Fixing America In 500 Words Or Less

Chapter 51

a perspective

       Ancient Galilee covered an area of approximately 1,000 square miles.  The area of the earth is about 197 million square miles.  Thus, it would take approximately 197,000 ancient Galilees to cover the surface of the earth. ¹

       Earth is larger than it's immedite neighbor planets.  But, roughly 1,400 earths would fit by volume inside of Jupiter, the largest planet in our solar system.  And yet, the sun compromises over 99.8% of the total mass of this same solar system.

       Most astronomers believe our sun is larger than an average star.  Yet, our sun is tiny compared to a star called Arcturus.  And, Arcturus in turn, is very small compared to another star known as Antares.  VY Canis Majoris is the largest known star in the universe and next to it in illustration in a typical book-sized drawing, our sun becomes essentially invisible to the unaided eye.

       Even this largest of stars would easily fit within the vastness of our own solar system.  But our solar system is but a grain of sand in a Milky Way galaxy of 200 billion stars, which is about only 1/5 the size of galaxy M-31, also known as Andromeda, estimated to be 220,000 light years in diameter.  And yet, M-31 is miniscule compared to the estimated 6 million plus light year diameters of the largest known galaxies.

       Space is so vast, that the nearest star to our sun is over 24 trillion miles away and yet, there are an estimated 100 billion galaxies of stars in the observable universe.  Some scientists believe that the currently visible approximately 13.5 billion light year radius, represents an area smaller than a period on this page, compared to the actual size of our universe.  And some scientists believe there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own. ²

       It is fair to say that creation may go on forever and ever.  And thus, someone standing on the shore of the Sea of Galilee today might feel overwhelmed and incredibly insignificant.  But this is only part of a much larger or as some might argue, smaller picture.


       This chapter is broken here into two parts because of a length exceeding 500 words.  Some might consider this to be cheating, but such fudging against the title of this book is miniscule when compared to how badly priests, preachers, philosophers, scientists educators, self-help gurus and other assorted ner-do-wells, for untold millions of generations, have consistently lied regarding what they pretend to “know”, compared to what they in fact, actually do know to be true. ³


       As noted in part one above, the incredibly large scale of the macro universe is only part of the overall picture. . .

       There are an estimated 10 trillion cells in an average adult human body, perhaps 50 times as many as there stars in our Milky Way galaxy.  And about 100 trillion micro-organisms live in a typical adult human gut, about 100 times as many as there are stars estimated to be in the Andromeda (M-31) galaxy.

       About 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms are thought to be contained in a typical adult human body.  Atoms are similar in size of our solar system in relation to the sun and and planets, in comparison to the size of various sub-atomic particles within them.  And similar to the sun in relation to the planets, the nucleus of an atom contains over 99% of its total mass.

       If someone were to illustrate an atom in true scale, showing its protons and neutrons as being about 1.5 inches in diameter, then electrons and much smaller yet other particles, would be less than 0.1 millimeter in size and, the atom itself would be about 6.25 miles in diameter.

       Human beings are very large in the light of subatomic particles and, very small compared to the size of the observable universe, thus we are placed inbetween the largest and smallest expressions of creation art.  And, just as a great artist like Rembrant might paint a large mural and yet, pay close attention to the smallest detail of facial expression and slightest variation of color, how much more then, does our Father in heaven, in a grand expression of creation art, pay close attention to the most microscopic realities of creation?

       And then, there is the sacrifice of God's son for the human race on a Roman cross, the ultimate expression of God's love beyond any and all magnitude of comprehension.
4  Thus, it is no small wonder that no one can deserve God, no matter how righteous, intelligent, strong or otherwise superior to others, we in vain may fancy ourselves to be. 5

       Many people casually assume their religion or viewpoint of God is mainly correct, without ever stopping to consider what and who the known evidence demonstrates God really is and, how little they actually know about either God, life, love or anything else.  Atheists and agnostics pretend the grand design of the universe could somehow magically exist without any Grand Designer, as if a living being as incredibly complex as a fruit fly, could somehow randomly appear on it's own and magically over time, change into a somewhat less credible human being fancing him or herself as being “educated”.

       Thus, we should be quite careful about trusting religionists, scientists and other educators to actually know much more of value than the average truck driver or motel maid.  And, we should be even more careful about passing on to our children what we supposedly know is true about God.

       Or otherwise, will the lies we tell our children and mis-information we leave them, come back to haunt us for a very, very, very long time?  After all, as the Bible says, let God be true but every man and woman a liar
6-8  and, there is a most obvious of reasons for the cross.

       You decide.

{ See Does Science Really Know What is True? for related information. }


1. This size is a rough approximation for purposes of illustration.  The actual size of ancient Galilee is not easily determined, as there are apparently no universally agreed to exact boundaries of what in biblical times was referred to as "Galilee"; still in use today, the term usually refers to a specific region of northeastern Palestine, in which the Sea of Galilee is contained therein but only a portion of.  See Encyclopedia Britannica "Galilee" and Wikipedia "Galilee" for more information.

2. Various information pertaining to the macro and micro world in this article was obtained from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia and other sources, which are not always in agreement, in particular regarding very large and very small dimensional space.  It is worthy to note that when human beings first landed on the moon and placed a device so the distance to earth could be measured more precisely, the long accepted distance was off by over 4 inches, which may seem insignificant.  But when compared to the distance of the nearest star to our sun being over 24 trillion miles away, then one can begin to see that much of so-called "known" science is not necessarily all that accurate.  Much of what modern science publicly states as being "scientific fact" depends on several assumptions being correct which may or may not be, among them that the speed of light is constant, that modern theories of gravity and light are essentially correct and, that space is mainly uniform and Earth lies in a typical "normal" portion of it.  Many scientists today suspect some, most or all current theory may be somewhat off on up to way off the mark from what is actually correct from true "logos" (outside the box universal and beyond) perspective.

It is fundamentally important to understand that as the Bible says, ALL human understanding is clouded by cultural and other tradition and accepted theory bias, fragmented and most likely, rudimentary at best, in comparison to God's true "logos" perspective.  Some scientists, in particular Einstein, have taken pains to point this out, calling for their oft artificially proud colleagues to be more humble and less publicly certain regarding various declared grandiose theories and pronouncements, which in the light of the known historical track record evidence, tend to be almost always eventually proven either partially or entirely wrong.

A good example of this likelihood are modern theories of "dark energy", the existence of which can neither be detected nor proven and thus, the existence of such relies on current theories being essentially correct.  Even if current dark energy theories are essentially correct, they represent juvenile "cart-before-the-horse" rather questionable assumption, rather than good science, inventing the existence of non-detectable entities in order to prop up established theories which otherwise, are not accurate.  How quickly scientists forget the great lengths to which Copernicus and Ptolemaic scientists before him went, to devise all manner of fantastical non-existent astronomical "props", based on the insistence that their theories were correct, now known to be otherwise.

Many Darwinists insist their theory is essentially correct because it works in certain application frameworks and has supposedly "stood the test of time", whereas in reality, it is a mere "baby" theory compared to the Pythagorean Theorem for example and, has "stood the test" of considerably less time than did either the theories of Ptolemy or Newton.  And, although Newtonian mechanical theories continue to work well for almost all earth-bound applications, they are essentially incorrect from a larger perspective.  For example, without Einstein accounting for the curvature of space, NASA voyages of fairly good pinpoint accuracy to the moons of the larger and farther away gas giant planets, would not be feasible.  And modern still emerging evidence suggests that Darwinian evolution might be way off; life may well have appeared from multiple primary sources (as Darwin himself suspected) and perhaps even "zillions" of original tiny "pre-life" forms, rather than from a single origination point in the ocean, as many Darwinists and a recent PBS special pretended to be universally agreed upon scientific "fact" (see also note #3 below).

If pretending to know what is true that which in fact, one does not know is true, qualified as being genuine science, then certain atheists posing as scientists perhaps would be the greatest scientists in history (many liberals think Karl Rove is a bullshitter, but he's only a beginner compared to certain members of the Oxford crowd).  If one doesn't know or is unsure or if there is evidence to suggest otherwise than what one has previously believed, then they should like former atheist and well-respected scientist and philosopher Anthony Flew, be honest enough to just say they are not certain or as in the case of Flew, have changed their mind based on the ever-evolving evidence, concerning formerly held fundamental beliefs. Rather, it has been the habitual very bad habit of many scientists and related educators, apparently in a sophomoric attempt to satisfy some inexplicable irrational urge, to grandly pretend to the general public to know, what in fact they don't really know for certain at all. How else can one explain the age of the universe having changed within my own lifetime, from being 9-11 billion to 18 or so billion to 22 or so billion to over 30 billion years old and now, having somehow magically lost over half of it's previous age and become rounded back to a rather suspiciously precise 13.67 billion?  Which of course, is only true if certain rather grandiose modern assumptions are accurate (which they may well be, but also may not be even remotely accurate).

Information regarding the subatomic "quantum" world is left out for the most part in this article, in part because of length and in part because there is considerable disagreement among quantum theorists.  Suffice it to say that some but not all scientists believe that a "quark", which is much smaller than an electron, is the smallest particle of matter, but as one quantum theorist recently stated on public television, the only thing certain about Quantum Theory is that there are no two scientists who entirely agree concerning it.  Much of the math used is fortunately over my head and thus, whatever my opinions may be regarding the legitimacy of trying to figure out how the universe may have been one ten thousandth or so second after the big bang, compared for example, to using scientific funding, man and mind power instead to figure out how to rid the earth of famine, poverty, disease and mass pollution, they will for the most part be kept to myself.

3. As two of a great many current examples, modern physicists today can't even agree on what shape the universe is, whether it is “flat”, “hyperbolic”, "cylindrical" or “spherical” in nature, nor can they agree on whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse in on itself.  And modern biologists, unlike many of them pretend to the general public, can't agree on whether life began in the ocean, on land, under the earth, in or near fresh water, in clay, in caves, arrived here on space rocks or, as is more likely the case, appeared from all over the earth, rather than from a singular point in the ocean, as Darwinists have long pretended is established science “fact”.  Such fundamental uncertainty of course, is in no way represented by the grand “unified theory” pronouncements of supposed universally agreed upon science typically found in high school and college textbooks, underscored in various public videos and otherwise, religiously parroted in the NY Times, LA Times and other media. There is really nothing quite like the history of science in underscoring the overwhelmingly probability, that scientific “facts” are by-and-in-large, here today and gone with the historical evidentiary wind of tomorrow.  It is not that one would expect anything different as better technology and new evidence arises, but it would be refreshing if modern "television" science would take a little humbler approach regarding how little anyone on this comparatively far less than spec of dust planet, is really certain about.

4. A commonly heard question among atheists and other skeptics is,"What kind of God would allow his own son to be crucified?".  It is obvious from such a question that such skeptics haven't thought their position through very carefully, if at all.  For example, when a child is sometimes tragically killed by a freak accident or if a child experiences a significant amount of undo pain and suffering, parents of such children are often quoted in the media with statements such as "if I could only have been allowed to take their place" and such tragedy would instead of happened to them rather than to their child.  Thus, if a human parent can relate to their own son or daughter in such a selfless manner, how much more great of a sacrifice was it for our Father in heaven to have endured the suffering of his only son on the cross?  Given that all love comes from God, "for God is love" and, even if you don't believe that is true (though it is entirely logical that God "is" love, if you think it through carefully), there rationally is no greater way that God could have demonstrated his love for us, than to sacrifice his only son.

5. Because of Christianity, many people who have not bothered to read the Bible for themselves mistakenly assume it is mainly a collection of religious theology about God. However, the biblical books as a whole and the teachings of Jesus in particular, are overwhelmingly about God in relation to humanity and how God would like us to treat each other.  And, there is very little about God found in the Bible other than what is important in relation to human beings.  Both Old and New Testaments very clearly state that nobody remotely understands God in the larger picture.  Rather, again especially the teachings of Jesus center on how we should treat each other.  As Jesus himself said, we should treat other people as we would like them to treat us, "for this is the law and the prophets". It makes sense that if God cares about people, then he would want us not to kill, not to steal, not to bear false witness, not to break up marriages and ruin children's lives by selfish and thoughtless acts of adultery and etc.  Thus, those among us who carelessly throw around phrases like "knowing God", "knowing the truth" and similar, should rather step way back and consider how very little indeed they know what the idea of "God" even implies.  After all, that is what the authors of especially the New Testament encourage us to do, who freely admit to "see" only in part, "as in a mirror, dimly".  In the light of how vast and utterly complex the micro and macro observable reality is known to be here in the 21st Century, it makes perfect sense that the true God would give us a name like Jesus we could call on to obtain help from him, for how else could we expect to obtain any mercy or favor from God or, to ever understand, comprehend or do anything to deserve God?  It is wise to bear in mind that the bar is set rather high and we in turn, are quite obviously entirely inadequate to reach it by our own devices.

6. Romans 3:4.

7. According to former leading atheist Anthony Flew, perhaps the world's greatest living philosopher (also a physicist) and, according to world leading DNA expert Francis Collins, modern DNA evidence alone definitively demonstrates that the universe is a result of supreme intelligence design.  For example, as related in Flew's book "There Is A God", the British National Council of Arts conduced an experiment where a computer was placed in a cage with six monkeys.  After a month of random activity, including urinating on the keyboard, the monkeys produced 50 typed pages that did not contain a single word; not even a single "a" with a space on either side.  The mathematical probability from there of a monkey randomly coming up with a single 14-line sonnet by Shakespeare was calculated as at least 10 to the 690th power.  To give an idea of how great of odds this truly is, the number of particles in the universe (i.e., protons, neutrons, electrons) is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power.  Thus, the odds of even as highly developed of a life form as a monkey coming up with just one single Shakespearean sonnet randomly, apart from deliberately conceiving of and crafting such a sonnet, is a number with at least 690 zeros after it, a number so large, that all of the protons, electrons and neutrons in the entire universe combined would have to be multiplied by over 600 base power of 10, just in order to conduct enough trials to see if such a possibility even exists. Antony Flew, Francis Collins

And one might add to what is noted in Flew's book, DNA is such an incredibly complex process compared to a Shakespearean sonnet, that it cannot even rationally begin to be compared; i.e, the brain of Shakespeare is by itself, a result of overwhelmingly incredibly highly complex DNA processes. The odds of DNA complexity randomly arising and somehow resulting in the brain of Shakespeare, as well as the rest of his body and all of known life, is likely a number so large, that it could not be written in normal type on a line completely surrounding our entire Milky Way galaxy, if not the entire universe.  This is one of several reasons why Flew, who claims to have always tried to follow the evidence trail as best as he knows how, regardless of what other scientists or anyone else believes, changed his mind concerning the existence of God.  Collins, also agnostic-atheist at one time in his life, likewise claims to have changed his mind based on the evidence.  Just in the light of these two intellectuals alone, it is irrational to pretend that theories of intelligent design should not be allowed in publicly funded classrooms. Whether or not someone agrees with either of them, their concepts of intelligent design are as evidence-based if not more so, than any other known theory of science.  In other words, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is an organization on the wrong side of human science, rationality and reason, on the wrong side of the First Amendment and every founding father, on the wrong side of human rights and freedom of speech and, on the wrong side of freedom entirely and altogether.

A human being pretending there is no God is similar to a micro-microbial gnat perched on the ass of one of the estimated 100 trillion or so micro-organisms found in a typical human gut, pretending that human beings don't exist because no being as great as that could possibly exist and he or she can't actually see a human being, only, overwhelmingly infinitely more ignorant.  Just how in the hell would they know?  Practically anyone of average intelligence can consider the possibility that the giant rocks of Stonehenge may have somehow magically piled up as they can be seen today, all on their own over a long period of historical time.  But only a total human jackass with several ivory tower degrees tucked under an expensive tweed collar, after examining the overwhelming evidence indicating the opposite, would actually conclude such to be the case.  And yet some wonder why factory workers and waitresses earning far less than university self-anointed gods of galaxy theory far, far and away intellect, are reluctant to have their taxes further abused in constructing mega billion dollar particle beam accelerators.  Expensive scientific play toys which more than likely will eventually result in weapons capable of incinerating our entire planet at the flip of a switch; rather than instead using hard-earned tax dollars for repairing badly damaged roads and bridges or at the very least, a much deserved pay raise for infinitely more valuable elementary school teachers and classroom janitors, who at least keep our children occupied for a time while both parents trudge off to work in a job producing tangible benefits for society, only to see their hard-earned tax dollars used for such incredible mega-machine monstrosities, go figure !!!

8. As a final thought, some of what is contained in these notes above might seem to the casual reader to be anti-science or overly critical of modern science, but that is not the point. All of us as taxpaying citizens should demand of scientists, educators and their research, which is funded often entirely and in most other cases, significantly by our tax dollars, that they deal with us in a forthright and honest fashion in return, freely admitting what they either don't know or only partially know or, only assume or suspect as maybe being true and correct. Rather than instead, putting on a type of public face "unified pretense", pretending that they all agree where often they strongly disagree and, rather than pretending to "know" as science "facts" what in fact, they do not know to be true or, suspect may not be entirely accurate. Honesty in exchange for our tax dollars from politicians, pontiffs, preachers, scientists and educators is what all taxpayers in ever nation on earth should expect, demand and require, as the very least they can do in return for us having provided a roof over their heads and food on their tables.  One of the greatest favors Jesus did for the "common people" is that he lifted up the factory worker, truck driver, waitress, biker and bartender as being on an equal plane with the religious, wealthy, educated and elite of society and, treated them as if they could understand and handle the truth just as well as anyone else.  And it would be both wise, prudent and refreshing if a few educators and scientists took a cue or two from him, accordingly.

Click Here to Go Back to Contents

Click Here to eMail the Author

Copyright © August 20th, 2003 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © Jaunary 7th, 2014 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © February 1st, 2014 by Freedom Tracks Records.

No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. Inquiries: Freedom Tracks Records or requested via eMail.  Essays entitled Revolution and Revolution ~ Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced and distributed as desired.