Nature (a Creation, or An Accident?)


The many unanimous utterances that it’s figuratively felt (believed) among evolutionist scientists and physicists (i.e., the late Charles Darwin: Julian Huxley: Michio Kaku: Stephen Hawking, etc.) that nature created itself, or that nature is an accident, is not rational and logical, not even in the least.  How can something, or someone, be created without first an intelligent Creator?  The fact that many scientists, and their fans and followers, use the term created to describe in theory, or in scientific theory, the beginning of our universe is a paradox.  The term ‘created’ alone indicates in of itself that there is a Creator: even the terms of ‘creation’ and ‘creature’ themselves still indicate that such manifestation is a result from its derived root of a “Creator.”  If evolutionist scientists, and their fans and followers, still insist to use a term that describes the function of an alpha, not begotten, but commenced, they need to use a term outside of the concept and derivations of create:  The proper evolutionist term to then explain the automaton commencement of the universe, either commencing by itself or by accident, would be randomized formation, or fluke conformation, but definitely not created or creation.  Therefore, if nature is not the product of a Creator, than nature, in of itself, is not a creation.

An intelligent logical mind should objectively comprehend that every beginning has an origin, and therefore, every beginning is a product of its’ own origin; hence, anything or anyone that commences, as a distinctive formation, into a manifestation of matter and life, its’ very own existences and subsistences is a testimony of a distinctive architect.  Surely, there were always matters in the-Universe, perhaps sparingly throughout space, but matters arranged distinctively indicates other than just something commencing as a fluke conformation, or as a randomized formation.  If a formation is distinctive, then its’ origin is distinctive as well:  Therefore, a distinctive arrangement, and or distinctive patterns, of any formations are a testimony in of themselves of genesis idiosyncrasy.  A randomized or fluke force can only impact randomized or accidental indistinctive manifestations; but an idiosyncratic force can and will create distinctive manifestations.


[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth]

[Aspaty: Pentaspace, Sophocycle 1, 7 R.M. E.C. (Solar West)]

[Image: Unknown]


[Updated on Aspaty: Heptaspace, Deutercycle 11, 9 R.M. E.C. (Solar East).  Gregorian: Saturday, September 6, 2014]

0 votes

Leave a Reply