One of my favorite things about it, though, is when it inadvertently proves religion right. Did you hear that they actually solved the riddle of which came first, the chicken or the egg? According to the study, an egg can only be created by the chemicals or enzymes or whatnot that are inside of a chicken. Therefore, there first had to be a chicken in order for it to create an egg. Or as any kid in Sunday School can tell you, God made animals, not eggs.
I also love it when scientists can't figure out how to prove the theories they've been passing off as fact. For example, they teach that evolution is how man came to his present state, but cannot find a better link between humans and apes than that they resemble one another. We share half of our DNA makeup with a banana, but that doesn't mean we used to be fruit.
Anyway, take a look at this excerpt from an article I recently read:
Theorists suspect that the Big Bang produced equal amounts of matter (atoms with positively charged nuclei and negatively charged orbiting electrons) and antimatter (which has negatively charged nuclei and positively charged electrons). When the two collide, they cancel each other out and generate a small burst of energy.
But, physicists have long wondered, if matter and antimatter were created in equal measure at the birth of the cosmos, why didn't they annihilate each other, destroying the young universe in the process? And why is the cosmos now full of matter while antimatter is seemingly absent from nature? - "Scientists (Briefly) Trap Elusive Antimatter", Theunis Bates
If the big bang is true, then shouldn't there be neither matter nor antimatter? Or if the bang creates the two types of matter then shouldn't there be both in the universe? I'm no scientist, but wouldn't this show you that the matter was created from somewhere/something/someone and doesn't require antimatter in order to exist?
Something to think about...
No comments:
Post a Comment