand-style theory.
It is so important to get the
facts straight in science and use them as building blocks, and not use
theory as building blocks.
Many in the science community
have forgotten the simple concept of using experiments to get results. The
other implication of Harp’s research results (facts) is that it points to our
universe as being electric, and also points to the outer reaches as being 3D
holographic images.
That is what the results
(numbers) of the research indicate over and over again.
If these results (numbers)
are correct, and the outer reaches are nothing but 3D images, what does that
say about our universe?
You can see now why “real”
science is so threatening. Because in every single discipline, real science
(based just on measurable, verifiable results not theory) points to a Creator.
God bless the science and the scientists brave enough to go where it leads. He
created for our universe. He is truly an AWESOME God.
Lisa Grace is the author of
the Angel Series which has been optioned for a major motion picture. You can
download the first book Angel in the Shadows, Book 1 FREE here:http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0052AI5W8 or
here in any format:https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/236544
3 comments:
As you have said, Lisa, science is often abused, and there's also a lot of pseudoscience masquerading as science these days. But something we should keep in mind is that science is very limited when it comes to finding truth. The scientific method, itself, rests upon a whole set of metaphysical presuppositions which, if not true, neither is science.
In a sense, this makes "scientifically derived" truth a subset of metaphysically derived truth. What I'm saying is that we need to force science to stay within its domain and not let it stray into philosophy. As a retired research scientist, I have to remind myself frequently of that.
Where appropriate, we should use other systems of reasoning. For example, consider the type of reasoning used in a courtroom for evaluating evidence to get to the truth. Rather, I should say, reasoning that "should" be used in the courtroom -- many times there is little logic used there.
Arguments for the self awareness of human beings and for our dual or tripartite nature fall into this category, as does the existence of God. We certainly cannot measure Him.
Science gives us scraps of evidence that are useful, even in a courtroom setting. But, in the end, people must use reasoning outside of science to answer life's most important questions -- questions like was Jesus who he claimed to be? Can his shed blood really pay for a person's sins? How can a good God allow so much evil to exist?
Wonderful article, Lisa. I tweeted it.
Great stuff, and I agree. Tweeted.
Post a Comment