The Greater Riddle of the Sphinx

UPDATE: July 2, 2022 -- This article is now to be found here

The design of the world by the "gods" was complex and intricately worked; many details dovetail together to provide answers to ancient puzzles like the Great Sphinx at Giza, Egypt. My new article on NewsBlaze.com tells the story behind the Great Sphinx: The Riddle of the Sphinx -- Solved. And, if you haven't read them, you should read my earlier posts, particularly the "Challenge To Science" posts of April 2009 and May 2009. In fact, it's best to start at the beginning, with March 2009. There are only 16 total posts, so far. ----------------

Atlantis At Last

[The following article has also been published on NewsBlaze.com.]

The sense that there is a great mystery to life on Earth -- beyond the existential questions of "Who, and what, am I?" -- is a continuing attraction to every generation. The "ancient mysteries" are like a primordial Black Hole, or unplumbable singularity at the beginning of history, which swallows the hypotheses and explanations of modern writers in the thick, swirling dust of millennia and the soul-deadening tyrannies of past empires.

As a romantic idea, Atlantis is first and foremost like a bright, twinkling star, a light at the end of that long, long tunnel into the past. There -- the stories that continue to spring from its legend all assure us -- is a kind of eternal life, glimpsed like a miniature diorama etched on the head of a pin, put under a microscope, and seen through a lens: Far, far away in time and space, yet as close as our imagination and will to recreate.

Where was Atlantis, really? Or was it only in the minds of ancient Egyptian priests, naive travellers from classical Greece to the Alexandrian shore, and gossipful early philosophers pandering to the appetites of their audiences?

I will tell you where was Atlantis, for it was and is real; it had a strong part in the larger history of man, and the origin of the Earth as we know it today.

There is an actual image of Atlantis still extant in the world. It was stolen out of Egypt by Roman invaders, the story was told by one Athanasius Kircher, the author of the 17th century book "Mundus Subterraneus" and a highly respected intellect of his time. Here is the picture he presented, of Insula Atlantis, the "island of Atlantis":

Now this is an upside-down image -- with north toward the bottom and south toward the top -- showing Insula Atlantis between the landmasses of Africa and Hispania (the Iberian peninsula) on the left, and America on the right. It is midway between these landmasses, in the very center of the "Oceanus Atlanticus", or Atlantic Ocean. Note that the two lesser islands between Atlantis and America are not named on the map.

We are used to looking at the globe with north at the top, so let's turn the image "right-side up":

Now we can readily see the Iberian peninsula -- Spain and Portugal -- above Africa, on the eastern side, and a rather featureless bulge supposedly representing America on the west. Atlantis is certainly not featureless, but has a distinctive shape that holds out the hope that this was once a real land in the Atlantic whose contours were well known. But so far, we can only positively recognize Iberia, and the bulge of Africa to its south, not least because the Strait of Gibraltar that separates the two can be seen in its proper location.

Atlantis was said by Plato to have sunk beneath the surface of the ocean, in just one day and night of earthquake and flood; it made the Atlantic an impassable muddy shoal, he reported as if it were a fact in his own time (in the 4th century BC). However, evidence found in America of colonies established there by Egypt and other Mediterranean lands, several centuries earlier (as early as the 9th century BC) -- as reported in the book "America BC" (1975) by anthropologist Barry Fell -- tells us the explorers of these lands were well able to cross the Atlantic nearly 3,000 years ago, just as we can today.

Is there any hope of finding a sunken landmass in the Atlantic, with the recognizable shape and size of "Insula Atlantis" on the Kircher map? The answer is no; the floor of the Atlantic has been thoroughly mapped, and this shape does not show up on those maps, dominated by the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, or mid-ocean rift.

But Atlantis is not lost forever, after all. There is a land with just the right shape and size to have been the fabled Lost Isle.

In discovering and subsequently verifying the Great Design of the "gods", which had involved a wholesale re-formation of the landmasses on the surface of the Earth between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, I became familiar with the many details of those landmasses, and when I afterwards came across Kircher's map of the Atlantic, with Atlantis in the middle of the ocean, I recognized its shape as one familiar to me.

I had, after all, not so long before, picked out the shapes of the continents and other landmasses -- one point at a time, thousands of points altogether-- to develop my own Earth- and sky-mapping software, with which I studied the Great Design and its message stored for mankind, or for whoever might come to Earth to study mankind, and who might find and read it.

One of the last large landmasses whose detailed ocean outline I plotted, was Greenland, and the similarity between Greenland and Insula Atlantis is substantial (see the accompanying illustration). To properly compare Greenland with Insula Atlantis, I only had to determine the actual size of Atlantis as seen on the Kircher map. This was easily done by comparing "Hispania" on the Kircher map with the Iberian peninsula on the actual globe; it is then a simple matter to scale Insula Atlantis to its appropriate size on the globe. When this is done, the comparison with Greenland is excellent, in both size and detailed shape.

I won't here go into the many strands of evidence I found which positively established Greenland as the Atlantis of ancient legend. I am satisfied here mainly with showing the close comparison of the two, with just a few added points to be made. First, the Insula Atlantis of Kircher's map is wider than Greenland. This is because the eastern portion of Atlantis was broken off, and became Iceland -- to the southeast of Greenland today -- and the islands of the United Kingdom, even further south and east.

And, as the accompanying illustration shows clearly, the lesser islands depicted between America and Atlantis on the Kircher map can be readily identified with the Florida peninsula -- before it was attached to America -- and the island of Hispaniola (the Dominican Republic and Haiti). The shoreline of America depicted on the Kircher map is not that of North America today, but from a time before the land east of the Appalachians was fixed onto the continent. Since Atlantis only "disappeared" -- that is, it was moved north to the present position of Greenland, by the designers -- around 9600 BC, this tells us North America was given its present shape, with Florida attached, only after that late date.

So the "gods" who re-formed the Earth's landmasses did so at least as late as 9600 BC -- actually, for more than a thousand years after that, as Egypt recorded its institution "by the goddess" as having occurred at about 8600 BC. Evidence for all of this is to be found in my book, "The End of the Mystery." The larger scientific community and its followers, in choosing to ignore and dismiss observable design in the world, remain stuck just this side of the discovery of the Great Design of the "gods" -- once, and now again, the single great wonder of the world.

-------------------------

If you want to see this new knowledge recognized, and verified by other scientists, tell your teachers, your scientist friends, your local and national radio and TV stations. And read the earlier posts on this blog, especially the April 2009 "Challenge to Science" posts.

On Design

I have posted the following comment to the American Thinker site, in response to an article about the failure of modern science, or scientism:

I am a scientist, now 72 years old. I am an INDEPENDENT scientist -- a physicist -- with no connections (for the past 25 years) to academia or any institution. Twenty-three years ago, I made the greatest discovery in history, of what can only be called "The Great Design of the 'gods' ". Yes, 'gods' means the all-powerful, and fictional, characters in early world's myths. Only they were based upon a past reality, real beings, who in fact remade the world. My discovery constitutes a new world paradigm, for both science and religion. I am the Galileo of this time, with a "New World System" for belief: The world was designed, in every detail. The "god's" design was the last such, done only 20,000 to 10,000 years ago (which is why the world's myths are so vivid, as a remembered past of mankind). My rediscovery of the "god's" design brings into focus the fact that EVERYTHING in our world was designed, as philosophers and religious believers in a divine Creator have always claimed. Science, indeed, is founded upon the faith (religious faith, if you will!) that we CAN learn, and know, EVERYTHING about our world; scientists, at least before Darwin, knew science as the endeavor to learn the workings of the great design we all observe and live in. Design was the fundamental assumption, the basic understanding, that allowed (and allows) science to proceed, and succeed.

But modern science went wrong with Darwin, and has pushed recognition of the design(s) of the world out of "allowed" science. Religionists with an axe to grind, and relatively few honest and truly competent scientists, and many individuals with the insight to see evidence of design for themselves, have spoken, or cried, out against this INCOMPETENCE in modern science, but for the last 160 years in vain. My discovery WILL change that -- science, in my hands, has itself uncovered a world design, at the very root of all of mankind's "ancient mysteries", and all of mankind's earliest and longest-lasting dogmatic beliefs (mostly, of course, false dogmas about "God", with the consequent tyrannies of history those dogmas have birthed, and continue to birth to this day).

Science CAN explain everything -- in the end, but not yet, and not as long as it is way off in its fundamental assumptions, especially about the universal design of EVERYTHING, in the material universe. Science has gone wrong, not in failing to understand "humanity", but because incompetent humans have over-estimated themselves. Science's errors are not due to overreaching, into areas it "cannot ever explain", but in the specific wrong assumption at bottom that Design cannot be broached scientifically.

There is no runaway "global warming", because the world was DESIGNED to be stable, to support life (I have shown the simple physics of the designed atmosphere on my science blog, "The End of the Mystery: Setting the Stage", and proved there is no global-warming "greenhouse effect", at all.). The Covid-19 scare is worthless, for most of us, because the world was not DESIGNED to allow it; the world was specifically designed to provide us the necessary ingredients to protect ourselves (once science, a.k.a. methodical learning, revealed those ingredients to us...I use echinacea to support my immune system, and I believe it helped me ward off this latest viral attack as it has others over the past 25 years).

In short, what is needed in the world now is recognition of the new paradigm, of past, specific design(s) of the world, that my great discovery, of the true origin of the world as we now observe it, provides as never before in history.

Man, God, and the "gods"

I have posted the following comment to an American Thinker article on "Being Human and the Abuse of Science", which sets belief in God above science:

The problem is, all of our religions grew out of previous history, which personalized God, and thus put God in a too-small box of man's own making. The most obvious problem with this, of course, is the proliferation of man-made "Gods", which led to competing religions -- a division of mankind that has yet to be healed by new understanding, rather than kept alive by man-made, false dogmas masquerading as the truth, as "revealed" through various "prophets". Mohammed and Islam is an extreme example.

God, in purest truth, is overarching meaning; meaningfulness itself. Of course, to personalize that: God is the Designer of all that exists in the material world, the material universe.

But there is new, more immediate knowledge now. Not about the truth of God, but about the "gods" of ancient myth. Those who are blind to the underlying order and coherence in the physical world, and the indicated overarching meaning, are second or third rate thinkers, blind to the uncounted wonders (not mere scientific observance and dispassionate listing of the details) of the world and man.

Human religions, despite human learning throughout history and such fundamental advances as monotheism, have all been suborned from the beginning, by the once-sacred stories passed down about the "gods", now relegated to "myth", or primitive fantasy. But in fact -- as many have wondered but only I have uncovered and verified, scientifically, by my discovery of the "Great Design of the 'gods' " -- the "gods" did exist. For their "Great Design" IS great, encompassing the entire world, and unavoidably indicating that ALL was designed -- as we can note in even the smallest of things, all around us -- and appreciation of the design of all things is key to appreciation of the truth of an overarching meaning, and thus intelligence, known as God. They were the ones who taught Man to fear them and thus to "fear God", and the ones who divided Man into separate tribes, with false dogmas that still rule us in too many ways.

This is not wild, or merely hopeful, speculation. Through my discovery of the Great Design of the 'gods', it is now fact, constituting a new paradigm for both human science and religion. And the breakdown of order, and the rise of old, false dogmas, that we are seeing today is but an indication that this new knowledge is needed now.

An Imbalance In Modern Thought

I submitted the following comment on the American Thinker site, in response to another comment stating that the United States suffers now from an "ideological imbalance" -- specifically, towards the far Left, or Democrat end. It may, and should be, of interest here (and, by the way, I will take no political comments on this science blog):

The ideological imbalance came from cutting man off from the ancient wisdom, the traditions that the Enlightenment itself sprang from, and which is the unchanging foundation of all human wisdom. It was present from the beginning, but few in each generation were able to pass it on more or less whole, until democracy wrested power from the "divine Kingship", culminating in a country founded upon the inalienable rights of the individual ahead of the state.

Of course those wisdom traditions, so powerful in their effects, were bound up with religion, and the roots of religion have been hidden, despite all of the Creation myths, including the Genesis summary.

We are suffering today the consequences of false dogmas, both ancient and modern. The ancient ones -- the false ones, remember, is what I'm talking about -- all revolve around the idea of coercion of the individual in the name of one or another god or goddess, later in the name of an omnipotent, omniscient God behind all things. The modern ones all stem from the "humanist" backlash to all the old religious abuses, to throw God out with the bathwater of science as it were. Only the scientists, and their secular-humanist followers, got it wrong from the very beginning of their revolution (in Darwin's theory of evolution): It turns out there IS meaning to the world, not just human experience, without conscious learning to improve one's self and one's lot.

The Left is just the canary (tired, old, and stubborn to the end, but still just a canary, a bellweather) in the coal mine of human experience.

God is meaning, meaningfulness itself, and it is not accidental, conditional, or transient. It is eternal, and we are only here to learn that THAT is the only proper foundation for a life well-lived. From THAT flows the idea that All Men are Created Equal, etc., etc., etc..

And from that comes the knowledge that nothing on this Earth is accidental or the mere product of uncounted natural accidents, altogether added up and judged, falsely, as "evolution". It was all designed...only not all at once, direct from God.

No use trying to get into details, not all of which anyone knows anyway. Suffice it to say, undirected "evolution" is not the way of the world...Learning is the way of the world.

Which requires avoiding becoming attached to dogma, which inevitably descends into false, and from that coercive, dogma.

No, we are all here to LEARN the design of things, and know them as designs, within a greater design.

This is just a learning world. We actually come from and go back to, a greater and truer existence than the merely physical.

That's what we all, and especially the Insane Left, need to learn.

The Growing Religious Self-Righteousness of Science

Steven Goddard has a post, "My 35th Year as a Global Warming True Believer". My response is the following:

"Global warming" hype is just the latest step in a creeping degeneracy of science--particularly in the earth and life sciences--that has been going on since long before I was born. As a physicist, I am astounded by the poor quality of introductory university physics texts being written today, and can only hope undergraduates are encouraged to study earlier, classic texts, from the first half of the 20th century. In fact, I consider it imperative not to embrace any current theory, but to inform myself of the entire field, going as far back as needed to get to the origins of those theories, when everyone still KNEW they were just a certain set of assumptions and makeshift hypotheses.

I know, as no other scientist on Earth does, that the current scientific paradigm, of uniformitarian, undirected "evolution" of all that we observe on Earth, is wrong, and has failed. I watched--and offered my two cents, over and over, in letters to the editor--as the steamroller of Darwinian evolution (theory, NOT fact) has put down all honest criticisms, over my adult lifespan (and of course, long before). More than 30 years ago, I had already concluded that the main failing of today's scientists was their inability to handle basic probabilities, and thus to govern their imaginations, and especially to rigorously match the strength--not to mention the kind--of their proposed causes to the strength--and kind--of the observable effects (0.04% CO2 as the "control knob" of global mean temperature, for example--or, Steven, "salinity differences" driving the Gulf Stream).

"Climate science" today (and every other field of science tied to troubled and failing theory) is just a massive and absurd waste of my time, not to mention the aggregate time being devoted to it by everyone else in the world. That the science community and the world should be so deluded as to take it seriously, much less let it run amuck in the political world, is insane. I dismissed the "greenhouse gas" scientists 20 years ago, when I encountered them in passing at atmospheric science conferences, and I have only had my attention called to the "global warming" world agenda since late 2009, barely two months before the climategate e-mails broke. Within a year, I had identified the most basic errors in the consensus theory, learned of the actual governance of global mean temperature by the hydrostatic vertical temperature lapse rate, and definitively confirmed it and the stable Standard Atmosphere model that assumes and rigorously quantifies it, in my elementary but (amazingly, insanely) seminal Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (which should have been done by competent scientists over 20 years ago, or even as far back as 1979, when the earliest pertinent Venus data was obtained).

I had no reason to be really surprised by the foolishness of the global "global warming" hysteria, however. I've seen the hysteria build, and the dogma ever emotionally and unscientifically defended and reinforced, over my lifetime, in the evolution debates (which from the first to the last, outlawed the very idea of design in or of the natural world), the continuing introduction and too-quick acceptance of poorly-quantified and hypothesis-multiplying theories (like plate tectonics--separate from provable "continental drift" observations--and Milankovitch theory), and the public adulation heaped upon the glory-hounds in science, intent only upon trumpeting the current consensus, men like Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan (and most recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye). The vehement, dogmatic rejection of "Intelligent Design" in recent years was but a telling prelude, the previous step in the growing religious self-righteousness of science.

I know that I, and I alone as yet, hold open the door to the next scientific paradigm, and to a once-again truly competent modern theoretical science, with my discovery of the world-encompassing design of those who were remembered among ancient man as the "gods", that, ironically and not at all coincidentally, started all of the misbegotten, religiously-held dogma that besets mankind on Earth. The present difficulties are but the tip-most hair on the tail of the runaway dog of basic scientific misconceptions, diligently nurtured through most of the last two centuries.

"Emergent Phenomena": Failed Thinking Infesting Science

I submitted the following comment to the wuwt site of Anthony Watts, where Willis Eschenbach reiterates his idea of climate as "emerging phenomena" (and which I understand as "magical self-creation"):

"Emergent phenomenon" is an argument from incompetent, third-rate thinkers like Richard Dawkins, determined to push Darwinian, or undirected, evolution upon students of science, despite its by now obvious failings; back in the 1980's, it was called "order out of chaos", elevated to the airy status of a "meme", and "chaos theory" was misapplied to support it (for the latter really only supports "order behind the apparent chaos", not order produced--"surprisingly", as Eschenbach himself emphasizes--BY chaos, or randomly-working physical processes).

But the idea fails, and fails here on a very basic level. "Emergent phenomenon" does not "explain" the "extremely stable system"--and the outstanding stability SHOULD be emphasized, as I have also done--it cannot, it is in fact logically opposed to it ("emergent phenomenon" is change, as Eschenbach's examples well show, while "extreme stability" MEANS unchanging).

The truth, as I mentioned when Eschenbach first brought out this recycled idea here, is much simpler (but more surprising, of course, in the tattered intellectual atmosphere of current, officially unquestionable, scientific dogma), and should have been obvious by now, if science had not gone so determinedly wrong following Darwin:

"Emergent Phenomenon", Or Design?

"Emergent phenomenon" is a desperate renaming of the observable truth, in order to avoid that truth. It is anti-scientific nonsense, which science will have to reject before real progress can be made. It is, in short, the same as saying "magic", which science once so proudly scorned, and by which it lifted itself up out of the ancient pit of superstition and "sacred writ".

Climate Science Not the Greatest Hoax, After All

I have submitted the following comment to Alan Caruba's Warning Signs site, where the subject is "The Greatest Hoax", referring to the "global warming" hysteria:

I am an independent (and therefore unwanted) physicist (64 years old, and educated before the great educational train wreck of the last 40 years, which has miseducated the last two generations of physical scientists), and I disproved the "greenhouse effect" supposed to underpin the global warming hysteria, with the definitive evidence I know is needed to correct climate science. It is not just the man/woman on the street who pays no attention, what is frightening to me is that there are no climate or atmospheric scientists competent enough, or honest enough, to listen to that definitive (and quite simple, for a scientist) evidence.

I have been saying for some time that all of our institutions (AAAS, NAS, APS, AGU, etc.) have been suborned by the incompetent climate consensus (and of course, the cheerleading media). What makes this climate hoax greater than even the insiders among the "consensus skeptics" (a.k.a. "deniers") know, is that the greater the authority of the institution, the more its subornation is tied to a religious belief in evolution theory. That is to say, they think that opposition to the global warming idea is tied to a "creationist" denial of evolution (when they don't put such "denial" down to the evil of "Big Oil corporations").

And it is, in a larger context that both they AND the skeptics don't yet even imagine can possibly be true: The bad theory behind global warming is just the tail of the dog of the general evolution paradigm, that science has hewed to since Darwin: That everything we observe in the natural world is the product of undirected physical processes, without any deliberate design as even most scientists believed before Darwin. In such a paradigm, the Earth is all too easily seen as unstable (rather than the harmonious, repeating dynamic stability man has observed throughout history), and therefore can be subject to runaway climate ("ice ages", as well as "global warming"). That paradigm is now failing, increasingly openly, as the incompetence of scientists grows, as they struggle to tack on layer after layer of theoretical "natural" processes--like the non-existent "greenhouse effect"--to their "explanations". I am the only scientist in the world, so far as I know, who really, professionally knows this, because of my discovery and verification of the "great design of the gods", the highly fragmented and misunderstood knowledge of which--passed down by the "gods" to their offspring, historical man--was responsible for all the "ancient mysteries" of mankind's most ancient religiously-held beliefs.

On the Failure of Post-Normal Science

The Climate Etc. site has an article on the "Republican brain" (apparently a recent but fast-growing field of science), to which I respond here:

The larger problem is, when nobody has all the answers even to the most basic questions, instead of admitting they don't know, the self-styled institutional "experts" dig in and defend their "expertness", and fight, rather than disdaining such adolescent and misdirected behavior in favor of finding the objective truth--in fact, "objective" is the key word.

None of the opinions Judith Curry has sought out and brought forward here are worth any of my time, none at all. They are all subjective, not objective. And I am not talking about their political opinions--much less their opinions on one political group over another--which by definition are irrelevant to science. I am talking about their presumptions about "settled/good" science. None of them know what they are talking about. They just don't know what they are talking about.

Let's cut through all the BS, all the vain arguments--we live in a time of crisis in science, because the reigning scientific paradigm, or philosophy, (undirected evolution) has failed, becoming a millstone dragging down the mind rather than a light to the truth, and those who mentally depend upon that paradigm, as a religious belief, do not yet know that their "knowledge" is obsolete, just so much roadkill on the journey to more real knowledge. There are as yet no coherent societal constructs, no easy public narratives--in short, no enlightened public opinion (a.k.a. "post-normal science")--to replace the already-failed belief, in essentially meaningless development (the literal meaning of "undirected evolution") of all the miracles of natural process, of natural mechanism, we observe in the world and the universe beyond. There are only other religions, which the "scientific believers" prefer to war with, rather than see that their own position has become just another benighted religion. Darwin was a religious-minded, amateur scientist, an incompetent fool, whose fundamental misapprehension, concerning design of the natural world, has spawned a world of scientific fools--and their time is now passing, along with that misapprehension. Will that passing consume another century, of increasingly misdirected science?

Judith Curry's blog (and every other blog, filled with earnest argument and unending discussion) is just a continuing therapy session for those who cannot or will not learn. Judith Curry, like every other academic or institutional scientific authority, does not know where to turn. And that is telling, because she "knows", as a scientist, that only objective observation, interpretation and verification are needed--not reliance upon unquestioned dogma, even if that dogma is "scientific" (i.e., "settled science"). All of the people whose opinions she solicits believe unquestioningly in evolution theory. But that theory is fundamentally false, mistaking designed mechanisms for products of undirected, natural laws. Even the discovery and elucidation of the amazing mechanism that is the DNA molecule, has not broken through the false belief, to a realization of underlying, deliberate design of all the life on Earth.

And more specifically, in the climate debates, if the climate system is not designed, then it must be subject to "runaway", chaotic behavior, QED--for (and here is the fundamental truth, believe it or not) there is no coherent physical mechanism, indeed no physical coherence, without deliberate design. Scientists study design every day, throughout their lives, yet shackle themselves to the lie that everything is the result of random physical processes--and no more. The dissociation with reality is so great today, that many entertain pseudoscientific discussions of, say, the "Republican brain", in the vain hope of surcease from their inner struggle to deny the obvious design in the natural world, with concocted outer struggles against phantoms of their imagination. Such discussions are, in my opinion, insane, inherently damaging to true, verifiable reason.

The Stratosphere: An Indication of Design

I submitted the following comment to the bishop hill web site this morning, where the solar influence on climate was being discussed, and the variability of the Sun in its output of ultraviolet radiation was brought up. I think a wider, deeper understanding is necessary, particularly in the face of my epochal finding of a wholesale re-design of the Earth and solar system, less than 20,000 years ago:

Ultraviolet radiation from the Sun may be quite variable (and dangerous to living tissue), but it is only 8% of the Sun's power output, and is almost entirely absorbed in the stratosphere (causing the distinctive, positive temperature lapse rate there), above the troposphere and our own, (yes) protected, environment. This circumstance is not merely convenient for us, and all the life on Earth, it is indicative of design. The bottom line is, climate science is today a fool's science, and the stable Standard Atmosphere rules, not "runaway climate". Science and the world have simply been on the wrong track, and miseducated for generations, by the belief in a climate that can periodically, even routinely, crash into a global "ice age" (so why not, they childishly thought, an equally catastrophic global warming?). The vain public debates over climate science, and revelations of its fundamental incompetence, are all just a matter of false dogma in science, bred and raised to a destructive level worldwide, now biting everyone where it hurts the most.

Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria

The finding of the great design of the "gods" immediately confronts science with the fact that our most popular and hotly-defended theories in the earth and life sciences are fundamentally wrong. Plate tectonics is laughably wrong, since the landmasses of the Earth are shaped and distributed according to a clear and precise, dodecahedral design; evolution is not even a theory, it is a misplaced metaphysical principle of human learning, wrongly applied to physical reality because scientists refuse to recognize design as design, or to believe anyone smarter than us once trod the Earth.

The intellectual climate today is so bad, however, that no one in science is interested in learning fundamental new knowledge. Learning a scientific specialty is hard--the hardest part is memorizing a lot of terms, and keeping their essential relationships clear in the face of complex, deteriorating arguments. For example, no biologist I am aware of knows any more that "evolution" properly means "change in a given direction"; they are too full of the supposed success of undirected evolution.

The point I am getting to is that when science gets off track, there are always clues, perhaps small but clear, that it is off track. When it is really wrong-headed, as it has become since Darwin's day, you can find instances of blatantly ridiculous results being promulgated as the best science consensus. The prime example of this at the moment is the global warming controversy.

I have not addressed global warming in an article before now, because I don't fancy myself a universal polymath: Climate science is not my field. So I won't bother putting up yet another article that supposedly sets everyone straight on climate science, or global warming in particular. If you study the many different points of view presented online, from qualified scientists, you should find that climate science is, in fact, not a robust science. It is mired in fundamental controversies and incompetence, and poisoned beyond immediate cure by one-sided politicization that fans hysteria among the unknowing public.

What I will do is put before you just one example of a ridiculous result from climate science that I, as a physical scientist, have observed, and which I have not seen other scientific critics bear down on as they should. I think, indeed, that they don't know that it is ridiculous, and I don't know yet whether that thought is a misapprehension on my part, or scientists in general have been rendered simply stupid by the wrong-headedness of their general paradigm, of undirected evolution of all that we see in the universe--not just the life on Earth, but the Earth itself, for example (and of course, the solar system beyond, which I have proved to my own professional satisfaction is part of the great design I found and verified).

Here it is, the little point of ridiculousness I currently marvel over: The "atmospheric greenhouse effect" at the heart of the bad science put out by the "consensus", touted by the United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), is summarized in the following illustration, of the supposed "energy budget" of the Earth's surface and atmosphere:


Earth's Energy Budget, from Trenberth and Kiehl, 1997

This illustration purports to show how the initial power incident on the Earth from the Sun is divided among the many processes going on in the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. It all looks straightforward enough, but then when you look closely you see something strange, off on the right side: The radiation coming off the surface is huge, and there is an almost equally huge "back radiation" from the atmosphere to the surface. To a physicist--or at least to this physicist--that strange, gigantic loop of energy between the atmosphere and the surface appears unphysical, out of all proportion to the rest of the diagram.

And we don't have to get into detailed physical theory or wordy explanations to pin down what's wrong with it: The power coming off the surface (the number 390) is larger than the incident power from the Sun (342). (The power shown as “back radiated” by the atmosphere is about as large as that from the Sun, too.)

Just that one fact is enough for me to see that the "climate science" of the U.N. and the consensus of (so we are told) 97% of all climate scientists--is absurd. No part of the "global energy budget" can be greater than the incident energy. Either their numbers are wrong, or the model being illustrated is wrong. Period, full stop. You don't have to know, or explain to the world, what is really going on, or why there has been recent "global warming". Just know their explanation is nonsense, basic physics absolutely and undeniably forbids it. Everything else you read is either other scientists trying to show they know what is really going on (which obviously no one does at this point, entirely), or scientists or their followers trying to defend the indefensible, with complex, technical and always wrong-headed arguments.

Of course, that unphysical loop of excess energy is just what they are calling the "greenhouse effect". And it is garbage, and all the scientists who deny that, or refuse to see it for what it is, should be drummed out of science, or at least be required to undergo re-education. Because they are worse than first-year students, who are generally at least open to learning the hard truth.

I am more concerned with the new knowledge I have found, however, and how it relates to the current incompetence across all of science. The harder I have tried to put forward my new knowledge, the more widespread and confrontational has been the public exhibition of epidemic incompetence in science. I know, as a fact, that the Earth was deliberately put together, in exquisite detail, and that it was changed, wholesale but not fundamentally, less than 20,000 years ago. I know the logical hysteria to which so many scientists have been driven by their wrong-headed paradigm, is what we are seeing in the promulgation of "runaway climate change". This same hysteria is behind the closed-minded defense of current theories, and the simplistic and relentless presentation of them to the public as facts, across all the physical sciences. Through such hysteria and continual, vain argument, dogma is being revealed to mankind as merely divisive, and like sand, upon which true and lasting knowledge cannot be built.

Advice to a Truth Seeker

I got an e-mail from a truth-seeker, asking about the meaning of the "four corners of the earth", and when I answered that, a further e-mail in which he explained he wanted to know because he believed the "four corners" was the "abode of the most high god" as mentioned in many ancient mythical traditions. He was under the impression that "abode" had not yet been discovered. I answered with the following, which I consider worthwhile posting for the benefit of others (who should also be warned that I am stating the simple fact when I say the great design of the "gods" is responsible for all the ancient mysteries, including the "four corners of the earth" and the "abode, or seat, of the most high"):

Mr. _______,
The "four corners of the earth" is not a specific place, in time or space, and is not the abode of the most high god, mentioned in many mythologies, although the abode, or "seat", of the high god is connected to that celestial frame, of course. Yes, I have already discovered that place, and yes, it is interesting, and its real meaning is of central importance in the design of the "gods". That precise location, as brought out in my book, is the north pole of the ecliptic, the direction in which the solar system is oriented. For a full explanation, you need to read my book, but you can find the central elements of the design discussed in some of my online writings, particularly "Design Behind the Ancient Mysteries", to which you will find a link in my blog post "Challenge To Science III..."

Once you have read the "Design Behind" article, for example, you should know where the "home of the gods" is, and the abode of the high god is the very center of that region. The design is precisely defined, you see, and the answers to all the ancient mysteries are precise.

Every generation has many truth-seekers attracted to the ancient mysteries, and none get very far, being misled by the fantastic stories of the ancient myths, and the continuing stories of modern writers, who themselves have only learned just enough information (and misinformation) to cast themselves as leading lights for others to follow. So I would warn you first not to be too quick to judge anyone as better than others to learn from, because you simply don't know enough yet. Don't focus your attention, or your intellectual favor, on any popular author today, such as Zechariah Sitchin, because he for example also only tells dramatic stories about the "gods"--and only the gods of Sumerian texts (Anu, Ea-Enki, Enlil, etc.) at that. Beware dramatic stories (the fodder of most authors on the ancient mysteries), which only perpetuate the misdirections of ancient myths, and beware any "answers" that are not global, but bound to the limited traditions of this or that civilization or people--such traditions are all one has to work with, at many points (before my discoveries of the real design), but the real answer, as I have verified, transcends geographic and cultural boundaries and refers instead to the entire world, and the common inheritance of all. In short, the "gods" were before man on Earth, and were the single source for all later civilizations in human history; they were also cut off from later mankind, so the latter were so many pockets of orphaned children, who were able to hold on to, and pass on to their children in turn, only childish fragments of the real truth that came before.

I am not trying to be overly dramatic or mysterious, either, with these words. I am open about the real answer, in my writings on the internet: The "gods" (for so they were known to men worldwide) were real; they taught mankind all it knew and inaugurated all that we have inherited--arts, sciences, religions, philosophy, including our appreciation for truth, beauty, justice and virtue); and above all they remade the world, physically, to a great design that functions as the physical repository of the message they wanted later mankind to know, when the design should be rediscovered. I have found and verified that great design, as a hard scientific fact (just at a time when modern science has, through fear of religious intrusion, become dogmatic in denying the possibility of design in or of the natural world). Indeed, having found the answer to all the ancient mysteries, I am confronted by the mystery of an incompetent modern scientific mind, intent on replaying the old religious suppressions in their own way, rather than openly confronting and accepting that great truth, newly recovered after all the trials and tribulations--and abuses--of human history.

Above all else, know that the physical mysteries have lasted so long only because they were bound up with the spiritual mystery of man's existence, from the very beginning of human history. The physical truth of the "gods"--call them rather our true forebears on Earth--has been thoroughly hidden in plain sight, behind that intellectual misdirection. I am a physical scientist by education and long professional experience, and my work has uncovered the physical and mental truth, of the great design left by the "gods"; it does not deny the spiritual, but it cleans off the muck of false spiritualism, magic and mysticism, so long tied to that design, that has been the curse of mankind throughout history. I have found, in more than seven years of trying to introduce the revolutionary new/old knowledge to modern minds, that the muck is hypnotically attractive to those who believe in the spirit, thoroughly abhorrent to those who believe not in that spirit but in science, and thus an effective deterrent to both sides learning the truth. The one side is bound to ancient dogmas, the other to modern dogmas. Anyone who would do better must not only be able to think, but to do so dispassionately, without regard for dogma, and be prepared to recognize the truth where it really is, not where popular or expert opinion would have you concentrate your attention. You must respect both science and spirit as fundamental guides, but don't be misled by the false beliefs others have attached to them; they are both the offspring of overarching meaning and intelligence, and equally worthy. The answer is before you, but still requires sustained effort on your part to study it and know it for yourself.

A Light Amid the Shadows

Most people, scientists included, cannot seem to focus upon the evidence presented here, in the hard science posts (see the April and May "Challenge" posts, particularly), for the design of the "gods", long enough to really see it. They have lived so long in the twin shadows of ignorance and doubt, they are bewildered by the light. So here instead is my latest popular article, on NewsBlaze.com, to try to get their attention:

"Extraterrestrials On the White House Lawn".

It takes the existence of "extraterrestrials" for granted and, hopefully, puts those who were the "gods" in the proper context for mankind's positive consideration, given the reality of the design.

The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men...

Why is so much wrong with the world just now? I submit it is a case of the lesser designs of self-interested people--experts though they may be in their fields--running afoul of one another, and of a greater design. Read

The World Is In the Hands of Children,

at NewsBlaze.com.

The Holy Grail and the Great Design

I have a seminal new article on NewsBlaze.com, which can be read at

The Holy Grail and the Great Design.

First-time visitors to this blog are encouraged to read the earlier posts--not many--especially the "Challenge to" posts, for the larger vision.

Challenge to Science II: Focus on Design

Appreciation of the world design requires one to focus one's attention on hard, unyielding observations that have before now entirely escaped the notice of generations of even the best of scientists. The dodecahedron pattern obeyed by the Earth's major landmasses, discussed in the last post (see below, on this page), is a prime example of this. The observations are not really hard to interpret (once they are noticed, and given serious consideration), it is only that science has deliberately kept its focus away from the truth, of a real design of the Earth. And, as the authors of Hamlet's Mill noted, solving the great riddle of worldwide myth and other ancient testimonies--which, my research shows, refer directly and precisely to the design--requires competence in working with the celestial sphere, and no scientist before me has married such competence with a professional interest in getting to the bottom of the ancient mysteries. For example, I had to develop my own software, UrMaps, capable of mapping the celestial sphere onto the Earth in any way my research required, and enabling efficient, precise calculations on the sphere, after I discovered the central elements of the design using one of the common star-charting programs, as detailed in my book, The End of the Mystery. The design I found is the key to all the ancient mysteries--their single, primordial source.

All of the scientific authorities today strenuously and dogmatically assert that design of the natural world is an idea that simply cannot be broached in a scientific context. Examples of design in the natural world are so widespread and easy to see, they consider the idea "non-falsifiable"--which is spectacularly wrong thinking (it certainly is falsifiable, it just turns out it's not false), but it's the only way they can continue to deny design. The sheer idiocy, the unadulterated scientific incompetence, of that assertion should be obvious to scientists (and all the scientists in the world who have proclaimed it should be summarily kicked out of science), given that man adds his own designs to the world all the time, and scientists in particular can and do speak of changing the natural world, of terraforming the world and creating new species as if these things were no big deal, "in principle". I don't intend to go further here into this sorry intellectual degradation of science--I am a serious, competent scientist (possibly the only one, based upon my experience in looking for others of my kind over the last six years), and I will not dignify the so-called debate over "intelligent design", on the part of dogmatic authorities (either scientific or religious, on either side of this intellectual war) or the many self-styled defenders of science, with further comments here, which would only provoke the usual dogmatic, and unsupported or irrelevant, assertions from them. I will only say that when the design is identified--not some vague speculation about the idea of design, but the particular fact of it I have found--its validity is independently confirmed by every line of study, in strict conformity with the highest standards of dispassionate, unbiased science. Again, the facts are extraordinary, but thoroughly unyielding and determinative. I am the only one who has done this scientific duty so far, and found the world design--others have only followed the many fragmented theories that abound, of biblical creation, plate tectonics, expanding earth, 12th planet, cosmic catastrophes, and so on, without once seeing the real design (and even denying the possibility of it--especially those scientists I have tried to inform--rather than investigating it, like competent, dispassionate scientists would do).

So let us continue with the dispassionate consideration of facts. In the last post, I showed that the east coasts of the continents obey a strict dodecahedron pattern on the surface of the Earth, with the probability of this having happened by chance being only about 1 in a million million. Technically, this observation by itself is enough to disprove "plate tectonics" and prove the design. The truth, however, is that this simple demonstration was only a late, added confirmation of the design I had already verified long before, along every independent line of study. I found what I call the Great Mapping--of the celestial or heavenly sphere onto the Earth, or "heaven on Earth" as the ancients would have said--in September-October of 1997, and not until July of 1998 did I realize that a primary feature in that mapping directly indicated the dodecahedral pattern in the layout of landmasses on the Earth. In short, the particular pattern of lines I showed on the Earth in the last post was not something I pulled out of thin air; it was precisely indicated in a prominent element of the Great Mapping, and thus was one confirmation--among many--of the validity of that mapping as a deliberate act of the designers.

Remember, all it really takes is focus upon the fact. Here is an image of the Great Mapping:



The black line in the image is the path of the ecliptic on the celestial sphere. (Remember, the ecliptic marks the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun, and the apparent path of the Sun among the stars as seen from the Earth.) While it may not look like it (due to the limitations of a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional sphere), the ecliptic is a great circle on the sphere, an undeviating line. The Great Mapping was found from matchups between elements of the celestial and Earth spheres in the immediate area of the circle in the center of the image. (That circle marks the successive positions of the celestial north pole among the stars, due to the Earth's precession, i.e., the precession of Earth's spin axis around its orbital axis.) The point to be made here is that I found the Great Mapping from a few central elements, and validated it with precise matchups of form and name at sites scattered over the globe. I can't go into the many details of that extended validation in this short post.

But look at the ecliptic path, in particular how it follows the east coast of Asia. Now look back at the preceding post, and the illustration there of the line along the Asian coast, in the dodecahedron pattern discussed there. The ecliptic path in the Great Mapping is essentially this same line. So the Great Mapping, among many other virtues, points to the dodecahedron symmetry in the landmasses on the Earth, and its meaningfulness--its great scientific importance as a deliberate design--is spectacularly confirmed by recognizing this precise dodecahedron pattern on the Earth.

Here again is the dodecahedron pattern I was drawn to by the Great Mapping, showing how the eastern coasts of the landmasses conform to that strict layout:

A Challenge to Earth Scientists

The surface of the Earth has been subjected to deliberate design; that is the truth behind supposed past continental drift.

As mentioned in the last post, the continents were moved, but not by plate tectonics, which is a modern fantasy, or myth: It would have us believe the Earth is a precise natural machine which smoothly cycles the light crustal materials on the surface down into the denser material beneath through subduction, along a deep ocean trench for example, while at the same time bringing deeper material back up to the surface as molten magma, primarily along a spreading fault (as in the mid-Atlantic). It is nothing more than a crudely imagined conveyor belt system, which, according to expert scientists critical of the theory, the fundamental laws of physics applied to the known properties of earth materials denies; those materials are simply not up to the task, they do not work that way, on their own. In any event, whatever truth there may be in current plate tectonics theory, it was not responsible for the present shapes and positions of the continents on the Earth. This is my scientific claim, and I can prove it easily, so that anyone can understand. It is not hard science, it just requires being able to look at the Earth without the preconceived belief in currently accepted theory--and being able to honestly recognize design.

Seeing is believing; that is, it should be, but in modern science and contemporary thought it is not, to science's ultimate shame. Believers in modern earth science will not like what I am about to show here, and when confronted with the fact will dismiss it without the consideration science owes every observation of the natural world. Generations of earth scientists have utterly failed to notice what you are about to see, although it is a primary visual characteristic of the landmasses on the Earth. But I believe the ordinary person can appreciate it for what it is, without involved scientific analysis. For such people, I assure you that I have made the scientific analysis, and I dare any other honest and competent scientist to do the same. If you do, you will verify my claim by concluding the Earth was in fact re-formed to a great design.

We will begin by focusing our attention upon the east coasts of the continents; I'm going to show you a simple order, a precise (!) pattern to their positioning on the globe. And that pattern, remarkable as it is, is just one aspect out of many in the world design.



The above image shows the east coasts of Asia and of Africa/Arabia. The red lines drawn along these two coasts are great circles on the globe; they are undeviating in direction, the counterparts of straight lines on a flat surface. They show that both Asia, and Africa and Arabia, lie along lines that make the same angle with respect to the equator. That angle is 63.435 degrees. Note also that the Asian line crosses the equator at 120 degrees east longitude, while the line along Africa and Arabia crosses at 48 degrees east longitude, a separation of 72 degrees on the globe. Finally, note that the Asian line used here is right on the well-known "Rim of Fire", a line of volcanoes rimming the Pacific ocean along the east coast of the Asian continent; it is thus a physically exceptional line marking that coastline.



The eastern coasts of North America and of South America/Iberia (Spain) also are aligned with great circles at 63.435 degrees with respect to the equator. The line along South America/Iberia--crossing the equator at 24 degrees west longitude--is also 72 degrees to the west of the African line in the previous image, and North America--whose line crosses the equator at 96 degrees west longitude--is again just 72 degrees further west. Note that the east coast of Iberia serves to pin down the line along South America (which parallels its coast closely, and is neatly hooked by the curving southern tip of the continent). The North America line is also neatly pinned by the east coast of the Yucatan peninsula in Central America, and by the western end of Cuba; it passes directly over the eastern limits of Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod, marking the North American coastline.

All of the major continental landmasses are thus spread out with their east coasts precisely separated by 72 degrees from one another around the equator, and all of those coasts are angled by the same 63.435 degrees with respect to the equator. (A proper scientific analysis would estimate the uncertainty in both longitudinal position and in angle with respect to the equator; in every case, that uncertainty is just a few degrees and is small compared to all the possible positions the landmasses could have attained by chance alone.)

Finally, look at the larger islands in the Pacific ocean:



Yet a fifth line, again angled 63.435 degrees with respect to the equator and crossing the equator at 168 degrees west longitude, closely follows New Zealand in the south, the line of the principal Fiji islands further north, and bisects the Hawaiian islands even further north. This completes a full pattern of five such lines, strictly adhered to by major landmasses on the Earth.

For anyone open to honest recognition of non-chance, or designed, placement of the landmasses on the Earth, this should be a delightful discovery: The landmasses of the Earth are closely "parked", according to a strict, simple pattern on the globe. I will identify the name of that pattern below. For the hard scientist like myself, such an unexpected finding should be honestly confronted, and an analysis made of just how closely these landmasses follow the indicated pattern, and thus the probability that they could have achieved this close pattern by chance as opposed to design (and I would remind you, vain speculations as to the identity of the designers is irrelevant to such an analysis). I calculated that the probability is on the order of 1 in a million million (1,000,000,000,000) against chance placement of these landmasses. They were parked there by design.

Now, what is this pattern? It is part of a dodecahedral arrangement on the surface of the globe. Consider first a regular dodecahedron, circumscribed by a globe:



Each facet of the dodecahedron is a regular pentagon. An axis from the center of the globe through each facet of the circumscribed dodecahedron is like a polar axis with its own "equator"; in the above image, for example, the axis emerging in the middle of the North Atlantic would have an associated "equator" that is in fact the line along the eastern coast of Africa/Arabia in the pattern we brought out above. The same is true of the lines we identified above along the east coasts of the other landmasses; the "equator" for the axis emerging in the center of the above image of the globe--on Egypt, not far from the Giza pyramids of ancient fame--is the line of the "Rim of Fire" alongside Asia. The latitude at which these lateral axes emerge from the globe is 26.565 degrees, which makes the angle of the lines along the eastern coasts of the landmasses precisely 63.435 degrees with respect to the equator, as earlier stated. The Earth was anciently believed--as a "sacred truth", not a scientific fact--to be formed according to a dodecahedron. So this demonstration confirms the ancient, esoteric religious tradition.

Plate tectonics is simply disproved by this readily verified observation of the dodecahedral pattern obeyed by the eastern coastlines of the major landmasses of the Earth. QED and hold onto your hats, ladies and gentlemen. I told you before, the Once and Future Paradigm is back.

The True Origin of Continental Drift

What we will be dealing with in the future is so big that most people can't get their minds around it, and need time and looking at it from different angles to get used to the idea and its validity. For example, when I say "the Earth was subjected to a wholesale re-formation in order to enable a great design", many followers of currently-accepted science consider this claim an insult to modern science, and to the theory of plate tectonics in particular. So they refuse to look at the new facts I have uncovered in my own research program. After all, that theory is the recognized linchpin, the central theory, for all the earth sciences today. As an older scientist, I would counsel the newer generations to remember that it achieved this high status only recently (within the last 40 years or so). Here is an article I wrote about a recent development brought forward by scientists in the field, to show another way of looking at it for the average interested reader:

I have just coined a new term: Punctuated Plate Tectonics.

Remember when Stephen Gould hypothesized "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the strange apparent pattern of evolution as a succession of ages, each beginning with a worldwide extinction of most previous lifeforms, followed by a swift repopulation of the world by new ones, with relatively little evolutionary change through ensuing millions of years, until the next catastrophe-led "age"? Perspicacious critics of evolution pointed out that his hypothesis merely admitted the obvious--that natural selection was a mechanism for homeostasis, or little change in species over even geologic time spans, rather than for continued, gradual evolution--but they were ignored or dismissed as religious creationists, not the scientists they often were.

Now comes a report at enn.com that plate tectonics, too, shows clear signs of being an on-again, off-again process. As the report says:

Writing in the January 4 [2008] issue of Science, Paul Silver of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism and former postdoctoral fellow Mark Behn (now at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) point out that most of today's subduction zones are located in the Pacific Ocean basin. If the Pacific basin were to close, as it is predicted to do about [sic] in 350 million years when the westward-moving Americas collide with Eurasia, then most of the planet's subduction zones would disappear with it.

This would effectively stop plate tectonics unless new subduction zones start up, but subduction initiation is poorly understood. "The collision of India and Africa with Eurasia between 30 and 50 million years ago closed an ocean basin known as Tethys," says Silver. "But no new subduction zones have initiated south of either India or Africa to compensate for the loss of subduction by this ocean closure."

From this simple observation and other evidence, the scientists conclude:

Plate tectonics is driven by heat flowing from the Earth's interior, and a stoppage would slow the rate of the Earth's cooling, just as clamping a lid on a soup pot would slow the soup's cooling. By periodically clamping the lid on heat flow, intermittent plate tectonics may explain why the Earth has lost heat slower than current models predict. And the buildup of heat beneath stagnant plates may explain the occurrence of certain igneous rocks in the middle of continents away from their normal locations in subduction zones.

"If plate tectonics indeed starts and stops, then continental evolution must be viewed in an entirely new light, since it dramatically broadens the range of possible evolutionary scenarios," says Silver.

Scientists critical of plate tectonics have long pointed out that the total length of "subduction zones" (trenches) and "collision zones" is only about one-third of the total length of "spreading zones", quite contrary to the theory, so this newly-perceived lack of new subduction zones in the wake of the closing of the Tethys sea merely confirms those critics. Plate tectonics is not the robust , successul theory--the triumphant linchpin of all the earth sciences--that it is usually presented as being. It is failing; it has always failed. This report admits "subduction initiation is poorly understood," but scientists such as David Pratt, Dong Choi and others have pointed out the real truth, that there is no good evidence for subduction at all, anywhere, and calculations indicate the subduction of lighter crustal material into the denser mantle cannot be initiated, much less maintained by heat-driven, internal currents. Geophysicists resisted continental drift for about 50 years because they could find no sufficient physical cause for it. Although science is now well assured that the continents were moved over the Earth, it still has no physically reasonable cause for such wholesale movement. Science does not want to face it, but the truth is that we know "continental drift" occurred, but (some of us know, and all should know) "plate tectonics" was not responsible. The reader is also referred to mantleplumes.org, a site devoted to detailed scientific discussions and articles critical of plate tectonics theory.

This is where my discoveries come in. I have shown in my work that the Earth was re-formed--not created, re-formed--wholesale and by deliberate design, less than 20,000 years ago according to both ancient testimony and the design itself (which communicates a coherent, verifiable purpose). Remembrance of that design, through "sacred images" and "sacred stories", or myths, was the motivation for the subsequent religious obsessions, and all the greater endeavors (toward science as well as art and religion), of mankind. Plate tectonics as it is currently envisioned will never be confirmed, because physics has all along been against it, and now the design of the "gods" (as they were known in earliest recorded history, worldwide) makes it unnecessary.

Isaac Newton famously compared himself to a child playing with pretty stones on the beach, while before him lay the real ocean of truth, unexplored. When will science stop tossing up "pretty stones"--like the article reported on here, claiming what I call "punctuated tectonics"--that really only underline the fundamental, even logical, weaknesses of the most-admired theories of our time? The real history of the Earth has been one of successive designs.

Design vs. Contrivance

Above the entrance to the library where I first went to college (CU Boulder, Colorado, 1966-70) are these words:

"Who knows only his own generation remains always a child."

I have always been a fan of very old wise sayings, and this one stands out for me, over the 44 years since I first read it, as particularly appropriate for our time. I am quite sure that not until we all make a renewed effort to reclaim the wisdom of the far past (from before the beginning of known history, it turns out), and integrate it with our modern knowledge and experience in a more thorough understanding of our humanity, will we be truly grown-up.

We don't have to go back too far to begin to see how scientific belief has changed, in just a few generations. Here is how Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, thought about the world as little as three centuries ago:

"Newton was not the first of the Age of Reason. He was the last of the magicians... Why do I call him a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher's treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements... He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty..."
(from Newton the Man by John Maynard Keynes, quoted in the preface of Hamlet's Mill, which can be found at phoenixandturtle.net)

Now here is Charles Darwin, a century and a half ago, or two centuries after Newton's Principia inaugurated modern physical science:

"I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems too much misery in the world..." (from a letter to American botanist Asa Gray)

Note that it is the lack of beneficence, not design, upon which Darwin hangs his reasoning. His is basically the quintessentially childish complaint of every generation--"it's not fair!"--that adults should be able to answer with real wisdom ("No, it's not, but there is more to it than you yet know, and reasons for everything, many of which you can and will learn as you go through life, if you will keep your eyes and mind open.")

In another interview, upon the publication of his The various contrivances by which orchids are fertilised by insects (and note that a contrivance is a design--"artificial arrangement or mechanical assembly as opposed to natural or logical development", as Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines it), Darwin noted:

"I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton..."

Fair enough, but note his use of the term "designed laws." He could not escape consideration of design, something that modern science refuses to honestly and properly acknowledge. Design of the natural world is a taboo subject within science, to their intellectual discredit and ultimate shame.

Now, if the world were not now full of stubborn children knowing only their own generation, I shouldn't have to instruct anyone on "why is there evil in the world," the thing that was such a stumbling block for Darwin--though he led a charmed life of financial security and the admiration of others--but not for Newton. Not to make a big deal out of it here, as I won't be dwelling on it, but the short answer is: Because we are here to learn, dummy, and especially to learn that this world is not the end-all and be-all of our existence.

I intend, if this blog generates sufficient interest, to demonstrate in coming posts that Newton was, astonishingly (to the modern scientific mind), right about the world being a complex riddle or cryptogram, whose solution indeed partly involves the "evidence of the heavens"--though the world design I have uncovered was not Creation, nor was it done by the Almighty. Darwin, and all the undirected evolutionists of the last century and a half, have indeed been weak-(and generally closed) minded in failing to honestly recognize real design(s)--as Darwin himself insincerely admitted in the above--instead opting to celebrate design by other names, such as "contrivances", "co-evolution" (something quite contrary to supposed "universal competition" or "survival of the fittest"), "self-organization", and even "natural selection". But don't think this is a Creationist or Intelligent Design rant. I won't be dwelling on the living world, but the physical, for that's where the verifiable world design is to be found--involving the actual layout of the landmasses on the Earth, as well as the observable forms in the heavens, or the celestial sphere. I'm talking about new knowledge, new facts proving a real world-encompassing design, which science does not want to hear and refuses to hear.