David's Lateral Thoughts and observations on environment and related issues.

- Search all the Pages on this Site with Freefind - Search | Site Map | What's New

This page was updated:-6 October 2002 Hooray, some terrific new stuff.

Belief

To reduce spam. Please replace at with @:-Mail: <tohardyatihug.co.nz>

This site is Hosted by:- IHUG

David's Lateral Thoughts©

A Growing and Changing File

Thoughts *This page will be added to frequently, or when I think up new material. I may even add the odd bit of poetry or what ever seems appropriate. Please e-mail me with comments about this and my other pages*.

'If every man and woman on this planet would make a garden or a forest a venue for his pulpit, and as he spoke just drenched his soul in his surroundings he would quickly learn not to shut his eyes when he prayed'.. DCH

David's Original 'One Liners'

If it is on the sabbath that God rested, why do we bother him with our problems on his day off?

Heaven is a legacy you earn when you leave the world a better place through your presence in it.

To take more than you give is abuse that reverberates through every fibre of life on this planet.

Value the uniqueness of your life because you are the prize in the lottery of conception, and yours was one of billions of tickets.

There is light at the other end of the tunnel but don't forget to take your lunch.

Earth's destiny is about two billion years of history written in the sands of Mars.

Money is the root of all evil and the devil has never had it so good.

Install gold guttering and your house will fall down before it does.

If you can't cry, try laughing instead. If that doesn't work, don't bother me with your problem.

It is quite evident that God does not replace the species we destroy, so I can't see Him making us an exception, when the time comes either.

God gave man dominion over all organic life and Boy!, has he taken advantage of that gift??.

Perhaps having ones soul in heaven will be a safer place for it than here on earth.

Why keep on praying for forgiveness? - Just don't do the bad things in the first place!!!

When you look at the vastness of the universe, you couldn't really expect God to spend all of his time here, unless, of course, man is the only critter in existance requiring his constant surveillance.

It is supposed to be a sin to kill one another. - Is it right then for governments to deploy others to do it for them?

DCH

Belief

Dear Nancy,

1.....
Everyone’s philosophy of life, death, place on this planet, rights and wrongs etc., is different from everyone elses. I will do my best to reveal my views in this essay and give my reasons for having them.

To answer any one apparently simple question without a full source of information to clarify it would be like offering someone a roast of beef without a means of cooking it. The outcome of my credo, is to me, very clear and practicle; it involves God (or gods), human behaviour, our planet and our planetary system. - So let’s start with God.

A description of who or what God is, is not the same to everyone. To many people he doesn’t exist, but to those to whom he does, confusion abounds, and sadly most of the agression and cruelty existing in the world has its roots in that religious confusion. The Jews and the Palestinians, (Philistines), have been killing one another since the time of Moses. Yet, both their religious doctrines taught that they ‘shalt not kill one another’.

Clearly, the sons and daughters of Abraham cannot and do not consider even that fundamental law as being wholey binding. I think that there is no more definate statement in the whole bible as thou shalt not kill and the rest of the ten commandments. But look at the Old Testament; beside the Ten Commandments there are many more, and they are all God’s Laws; all made to be obeyed.

A rather incongrous fact is that each religious group believes that there is only one god; the god of all mankind. But in some inexplicable way each ones god is their god and nobody elses. So if a christian is asked if a palestinian or mongolian or eskimo prays to the god of the jews, he will quite likely say no. Yet if a christian or jew is to believe his scripture, surely he has to accept that other races are actually worshiping the same deity. If that is the case, how can they so readily go to war and kill one another? One has to remember that the Bible is full of people killing one another. Persians, Jews, Phillistines, Macedonians, Syrians et al.... It seems very unlikely to me that God would set up a system of human sectarianism right at the beginning knowing that it would cause such bloodshed. It could be thought that he did it as a sort of test, but clearly such an experiment was doomed to failure as was from the beginning and has never even looked like being resolved as a means of achieving world peace and harmony.

History is littered with the denial of God’s laws. Christians kill Christians. Northern Ireland is a fine example, and Catholics and Protestants in that fair land have been killing each other for almost 5 centuries. What does Christ think of that when it was he who went one step further than what was written in the old Testament and said, ‘If smitten upon the one cheek, turn the other also’, which led to, ‘Love thine enemies’. Bosnia, Afganistan, Korea, Vietnam, - and this is just the recent ones as examples; Central America, Peru, Argentine, Brazil, Patagonia, and so many African countries have more blood of innocents on their hands than we could ever calculate.

If Christianity and all the mainstream religions of the world actually functioned as they should and the fundamentals of their teachings were proclaimed ‘LAW’ to their heirachy and to all their individual members, there would never have been the Crusades, where european armies marched into the Holy Land and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, raped the women, defiled the temples, looted their treasures, and Richard the 1st marched back to England a hero. That was a religious catholic motivated army. - Hero??? What hero????

And even when Henry VIII broke with roman catholic europe and placed himself above the pope in England, the legacy of acts of murder, rape etc. etc. lived on with the new protestant regime. The Church of England and it’s royal bedfellows were no different from the previous. In fact of all countries on earth, England invaded more foreign territory than any other aggressor and killed more men women and children in their conquests than any other nation. Can anyone say that their brutal invasive behaviour was cloaked in glory, was honourable, was moral, was right? And ever since Henry VIII’s time to the present day, England’s aggressive exploits have been backed by her church, just as the U.S. overkill in Afganistan today is backed by their churches. One thing I will say for Jesus Christ, he never was that weak.

Christ did not dress his disciples up in fine garments or dash around building church meeting places. He told them to go out and spread the word just as he was showing them. He did not accept money or utilise pictures, statues, trinkets, incence burners, or holy relics. He did not tell them to take would be follower’s riches and invest it, buy land with it or lend it out at interest. He actually knew that money was the root of all evil, yet, it is the so called christian world more than any other on earth that thrives on usuary. Reading the New Testament gospels is to discover that we, in the so called Christian world, are doing virtually the opposite from what Christ taught in every single way and church goers are no different in their practices from those who do not believe. One could liken it to being given a road-map, told that to get to the right destination you travel north up this road, but instead, they turn around and head south instead.

The long and the short of it is, this, if just one organised church would stand by it’s founder’s laws to the point were it’s members steadfastly abided by those laws and refused to participate in any contrary action, we surely would be able to see some credibilty, honour and truth shine out in this world. Christianity, as (not) practiced and supported by millions of people around the globe is a farce and a traitor to its founder.

Christ said quite clearly that all one had to do was to divest oneself of ones riches, that is, give it all away, be prepared to give a more needy person the shirt of your back, love your enemies, be kind and forgiving to all people, judge not that ye too may be judged, and to follow him. Is there one church that does that, or even come anywere near fulfilling those criteria? ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven’. Those were his words, but they don't hear them.

2.....
There are many people who will say that I should be targetting the ‘work of the devil’ when refering to the behaviour of our church and civic leaders, and that it is the devil who posesses them to do his bidding. Well, I don’t think that the devil has anything to do with it, no more than has God. God gave man freewill, and dominion over all life on this planet. He would not interfere. Every man and woman must be held one hundred percent accountable for his and her actions. ‘Free will’, means no less than that. Asking or praying to God to drive out the devil or to perform some sort of intervention when in trouble, is not the way it works. You reap what you sow. You can either use a hammer to build a house or to demolish one. In every single decision of your life the choice is yours. With one match you can destroy a forest, but with the matches safely in your pocket you can plant a tree.

Before Christianity was embraced in Rome, the men who wrote and manipulated its proceedures, edited the ancient texts, and orchestrated its rules and demands, played on the sin factor. ‘You are all sinners’ was the cry, and the only way to absolve oneself was to confess to a priest who then, because of his church given authority, was able to relay the confession to God, who then supposedly forgave the sinner. Fear of Hell and damnation plagued the population and it wasn’t long before the church had everyone eating out of its hands. Missionaries from stronger nations went to every country targetted for conquest, to soften the heathen population up. They told them that there was a heaven and a hell, and if they did as they were told and put down their bows and arrows, they could go to heaven. And, of course, the missionaries demanded the right to be given land as reward for saving them from hell fire and damnation. It didn’t always work completely so the military came in and finished it off.

This is organised religion, and it made sure that all those within its reach complied and did as they were told; even to the extent of taking up arms for their country, in spite of the fact that such an act controvened the very laws that the church claimed to with-hold. Wow, what deception and what power and how easily the blinkers fit over the eyes of their followers.

Yes, the Church of England did away with the confessional, but it used other methods. The king, parliament and lords of the land, although, said to be beholden and answerable to the church, were in fact, telling the eccleastical heirachy to do what they were told or their heads would roll and be shoved on a spike above the walls of the Tower of London. Cardinal Woolsley, and many others were murdered when they objected to what the real rulers wanted to do.

So perhaps we can say that the C of E is not to blame and that they just had to make the best of it under the circumstances. But would Jesus have compromised like that? No, he allowed himself to be arrested, tried, condemned and nailed up on a cross.

Organised religion has done nothing for humanity other than encumber it with fear and misery and possible execution. Besides that, it has done absolutely nothing to protect our fragile ecologly. God’s creatures and plants have been ruthlessly destroyed in the name of progress. The banks lend money, (a sin) to developers who have, over the last several hundred years, wiped out goodness knows how many millions of hectares of forest and natural habitat of species that have become extinct through those acts of greed. The human population has increased on the backs of all those species, God’s creation. Does the church openly condemn them? No. Instead it condones their action by saying that Christ will return, Armagedon will happen and only the righteous will survive. Whoever they are. In other words, doing your worst isn’t going to change a thing. And that, in spite of the fact that we as parents today are greedily taking away from our own descendants that bounty that we enjoy but is shrinking before our very eyes. I firmly believe that he who takes more from our earth than he gives back has sinned against God, his family and the planet.

3....

The next step in the foundation of my philosophy is the picture of creation displayed in Genesis Continuous, which when understood, portrays a much more logical and purposeful sequence of events in the origin and future of organic life on this planet, than either Professional science or religion have offered. And it is not founded on mystique, ghosts and devils.

From the Biblical and religious standpoint, wherever the term ‘World, (or worlds) without end, came from, nothing could support the Genesis Continuous concept more. And also, science has made many discoveries in recent years which reduce the credibility for their own theories but virtually give mine real foundational corner-stones. Most of these are printed as addenda in Genesis Continuous.

So assuming that you have read Genesis Continuous, lets look at the state of these humanitarian issues through my eyes.

Firstly, Christianity has grown by conquest and cruelty more than it has by being believable or benevelent. Cold steel and gunpowder has far more power to influence people than promises of salvation, in the minds of those threatened by their enemies. ‘Turning the other cheek’ is not what a sane individual does anyway; and certainly not when his wife and children are also threatened.

Each planet has its period of being organically blessed. The time between each is about 2.5 billion years. Crucial to that is the amount of time alloted to each planet’s organic phase which depends almost entirely on how that planet is managed. The gods were the people from Mars whose job it was to prepare earth with the necessary environment to support life, whilst their own planet was dying. (The Bible Genesis covers that episode very well, excepting that the ‘7 days’ were more likely to have been ‘hundreds of millions of years instead of a week)’. In some hundreds of millions of years in the future our descendants will be the gods who colonise Venus. Therefore, a future of two to two and a half billion years is the organically active generation time-frame I want the world to aim for, aided by a united human code and endevour. That is the Continuous part of Genesis that we are globaly duty bound to support.

God’s greatest gift was life itself. Not just human life, but all species. Without those others we could not survive. Greed and the malicious destruction of plants and animals, has to stop. Once again, money is the root of all evil. The climate has to be stabilised because the sudden changes we are making through day to day pollution are becoming too rapid for nature to recover from. If the church loves and honours God, as it says it does, then it is up to it to make a stand now and halt the damage being done. Why doesn’t it do that instead of concentrating on whether its members are going to get to Heaven or not. The latter should not be the attraction or the purpose. Know them by their deeds not their chatter.

Why should our future generations suffer. I don’t mean 2 or 3 generations in the future; I mean thousands, even millions of generations in the future. We of this generation are a vital link in this chain and it is our turn to place organic survival on this planet back on track for them. If the churches have any concern for God’s greatest gift, then for God’s sake do something of real value for the future.

Armagedon is prophesied in the New Testament. As I said earlier, God gave man free will and if Armagedon comes it will prove beyond doubt that he kept his word and that he was not to intervene in our present or past or future follies. Armagedon can be avoided if we place responsibility upon our own shoulders and stop blaming a mythical ‘pass-the-buck-to, Devil for all of man’s digressions, and just simply get on with reversing the destruction. So face the reality, the Afgans, Christians, Islam and Arab nations are not going to get one more blade of grass out of their barren hills in the Middle East, by prayer. God does not intervene in that way, even by getting down on one’s knees and praying 5 times a day. (Instead, how about planting a tree while kneeling the first time each day, and feeding and watering it the other four). Actions speak louder than words. God helps those who help themselves, and men have the ability to turn their machineguns into ploughshares. Do not blame God or the devil for man’s negativeness. Such an indictment, is in itself, negative and unworthy.

Man destroys by his greed yet he could repair by his love and determination for sustaining life and healthy soil, water and air. - Let that be the philosophy and action for this and future generations. It’s mine right now. All I can do is write about it in the hope that people will awaken to these real issues and they who are born to lead others will inspire them to do the same; not out of fear, but out of love for God and Genesis Continuous.

4....
My views are strong and I will not be sorry for upsetting some people whose beliefs are different from mine. To embrace a philosophy designed to save the planet’s organic phase for as many future generations as possible seems worthy of the condemnation of organisations that hinder that effort and if folk are hurt by that approach I can only hope that they will think outside the square of what they now protect and see the reality.

Who can honestly disagree with a global effort to eliminate pollution - global warming - deforestation - over harvesting of fish, and wild fauna and flora - the dumping of valuable metals and substances in landfill - the arms race and wars - the exploitation of children and women and young men in activities which are cruel and abhorent. Are these issues addressed with actions and not just prayers from every pulpit. No.

I wonder who really wrote the ‘Lord’s Prayer’?

Our father who is in heaven - Hallowed be thy name - Thy kingdom come -Thy will be done - in earth as it is in Heaven. (Now here is the pleading bit with no sign of a ‘please’ in it, and no suggestion of ‘Do it yourself, Mate’)
Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive then who trespass against us. (What a cheek!!!!! Why should he make some sort of extra effort to feed us when he gave us free will to do that for ourselves? And as for the forgiveness bit, the christian world displays no forgiveness what-so-ever. If God is here and hears that prayer from every church on this planet every Sunday, I would expect him to be thoroughly sick to the back teeth with us. Grovelling and seeking forgiveness for our sins in the same breath has no place in my philosophy.

As powerful as they are the churches have had hundreds of years to address these issues and they have failed. The world has rolled by and they are stuck in their ancient dogma unable to do anything about it - roll on Armagedon!!!!

An ideal world would be one in which everyone spoke the same language, there was no racism, there was one medium of exchange, no mystical religion and no country could lord it over another. And man address man honourably and shoulder his and her responsibilities in love and trust.

Because of our progress in medicine and understanding of hygene, birth control would have to be universal in order to prevent over population. Fish farming would be a must, and fish nurseries would also be extremely important to build up the ocean’s stock of endangered species. Every place on earth that could grow a tree or shrub would be turned back into forest. Particularly fruit and nut and all trees that provide support for endangered species should be planted where they will grow well.

Most importantly, the religion for the world should be, ‘Preservation’.
‘Preservation’ would teach everyone to respect and value our earth’s ecology. From early childhood, horticulture, agriculture, silvaculture, and animal and fish care and control would be compulsory learning for all. And, as actions speak louder than words, most of this training would be hands on. The church building would give way to the great outdoors and prayer would give way to care.

Someone said many years ago:- ‘You are nearer to God in a garden than anywhere else on earth’. Therefore, it’s time we put God’s house, our planet, in order because not only do we share it with Him, it is absolutely vital to the survival of our complete organic family.

May I reiterate:- God gave man freewill. Man can pick up a hammer and smash things to pieces with it, or instead, build something with it. The choice is his and his alone. He can take a match and destroy a forest, or instead, he can take a spade and plant a tree. The choice is his. He can go into a church and pray to God for whatever he wants, or instead, he can go into a garden and give nourisment to all that grows there. The choice is his.

Let ‘Please God give’ become ‘Pleasing God, I will help’. - Again, ‘Actions speak louder than words’.
*

Why should the words of an ancient text rule the world today?

As most of that text is to do with the history of the jews and their primative philosophies and self made religious laws, why can’t everybody see that their actions even today are not those of people who revere those laws. Is that not plain to all?

Rome adopted Christianity nearly 2000 years ago, not because they thought it would be wonderful for their people but because they realised that it was a form of control by fear.

There is nothing like the mystical to attract and to invoke fear within group participation in people, and the more pomp, idols, taking of Christ’s blood in wine, sombre ceremonies of all sorts, and incence burning, the better. The hymns, the prayers, the littany, the bells etc. etc., are all there to impress, attract and pacify; to suck them in and the Sunday School working on the innocent little children prepares the way. And it works because nobody can see God or meet him or face him. - Nobody can say for an absolute certainty that He actually performed a miracle. - nobody can say for an absolute certainty that there is one shred of truth in the whole organisation. - On the other hand, nobody can say that there isn’t. Just that I, like many millions of others in the world can see the damage that organised sectarian religious groups have done and how it destroys people’s morals and does not direct them towards doing God’s real work; that of caring and saving his greatest gift to us humans and the rest of organic life.

Many reading this will no doubt critisise me for focusing on Christianity. The reason is simple. Who are the most aggressive and powerful nations on earth and what religion predominates within their boundaries? Also, what is the common medium that lubricates their collective activities? The jewish financial system. Such wealth, such power, - What a pity it isn't used to honour their God.

WHAT I AM

Dear John and Ann,

Probably I would better be described as a free-thinker, than be called agnostic or athiest; simply because of my theory, 'Genesis Continuous' and it’s influence on my outlook. <http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~hardy/gcon.html>.

Labels, like agnostic, athiest, etc. often don’t adequately describe what they are meant to. However, an understanding of what our future should hold for thousands of generations ahead should concern everyones sense of responsibility.

The basis of this theory, that simply came to me just 30 years ago, is now accepted by some cosmologists and many students around the world. It is recomended reading at at least one university and is acknowledged as The alternative origin of the solar system by a number of other faculties.

When you read it you will find that I support the Bible Genesis in a way that orthodox science does not. This fact is not by design; it just happens to be so.

I am not religious to the point of actually belonging to a religious group but I do acknowledge God in a realisation of continuity that encompases, past, present and future. When I die I do not believe that by indulging in prayer now that that is going to make the slightest difference to what becomes of me. I do believe, however, that by physically offering protection to and supporting the continued existance of the organic species that have as much right to exist on this planet, as you and I do , I am helping to protect what God, through his actions, has provided for our future.

The universe is not a recent creation, but a continuous evolution that had no beginning and will have no end. However, the solar system is a creation. The earth is younger than Mars and older than Venus. Therefore, I believe that the Biblical creation pertains to our planet and demonstrates our relationship with the observable universe. Science, of course, considers these first few Biblical pages to be too simplistic and of little or no value to the cause of their perceived reallity. If you read my work you will find that I actually make those ancient pages more meaningfull, and of course, this letter more understandable also.

God's laws are 100% precise in every way. A chemical action billions of miles out in space, given the same environment that exists here, will perform in exactly the same way in both instances. And why shouldn't it?

This truth goes right into the complexity of life as it does to every other phenomena. God's laws cannot be bent or broken or changed in any way. If an event appears to be different from what is expected, then there has to be a another factor involved that we were not aware of; but this does not make it a miracle. The miracle may be that the unknown factor existed and happened to be close enough to become involved in the event. This abilty to be changed, adapted, redesigned, modified, etc., is in effect, a type of structural evolution, but evolution in a fuller context that does not just pertain to modification of life-forms which is more to do with adaption; instead it allows the universe to be versatile and completely substitutional.

For instance, hydrogen and helium gases are the base elements of all the elements, and, by fusion and local environmental pressures and influences are capable of being a part of everything solid, gas, liquid, energy and so on; Like a drop of water that can be lifted from the ocean as vapour and steam, drop to the earth as rain or hail or snow, flow into a stream, be drunk by a bird, human, water-cress plant or waterlilly, and perhaps after thousands of years of entering into a miriad of forms, flow down a river into the ocean again. The only difference is that in space its journey can be vastly more varied than is possible for it here on earth. And what is so wonderful, although its particles will be split up and go on all sorts of chemical journeys, they collectively have not disintergrated into oblivion.

While on the subject of water, we could ask God for rain during drought conditions, but even he cannot change the laws to bring rain before it is due by natural causes. When I think of Afganistan's and many other muslim countries suffering the way they do because they haven't enough rain to produce successful crops, I know that God gave us freewill and not intervention. Praying five times a day on mass appears to get these people absolutey nowhere. But by using God's laws, they and we can make pumps and irrigation systems. We can plant trees and extend our forest cover, if we have the will to do it. On the other hand, killing one another is just so counter productive as to be beyond lunacy. This has been the history of the Middle East for literally thousands of years, and if they had put as much money and effort into construction instead of destruction over that period, how positively different those countries would be today.

Man is a greedy being and money is the root of his destructivity. He can earn more money, short term, by cutting down forests and milling trees, and then turn the bare land into grass for herbivore farming, or let it become a desert. God does not stand in his way and neither would God stand in his way if he used his common sense and skills to reverse the process.

God gave us a wonderful planet, well stocked with all sorts of organic lifeforms that we have abused instead of working in harmony with. The last century saw the worst period in earth's history in the destruction stakes. About eightyfive percent of the world’s forests were destroyed between 1900 and the year 2000. So with all that enlightenment and education that went with man’s affluence by rape of the ecosystem, what went wrong?

It appears to make no difference what religion people believe in. They crave riches at the expense of God's gifts and yet pray that they will go to heaven. If I could attend a church where alternative fundamental ecological values were acknowledged with a will to establish a fellowship of all of life without pain and suffering, without exploitation, without weapons of destruction, without predatory practices, and with a will to recognise that our beautiful planet has to be nursed and sustained for not just a generation or two, but for at least 2 billion years, I would join that congregation. (Two billion years is not an exageration). None of the churches I know of embrace or teach these principles. The catholic church and Church of England have condoned exploitation, war, pain and torture for as long as they have existed. Proof can be found in any history book of England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, USA., in fact, almost every country on this planet.

As individuals, we have a short time on earth and every day is precious. Every day lived is one day less to live. We must learn to be not ruled by our past mistakes. Memory is one's collective learning in a diary that is added to every minute, hour and day. Don't allow the bad pages to keep hurting the newly written resolve to improve our planetary island and be thankful for the good parts. What is past cannot be changed, but the future, ah, the future is an open book that can be filled with good work and happiness.

No, I am not a Christian because christianity fundamentally addresses humanity only and is not all-embracing, and although it teaches philosphies that we should not kill, (other humans) should turn the other cheek and forgive our enemies, should not judge others, should not indulge in usuary etc. etc., the militarily most powerful nations on earth flaunt their christianity as being their very life blood. - what a farce... Most of the christians I have met believe that the events predicted in Revelations will occur, so they have told me that my ideals are not worth considering because Christ is coming to sort it all out anyway. That makes me so sad and mad when God has given us the means to repair the damage. All that is lacking is the will - and the will is over-ridden by monetary greed.

THE NEW ORDER

I think that our leaders, political and business, should be selected from the very finest brains available. There should be no political parties, as such, just a commitee of honourable, brilliant independants, whose job it is to run their country as a business. There shouild be no huge pension incentive offered to them, because that attracts the wrong people. No hidden agendas, no protection rackets, and no siding with huge companies whose motivation is profit at the expense of quality. Deliberate built-in redundancy should be a crime. If you buy a washing machine it should be made to last a lifetime. Spare parts should be available for a hundred years, say, and newer models should utilise a goodly number of the parts that already exist in the older models. Faulty parts should be improved upon as replacements only. Such laws should be accepted by all companies that are there to sell their goods. There should be a recycling of all waste where no value added commodity becomes an ingredient for landfill or ever be lost.

All statements, acts, decisions and policy making by members of this new style parliament should be recorded and all of that dossier be available to the public around the world. The internet and CD technology offers a cheap means of making it available.

All weapons of war and aggression should be scrapped. Any country, group of people, or individuals must never have the opportunity to use violence or threats of violence against anyone else. It would be encumbent upon the rest of the world to stamp out any such activity. (In other words, make the Christian ethic work by diplomatic action. Clearly the churches themselves have no clout or even the will to stand up for God).

Therefore, a world court would exist to mediate and settle disputes before they start. Something like the UN but with far more authority.

The share market is probably the greatest institution of legalised robbery, corruption and human suffering on earth. One of the most recent examples of that was the attack that killed three thousand people and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, in New York. People's investments right around the world lost their value, but why? Simply because a great number of those investors pulled their money out from what ever company they had shares in for fear that they would lose their value. The idiotic part of it is that had they all left their investments in place, they would not have lost value, either for themselves or for the thousands of others who stayed with it and lost. So the companies suffered and their other shareholders suffered the loss as well. The problem is in instances like that, everyone else suffers. Why should that one very localised incidence that took place on just seventeen acres of Earth’s surface, have such devastating results for the rest of the world?

There would be a common currency stabilised throughout the world. Money would no longer be a commodity with fluctuating value but be a medium of exchange, as it should be. That way inflation would not exist. People getting fat on the backs of other’s labours by charging them interest, the cause of inflation, has to stop. (That would be practicing a vital christian ethic).

Education would involve compulsory courses in agriculture, silviculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, aquaculture; and they would begin from age 5.

All children would learn food preparation and cooking. - If these extra activities tended to crowd the school hours, then other activities should be tailored to suit orbe sacrificed. Children can learn social development skills just as well working together in a garden or kitchen etc., as they can in sport. Probably better, because what I propose is vastly more creative. A sports trophy is just a trophy and is really quite useless to the health or sustenance of man, whereas a square meal and a roof over ones head is vitally important.

The use of fuels that polute can be replaced by ecofriendly means. The technology exists and it is only the power of investment by the fat-cats of our world that is preventing a rapid change. Their greed is such that they would deny their own children and children’s children, etc. the healthy environment that they enjoy.

Now that we are in the Internet era, where every school on earth could be on-line and would be doing the same courses, the subjects of communication between them would be wonderful. (I am not saying that Alaskans need to learn how to grow coconuts; obviously the courses must be tailored to location).

There are so many changes to our feudal, but so called democratic system, that could be changed to bring happiness to the people of the planet and at the same time restore the health of our world. I know that it would take a very large number of determined like minded people around the globe to get together and work out strategies to make it work. And fear of stepping out of line within feudalism society is the greatest fear. The problem is although countries boast that they have freedom of speach and many other so called freedoms, attack on the banking system, the military, education establishments etc., are going to be strongly resisted. But that is where we have to start if we are ever going to have a world state of happiness.

Everyone of us is responsible for our actions, 100%.....
However, we delegate instead of facing the tasks ourselves that give us our necessities in life. We love it when we walk into a butcher’s shop and see all that beautiful meat, just waiting to be put in the pan. But we have unthinkingly delegated the slaughter of all those animals to other people. Even the so called vegetarian will probably wear leather shoes, have a leather handbag or treasure something made of bone or ivory. Now consider that the delegates do not exist and you are faced with the job of killing the animal you eat, yourself. To most people, that would present a very different attitude to how one views a leg of pork in the butchers shop window.

It is this planet. Earth, 150, 000,000 kms from the sun and as far also from Mars that is our only space-ship. Earth is our home and all the other planets in our system are completely hostile to our life forms. If we destroy it, we destroy ourselves. It’s that simple. So when we burn a forest and not replace it we are treating the event in the same way as we view all that beautiful meat in the butcher’s shop window.

And that’s the real challenge. To think beyond the self in all things. To take responsibility and reach for the tools of preservation and work to make a long-term sustainable job of it. Not to be bogged down with the history of the jews or any other ancient race and their gods because it is ‘now’ that counts. The Bible has a beginning and it has an end. In other words, it is a container of ancient information. But, God does not live in the past, he invented time and continuity, and the prospect of a future. It is up to us to face reality, as difficult as that transition would be, and make it happen.
David Hardy

Dear Nancy,

You asked me some time ago what my feelings were about religion. I knew that although the question was simple the answer was a lot more complex than could be answered in a few words face to face. I have tried to make my points in discussions of this nature before to others, but it has never worked. The written word is the only way.

I have tried my best in the following pages to make it all as clear as possible. As it happens, someone else has asked me a similar question that prompted me to reply slightly differently from the letter to you. I have enclosed both as I feel that what one may not answer satifactoraly, the other might.

As you will see, Genesis Continuous, has had a large influence on my philosophical outlook. The fact that I deal with God and Christ differently is not something that one expects in athiesm or agnostical belief. Usually these two entities are treated as one, as both being either accepted or both being rejected.

I was on the phone to a very religious friend of mine the other day and we were talking about the origin of the universe. I pointed out to him that there could not have been a beginning, since all matter and energy is indestructable and therefore must always have existed. He agreed with me and also agreed that all the matter and energy in existance is in constant change. It is completely transformable; so the galaxies can come and go over time, by whatever influence of forces overtakes them. Creation, then, is an on-going feature of that modification, since once upon a time, the milkyway (which includes us) didn’t exist and neither did many of the galaxies we can see today, but others, now transformed, did.

We can see these changes happening in the universe, so there is no reason to deny them, or for that matter, to deny the first pages of the Bible Genesis right out of hand.

Dire warning at Earth Summit
DELIBERATE EVOLUTION (17th March 1997)

I don't know how genetically close the fox and flying fox are related to one another, but just imagine: you have this ordinary mammal family, with four good strong legs, capable of bounding about very efficiently, then, for no apparent reason, some of them start climbing trees and, having no prehensile tails to turn to when losing balance, continually fall out of the trees and hurt themselves.

Over the next few millions of years, this 'hybridising fox' unconciously realised that it needed wings, instead of a prehensile tail like the monkeys resorted to. Gradually it developed this membrane under its armpits that before it extended down its body and up to its paws, was utterly useless to its dilema. Therefore, how did it know it was heading along an evolutionry journey to become equipped with something that it really needed? The answer to that question may never be answered, but it has been flying competantly now for many years and, by those same laws of evolution, it should improve.

Now, having got that sorted out, let's apply a bit of lateral thinking about it. All we need is a group of dedicated humans to put the same scenario to the test. They start off by deliberately jumping off buildings and what have you, flapping their arms furiously and falling over each time they hit the ground, deliberately causing pain. They conciously remind themselves about the need for wings, and, their descendants, if they survive being chuched over banks and things as infants, may, in the next few million years or so, be capable of gliding from here to there with the greatest of ease. And, for a bonus, if they practiced this at night, with no artificial light to help them see, they could even develop radar as well. Just think of the advantages this would give the human race.

No need for motorised transport, jumbo jets, and, 'goodbye oil companies'. And the lightbulb business could also be threatened. --- An eccologists dream no doubt. --- It's just too bad that it will take so long.

GENESIS CONTINUOUS, FEEDBACK (10th May 1997)

Although there have been over 1600 visits to the Genesis Continuous site since 7th Sep 1996, the feedback has been very minimal. I have asked others on the net if they experience the same degree of response to their pages and the answer is invariably, yes, so there is some comfort in that I suppose.

However, the feedback I have received has all been positive, bar one. This lady told me that I should have known that God created the world in 4004 BC and that my theory did not comply with that reality.

One student wanted to present my theory in his exam paper at university and I advised him very firmly not to do that, since to pass exams one has to give the established answer to the question, regardless of its possible validity. I didn't hear back so I hope he took my advise.

The good news is that many replies have been from people (one at least of whom is a university professor) who now view the evolution of the solar system the way I see it. This of course, has been my fervent hope, and I can only ever know how my readers view GC unless they read it with an open mind, think about it, and make my day by dropping me a note in my e-mail box.

One person has been kind enough to actually put the whole work onto his site; two sites actually. I take this as a great honour indeed and I thank him with all my heart. Hello Dan, how are you? Others have put links to GC on their indexes

Two people have refered to me as 'A legend' and another as giving him back faith in his religion that he had lost due to not understanding some text that his church expected of him. Genesis Continuous established, for him, a more acceptable scenario that complied with his church's teachings.

No one has come back to me with a 'This is rubbish' or Utter tripe' or anything like that. All replies are from people who seem to be glad that they took the time to read it. Well, all except that one I mentioned.

I am also delighted and thankful that a number of folk have considered Genesis Continuous worthy of a link from their page. Thankyou.

GOLD. (22 March 1997)

The Elusive Metal.

As the Cornish miners, searching for gold, used to say in the Coromandel Goldfields, North Island, New Zealand, "Where she be, there she be, and where she be, I baen't"!! Which also prompted the saying among them,"Never leave a drive 'till you've gone three feet further"

There are many mysteries pertaining to gold and its whereabouts. And to add to the confusion the characteristics of most goldfields are not the same. Also the gold from them comes in different colours. The reason for that, of course, is the type of and quantity of impurity that is almost always present in gold that is extracted from quartz reefs or is sluiced out of rock and scree, that has come from erosion of quartz reefs and the sorrounding country rock. The individual pieces of gold from these sources are rarely more than a few grams in weight and most of it, the size of a pea and a lot smaller, even microscopic.

The impurities are mostly silver and copper, one or the other or both, and the purity of the gold is measured in units of 24 parts called carats. Reef gold may range from say 9 carat to 23.5 carat, or there abouts.

However, there is another type of gold found in nature that is quire different. Nuggets are every miner's dream. Some have been found many kilograms in weight

Strangely, these isolated lumps turn up in the oddest places, and in Australia, they are mostly found in sandstone country, that once was the ocean floor and perhaps hundreds of kilometers away from any quartz reefs.

And unlike the other gold, this gold is mostly pure, or 24 carat.

Now nuggets just don't grow like potatoes underground in sandy soil, so one has to surely look elsewhere for their source.

Among the many almost unique characteristics of gold is the fact that it does not oxidise. It can form a chloride, and therefore is in solution in the ocean in very minute dilution, and it can blend with mercury to form electrum, an alloy that was once used to fill cavities in teeth with.

Possibly then, nuggets are the result of a natural electroplating process taking place with some other metal or material on the ocean floor.

Well that would be fine if every genuine nugget could be shown to contain the electrode or anode or whatever mechanism was needed, inside it. If any reader can put me in touch with data on this subject, please do so, as I've not heard of nuggets containing an electrolytic .

However, being not satisfied with the above hypotheosis, I think the lumps of gold have reached us from space and are just another type of meteorite. Remember, gold will not oxidise and as it descended through our atmosphere would not explode through a chemical combustion. If it were molten when it struck the ocean, of course it would fragment, but, if not, it would simply remain intact. So whatever happens, unlike meteorites composed of iron, and other elements, gold would remain in its metallic state throughout its journey to its final resting place.

If some meteorites are the remains of exploded planets or whatever, then gold, being heavier than iron, would be released from nearer the centre of the core and would drift around in space in the same way as the other core material does.

And take a look at this news 7th Apr 2001

InfoBeat - Scientists: Neutron stars hold gold

By CHRIS FONTAINE
Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - There's gold in them thar colliding neutron stars.
A team of scientists said Thursday that the origins of most of
the gold, platinum and other heavy elements on Earth can be traced
to the massive explosions of colliding neutron stars, hundreds of
millions of years before the birth of the Solar System.
``This is an incredible result,'' exclaimed senior team member
Stephan Rosswog after the scientists' data were released. ``It's
exciting to think that the gold in wedding rings was formed far
away by colliding stars.''
It has long been accepted that common elements, such as oxygen
and carbon, are created when dying stars explode into supernovae,
but researchers have been puzzled by data that suggests these
stellar explosions do not produce enough heavy elements to account
for their abundance on Earth.
The scientists _ from the University of Leicester, in England,
and the University of Basel, in Switzerland _ believe rare pairs of
neutron stars hold the answer.
The report was presented Thursday to the National Astronomy
Meeting at Cambridge, England.
Neutron stars are the super-dense cores of large stars that
survive supernovae. They contain about as much matter as our sun,
but are only about the size of a large city. Sometimes two are
found orbiting each other _ leftovers of a binary star system. Four
such pairs are known to exist in our galaxy.
The team used a supercomputer at the U.K. Astrophysical Fluids
Facility in Leicester, 100 miles north of London, to model what
might happen if the intense gravity created by these pairs slowly
forced them to spiral closer and collide.
One such calculation takes the supercomputer several weeks to
get through, but represents just the final few milliseconds in the
lives of the two stars. It shows that as the neutron stars get
closer, immense forces tear them apart, releasing enough energy to
outshine the entire universe for a few milliseconds, the team said.
Team member Melvin Davis of Leicester said the explosion most
likely creates a black hole _ a light-sucking tear in space _ and
ejects ash so hot that nuclear reactions take place as it races
outward, mashing newly created protons into the nuclei of lighter
elements to create heavy elements.
The ejected material eventually mixes with the gas and dust
between stars that, in turn, collapses down to form new generations
of stars, slowly spreading heavy metals throughout the galaxy.
The proportion of matter created in these infrequent cataclysms
over the 10-billion-year life of the universe closely matches the
spectrum of elements found in our 5-billion-year-old Solar System,
the team said, providing strong evidence that the theory is solid.
``The thing that is really quite compelling is that our models
really do reproduce the relevant amounts of elements in the
universe very, very accurately,'' Davis said after the release of
their report. ``It answers part of the question, `Where did all
this stuff come from?'''
Stan Woosley, professor of astrophysics at the University of
California-Santa Cruz, called the data compelling, but said it
lacked a conclusive description of the so-called R-process _ one of
two ways that heavy elements can be formed.
The other _ the S-process _ is better understood: Heavy elements
are created as a star burns its hydrogen into helium, but the
variety and amounts produced are limited.
Some astrophysicist believe the R-process also occurs in a
supernova, but scientists' understanding of supernovae is limited
and computer models that could prove the theory don't exist.
Supporters of the supernova theory argue that collapses of
binary neutron stars happen too infrequently. If large amounts of
heavy elements are created in the more common supernovae, it would
explain this uniformity.
``It's a nice development and a nice calculation,'' said
Woosley, speaking to The Associated Press by phone from California,
``but not everyone is going to accept that this is how the
R-process is made.''

___
On the Net:
Royal Astronomical Society, http://www.ras.org.uk
Video images, http://www.ukaff.ac.uk/movies/nsmerger

GENESIS CONTINUOUS (16th April 1997)

I received an e-mail the other day telling me that I should have known that the planets and the sun were all formed at the same time some 4.5 billion years ago. My answer was, Yes I did know that was the currently accepted theory, but I also knew that the sun accounts for about 98% of the total mass of the solar system and for the whole complex to be formed at once left at least one burning question.

That is, I want to know why the growing sun did not gather the whole nebula to itself. 98% surely demonstrates the main gravitational power to collect, yet the remaining 2% of material defiantly resisted capture against hurricane force hydrogen blasting against it, and set itself up in 10 progressively spaced fixed orbits all the way from Mercury out to Pluto. Why? or perhaps, How?

PLASTIC OBITUARY

Here lie the bones of Bertram Grace

The king of plastic wraps was he

Enfolded now in Earth's embrace

Disintergrating wrapidly

In this his vinyl resting place

original by DCH

Comments please.

A young business lady called Cicely

Does all things at work so precisely

Tho' at home she will rest

With her mother distressed

At her room that isn't so nicely

original by DCH

A Layman's View of the Universe

By David C Hardy

There can be nothing more controversial than the 'Universe Debate', and what is surely 'The Astrophysical Dilema'. Sadly, there is such a huge potential data-base of discovery out there in space and so little of it is accessable. And what makes matters worse is that Science is in competition with the Biblical account of creation and their two versions are absolutely poles apart.

It is little wonder then that both camps snipe at one another in complete disageement and the layman either gives up on the subject or excludes it from general conversation, knowing that among his circle of friends there will be bigots supporting both camps and that the outcome will probably be of little value to anyone.

The following is an attempt to address some of the problems; and an attempt to relook at what we have learned about those mysteries from my point of view, A Layman's point of view; a simple yet practicle point of view

There are two very important and contraversial questions, that could they be answered to everyone's satisfaction, would go a long way toward concensus between Evolution devotees and Religious devotees.

They are:- How big is the universe? and; How old is the universe? Now I'm sure there is a relationship here between the two that is not apparent on the surface because we seem to have the built-in notion that the universe has to have a size, and therefore has boundaries, and it has to have an age. I suggest that both questions are as pointless as the proverbial, 'How long is a piece of string'?

Science and the Bible are so far apart on the age question that future agreement by them becomes a complete impossibility. One says fifteen or more billion years and the other says no more than just a few thousand, and even that is open to interpretation.

As for the size of the universe, science probes further and further away into space discovering more and more galaxies, creating yet more distant boundaries that wait to be broken down revealing yet more galaxies. So, can there be an end? Can there be a boundary or an edge, or a brick wall? Reason suggests, No, because there has to be something beyond; there cannot be nothing.

The Bible says that in the beginning the universe was void and without form. That suggests that there was nothing out there in that limitless capacity of space, and it also suggests that man, being human, required 'A Beginning' in order to put the whole scenario into observational perspective. He couldn't accept that it was there always; that would have been too open ended and would not have required an intelligence (God) to create it. After all, everything around him had a beginning and a foreseeable end. To early man, why would the universe be different?

But if the universe is boundless, and even if we were able to see galaxies only out to a certain distance, we would have to accept that empty space was beyond and there would be every reason to believe that objects could occupy that vacancy if they ventured into it or they were already there but invisible to us. So if we ever come accross this edge occupied by galaxies with no others beyond we have not solved the problem of being able to give space any sort of dimensions. Beyond, would still exist.

When it comes to determining an age for the universe we can only age its occupants, in what ever form, or aggragate, but not space itself. The 'Big Bang' theory of a beginning has to be looked at as an 'Event' and not a beginning, as Science more or less leads us to believe. After all, something out there had to be the object of the bang and whatever it was obviously existed before the 'Bang' in some form or other.

So the 'Big Bang' theory does not get us back to when there was a void.

Science has suggested that all matter is hurtling out into space from the center of the 'Big Bang' explosion and that one day it will reach a limit of momentum, reverse direction, and go hurtling back toward the center again creating another 'Big Bang'. O.K. this could have happened before, and before that, and before that, and before that, ad infinitum. And will it happen again in the future, again and again and again. Science does not say that there was only one bang, though I am saying that the dynamics of the event suggest repetition, as a distinct probability.

Ten thousand years? Fifteen billion years? one hundred and fifteen billion years? If there existed a truly accurate yardstick, and I'm sure there is no such thing, an answer would be known. The systems used for assessing age are fraught with problems, because the universe is dynamic. It is in motion with meteors and meteoric material coating, to ever increasing thicknesses, every larger object within contact until, planets, at any rate, no longer expose their birth material to our telescopes.

Perhaps we should simply conclude that (a) the dimensions of the universe are limitless and that (b) its age is achronomous. That is 'timeless and without age.

(Note:- I have just made up this word to more accurately describe my hypotheosis. 'Achronomous' does not appear in any dictionary I have searched and it does not appear anywhere else on the WWW, as yet).

Now it is time to broaden the above scenario out to and beyond the observable region of the universe and realise that, if we had a big bang in our vicinity of space, there could well have been and probably will be other 'Big Bangs' elsewhere in the 'Beyond' of space. With the speed of light being a limitation to observation, we would never know if something from a more distant 'Big Bang' was hurtling toward us at many times the speed of light. In collision with such an object, earth would be here one second and gone in the same second. Before impact, there would be no warning, the earth would not heat up and birds would be singing right up to impact.

So to sum up, this scenario certainly changes this layman's outlook on the universe. Perhaps each galaxy was the result of later 'Big Bangs' and the main 'Big Bang' was a galaxy that gave birth to all those observable galaxies in our 'Big Bang System'.

As our 'Big Bang' system expands and grows, do the galaxies become so remote from each other that they each eventually collapse inward to their own centres and go bang?

One thing is certain and that is that the universe is dynamic, it is ever changing and must do so for ever because gravity exists as an invisible component of matter, from a speck of dust up to the largest objects in the universe. Gravity is constant; it cannot be hidden or sheilded; it sets everything in motion; it is free in the virtual frictionlessness of space to display it's spectacular potential. If there ever was but one grain of sand in all of space, gravity also existed as a part of it and that potential gave us evolution. So in the twinkling of an eye and with the wonder of the microchip and the WWW I have, as I see it, pushed the age of the universe out of its timeframe and into achronominity, where I think it belongs.

David C Hardy

To reduce spam. Please replace at with @:-Mail: <

tohardyatihug.co.nz

Homepage and site index

Genesis Continuous