Back To School, Things To Ask the Teacher

This is another re-presentation of a now-gone newsblaze.com article I wrote back in 2009. It has special significance now, with school lockouts and other insanity, well demonstrating the universal crisis of incompetence I have tried to inform about, across all fields, especially science and religion. I wrote the newsblaze articles for a wide, lay audience, note:

If there is any segment of the population that is not worried about making ends meet or being suppressed in its search for sure knowledge, it should be students in school. College in particular is traditionally supposed to offer the freest climate of ideas, subject only to the constraints of unbiased logic. Unfortunately, it isn't so today, in science.

So students -- and parents of students -- if you want to give your science teachers something to really think about, try the following thoughts. I guarantee they don't know the answer to these strange facts (though most of them will argue glibly that they do):

A design is anything that proclaims it was intentionally made, by appearing or operating in a way that cannot be attributed solely to the undirected physical processes known to science.

1) About the Moon

The Moon, science says today, was blasted off the Earth itself by a random collision with a Mars-sized body, less than a hundred million years after the Earth was formed; that is, the Earth was supposedly formed 4.5 billion years ago, so the Moon was knocked off of it more than 4.4 billion years ago. But that's just a cosmic instant after Earth's own formation. Isn't that strange, teacher -- or rather, isn't that a suspicious scenario: just one clean hit "in the beginning" and just one moon formed from it?

Amazingly, the collision was supposedly just strong enough, but not too strong, so that the Moon-material did not go careening off into deep space, but was caught and held by the Earth's gravitation. Even more amazing, the Mars-sized body that knocked it off the Earth did disappear into the void, never to be heard from again -- that must be why scientists say it was Mars-sized, because Mars is roughly ten times as massive as the Moon, and anything much smaller than Mars should also have been trapped by the Earth's gravitation, since Earth is roughly ten times more massive than Mars and a hundred times more massive than the Moon. But again, this is a suspicious scenario: The collision was not head-on, else the Earth would just have been enlarged, and no Moon would have been blasted off on an orbital trajectory around the Earth. Very tight constraints were operating on this "cosmic accident", then, in the size of the impacting body (smack dab in the middle, between the mass of the Earth and the mass of the Moon), the necessarily grazing hit it made on the Earth (that allowed it to "hit and run", or vanish cleanly from the vicinity), and the energy imparted to the Moon-material that resulted in its orbiting the Earth -- and remember, all this is on top of the suspicious circumstance that there was just this one clean hit on the Earth, very early; we can't blame it on "early chaos" in the solar system, because such chaos should have produced many collisions, and a literal mess of moons about the Earth, for which there is no evidence now whatsoever. Isn't that very strange, teacher?

Because, finally, teacher, the Moon has supposedly been slowly receding from the Earth for the last 4.4 billion years, and is now -- and throughout human history, the last 6,000 years or so -- at just the right distance to have precisely the same apparent size as the Sun in our sky, and thus to totally eclipse the Sun, both precisely and regularly. The probability of this occurring by chance is just 6,000 divided by 4.4 billion, or on the order of one in a million (1.36 in a million to be precise). And this is on top of the above suspicious circumstances of the strangely pristine "cosmic accident" that supposedly created the Moon. Yet science doesn't even hint it could have been anything but chance -- despite the unarguable scientific fact, that chance could not have done it, in many millions of tries. Isn't science just a trifle incompetent in failing to mention all this, or even emphasize it, teacher?

2) About Earth's landmasses

The eastern coasts of the landmasses on the Earth are curiously, even amazingly, distributed around the globe: These coasts, rather surprisingly, can all be approximated by straight lines, or great circles, on the globe (I bet you didn't know that, did you, teacher?), and when one does that, all of those lines are sensibly at the same angle with respect to the equator, and all are uniformly separated from one another around the equator. You can see clear images of these coast-marking lines in my blog post "A Challenge to Earth Scientists". Those lines, in fact, are part of a dodecahedron pattern on the globe (the origin of which you can read more about in my blog and my books on the real past design of the Earth).

I suggest, students, you go to my blog, download those images of the eastern coast lines of the landmasses, print them out and present them, all in a row, to your science teachers (or better, to university physics professors, who will probably laugh hollowly, but who won't be able to deny the fact, or what it means). Tell the teacher that this scientist told you that the probability for chance placement of all these landmasses, according to that strict dodecahedral layout on the globe, is less than one in a million million. Alternatively put, the probability they were deliberately parked according to that layout, as closely as they are, is greater than 0.999999999999. In other words, science must admit they were deliberately parked; they were not moved all over the Earth by undirected "continental drift", due to "plate tectonics", only to end up in so perfect a uniform distribution, just by chance. And that means plate tectonics, as it is taught today, cannot be true, doesn't it, teacher? With clear odds a million million to one against it? Really, now.

3) About Earth's Life

The debate over the possibility of design of the lifeforms on the Earth is a vicious one. No amount of cold reason applied to the actual evidence for design -- not merely suggesting the possibility of design, but positively indicating it, and denying chance -- is going to move anyone right now, much less a teacher who feels entitled to the high ground by virtue of his or her position and the current "scientific authority", or consensus. But, having proved to any unbiased, reasonable person that the Moon was placed where it is deliberately, not by chance, and that the very landmasses were placed where they are deliberately, not by chance, then , teacher, shouldn't science rethink its dismissal of design of the lifeforms on the Earth? After all, the physical context we have now established, for both the Earth and the Moon, is nothing but design. And when you rethink the biological evidence, design is clearly there -- as this scientist established for himself, apart from any debate in the wider world, and has written about it here, for example.

4) About the "Designer(s)"

Man adds his many small designs to the world, and scientists even talk of terraforming the world, and engineering new species, in the future. The world design I found (which included also the Moon, and the entire solar system -- sorry, but that's the naked truth, teacher) was done, according to the most ancient testimonies of man, by the "gods", who "came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men" (with a tip of the hat to "Superman"). We're not talking about science versus religion, or reason versus faith. We're talking about the original teachers, of mankind, and what they did. That is the new paradigm, sir and ma'am. Can we learn about that in class today?