Nectar for Your Soul. Vladimir Dubkovskiy

there’s a powerful floodlight right underhand. We’ve already examined what this leads to in detail in the preceding chapters.

      However, even the most powerful earthly floodlight can’t highlight the realms of the Immaterial World where our fates are formed and gathered. It is impossible to look into “the Creator’s kitchen” with our own eyes; traditional physical instruments with all the technology of science are ineffective at this task. It is impossible to comprehend the Universe, which is the reflection of the Creator’s conscious, using technical equipment. It’s like trying to measure the depth of love with a slide rule or weigh the strength of anger on apothecary scales.

      We live in a three-dimensional physical world, and we can only imagine things in the framework of three dimensions: length, width, and height. But the Immaterial World is multidimensional, and as such it is impossible to look upon it from Earth, whether through radio telescopes or hadron colliders. Failing to understand this, materialist scientists periodically make sensational announcements of their “discoveries,” which fully refute their dogmas of yesterday. But then “tomorrow” comes with the appearance of new “discoveries” which once again fundamentally change the conceptions of scientists.

      This is how the understanding of dark energy came about in 1998, when astronomers revealed that the Universe is growing faster than it ought to in accordance with existing theories. It was declared that this unseen dark energy provides around 74% of the Universe’s mass and energy, another 23% is attributed to dark (also mystifying) matter and only 4% is attributable to ordinary matter that can be watched and tracked. Dark energy, a fact of existence known only through its effect on the Universe’s state of being, was named the greatest astronomical mystery.

      They didn’t manage to solve this mystery, as a different group of scientists placed in doubt the existence of dark matter as a physical phenomenon. And when, in June 2010, NASA’s Kepler space telescope transmitted images from the depths of space in which scientists made out 100 million planets of our galaxy, 140 of which are similar to Earth, another complete change in existing scientific conceptions regarding the Universe was announced. It was previously thought that beyond the boundaries of our Solar System there existed primarily gaseous planets. It has now emerged that the Universe is full of planets made of hard material.

      Scientists made the important announcement that they had at long last uncovered the fate of the Universe, which, in their opinion, will endlessly expand and, in the end of all things, transform into a cold and dead expanse with a temperature close to absolute zero.

      Science also knows where the Universe itself came from, and all of us along with it: it turns out that long ago there existed (where, and in what?) a single point with no volume and infinite mass (?!). Then one day, 14 billion years ago, it suddenly exploded, as a result of which the Universe, with its innumerable multitude of stars and galaxies, took shape. It’s that simple; from nothing there arose everything, after which it all somehow organized itself, and in a primeval ocean, under the influence of unknown factors, the molecules of amino acids accidentally took shape. Then, by chance, they formed compounds resembling proteins, after which there accidentally arose a molecule capable of reproducing itself, the first living cell arose of its own accord, and the process moved on. It proceeded so well, that there soon arose simple microorganisms, and after them more complex ones, and so on until apes, which over time transformed into humans. On the whole almost exactly according to Darwin. We say “almost” because Charles Darwin (1809—1882) himself called his idea about the origin of species through natural selection and resultant evolution merely a hypothesis and announced that he was willing to reject it if paleontologists were unable to find intermediary (transitional) forms of living organisms. Paleontologists tried their hardest, but even after several decades of persistent searching the sought-after forms remained unfound. Moreover, excavations presented a wealth of evidence that refutes Darwin’s hypothesis: the fossils that could support evolution through natural means were never found, and all the species appeared completely unrelated from the beginning. However, supporters of the theory of evolution weren’t embarrassed by this and ended up becoming greater Darwinists than Darwin himself. In 1912, completely dismayed by the search for the infamous transitional link between apes and humans, they personally improvised the desired “artifact,” attaching the jaw of an orangutan with teeth of a chimpanzee to a human skull. For a period of forty years evolutionists fooled the scientific world (and the rest of the world as well) with this fake, which has entered history as the Piltdown Man because the place of its “discovery” was reported to be the village of Piltdown in the county of Sussex, Great Britain. At first this fabrication performed an invaluable service for evolutionists, but later, after the exposure of the forgers in 1953, it dealt the theory of evolution a blow from which it couldn’t recover. In the United States, for example, only 12% of the population continues to believe in “Darwin’s theory.” Hundreds of scientists from various countries of the world have expressed their “extreme skepticism” regarding the dogmas of Darwin’s “theory of evolution.” The Discovery Institute, located in Seattle, Washington, USA, has stepped forth as an initiator for the movement to reject Darwinist dogmas.

      The number of scientists who oppose the Big Bang theory is also growing.

      The Swede Hannes Alfvén (1908—1995), Nobel laureate in physics, proposed that the problem with the Big Bang is that astrophysicists tried to extrapolate the progression of the Universe from mathematical theories laid out on paper. According to Alfvén, the Big Bang is a myth, and this myth was invented to explain Creation in an attempt to combine science with the authoritative religious assertion creatio ex nihilo