The Flickr Cosmicevolution Image Generatr

In 'The Universe Contemplates,' Duncan Rawlinson offers a visual homage to the emergence of consciousness from the universe's fundamental building blocks, inspired by Elon Musk's quote, 'If you leave hydrogen out in the sun long enough, it starts talking to itself.' This quote encapsulates the astronomical transformation over eons—how, following the Big Bang, simple hydrogen atoms eventually formed stars. These stars then forged heavier elements that led to planets, and on at least one planet, life emerged, evolving to a point where it could ponder its own existence. This artwork explores that grand narrative, illustrating a moment where the universe, in its vast expanse, reflects upon itself through the lens of sentient life. Rawlinson uses the synthesis of photography and artificial intelligence to depict this profound contemplation, crafting a figure that not only embodies the cosmic journey from matter to mind but also invites the viewer to understand their place in this continuum of stardust and awareness.

Duncan.co/the-universe-contemplates

In the grand tapestry of the cosmos, the spread of human consciousness is a celestial symphony, a harmonious expansion of life, creativity, and understanding that echoes from one corner of the universe to the other. As humanity reaches out to the stars, it is not merely a physical journey but a transcendent ascent of the human spirit.

In this luminous vision of the future, every individual becomes a beacon of potential, contributing to a collective wisdom that spans solar systems. Imagine societies free from the shackles of scarcity, where technological marvels harness the energy of whole stars, and the currency is knowledge, art, and the pursuit of enlightenment.

The human mind, paired with the boundless wonders of the universe, unleashes a renaissance of innovation and beauty. Every new world discovered, every alien vista touched by human presence, becomes a canvas for the indomitable human drive to create and understand. Our children's children, citizens of the galaxy, will look back at Earth as the cherished cradle of a civilization that transcended its own limits and spread life, love, and consciousness into the cosmic ocean.

The universe, once silent and watchful, comes alive with the stories of humanity. Our joys, our struggles, and our triumphs resonate in the heart of every star, every nebula, every constellation. Humanity, in its quest for growth, becomes a steward of cosmic evolution, fostering life where once there was none, guiding the universe itself towards a state of greater awareness.

In this future, we are not only observers of the universe; we become active participants in its grand narrative, a narrative that stretches into the infinite, with humanity's collective spirit as one of its most luminous threads. It is a future not of conquest, but of unity; not of dominion, but of stewardship; a future where humanity reaches its fullest potential in the vast expanse of space, forever chasing the horizon of what is possible.

Duncan.co/humanitys-cosmic-odyssey

The progressive lie in science and society.

‘Progressive’ politics originates from the ‘progressive’ evolution lie in science and society.

The essence of the ‘progressive’ lie, in science and in society, is a denial of both the intrinsic natural order, and the natural tendency towards physical and cultural/social entropy.

In hypothetical science, progressive cosmic and biological evolution deny the basic principles of causality and universal entropy, effectively undermining truth in science.
Although presented as science, they are both scientifically incongruous.
If your initial paradigm relies on the denial of fundamental scientific principles or natural law, it spectacularly fails. To call it ‘science’, discredits the perception of science as an objective search for truth.
To present an hypothesis wherein an effect is greater than its cause, and which requires a naturally occurring, autonomous increase in order, is preposterous fantasy.
Negating the effects of entropy, both physically and culturally, requires an active, sustained input, or renewal of, directed or guided effort/energy. (i.e. energy/effort + information, instructions or rules).

In the social and political field, indifference to, and denial or encouragement of, cultural entropy, masquerades as progressive.

Progressive politics derives from, and is allied to, this denial of intrinsic natural law and fundamental principles. By opposing or negating those guiding principles and rules, which are based on maintaining the natural order, it encourages and supports an insidious, social entropy, which inevitably undermines and ultimately destroys civilised society.

Just as the atheistic purveyors of physical evolution, cosmic and biological, posit the progressive development of order in the universe by denying the laws of cause and effect and entropy, which are fundamental principles of the natural order and science. So, the social allies of physical evolution, the purveyors of cultural and societal evolution, propose a progressive improvement of society, based on a similar denial of the natural order.

False equality and unjust denial of genuine equality:
Rejection of the natural order has spawned an insidious, egalitarian deception.
Demands are made that things which are clearly not equal should be treated as equal, and things that should be equal are denied their rightful equality.

Proponents of so-called, progressive policies seek to impose socially, and even legally, ideas of equality which ignore the natural order.
Equating things which are not equal, demanding equality for things which can never be equal, is quite bizarre, irrational and unscientific. That which violates the natural order is thereby elevated to parity with that which is in conformity with the natural order, diminishing the perception, approval and societal support of the latter.
It is a gross injustice to undermine and degrade social recognition and acceptance of the benefits of compliance with the natural order. Truth and error are not equitable, regardless of any legislation which decrees they should be treated as though they are..

A couple of examples:
False equality.
Same sex marriage...
Traditional marriage is undeniably compatible with the natural order, socially, scientifically and theologically.
Biologically, the reproductive, and only, purpose of complementary, sexual characteristics is irrefutable. This scientific fact has been traditionally recognised, socially and theologically, in the institution of marriage, throughout history. The only reason marriage exists is because of this biological fact. There cannot be legitimate equality for any so-called marriage/sexual partnership which is not based on this fundamental principle of the natural order.

The unjust denial of genuine equality:
Abortion...
Biology, through the study of genetics and embryonic development, decrees (without doubt) that a unique, human life begins at conception. There are no ifs or buts, this fact of the natural order is supported by science and, traditionally, through theology and the legal system.
Any denial of equality for unborn, human babies is illegitimate, grossly unjust, and contrary to basic human rights.
To ignore or dismiss the right to life of another human being, of any age, by claiming it is a matter of choice, is a diabolical distortion of truth and the natural order. There can be no cogent argument for legitimising abortion, because it is a fundamental issue of natural justice; which is beyond the jurisdiction of any authority. If a government does so, it is guilty of endorsing and encouraging a crime against humanity.

Progressive policies have undermined and devalued life, marriage, the family, national identity, financial independence and Biblical values, in the name of equality, freedom and choice.

Human institutions attempt to counter social entropy and maintain order through social constructs; tradition, convention, etiquette, customs, religion, contracts, charters, treaties, laws etc., but the enduring success of these depends on how closely they conform to the natural order.
The success of Western civilisation was mainly attributable to its clear understanding of physical and cultural entropy. Christianity was rightfully endorsed as the supreme antidote to cultural/social entropy.
This is perfectly logical because, as the Bible makes clear, physical entropy is the result of an originally, perfect creation sullied by sin.
Likewise, in society, sin is the cause of social entropy, it undermines the natural order and ultimately destroys civilisation. If you break rules which serve to maintain the natural order, you inevitably wreak havoc.
Christianity seeks to retain and, where necessary, restore natural order in society, combating the tendency towards social or cultural entropy by instilling principles and rules which respect and actively defend the natural order. Just as physical entropy is only negated by a sustained input of directed energy/effort, so social entropy is only negated by an enduring adherence to binding rules and principles. The adherence to such rules and principles by humans, who have a propensity to rebel against the natural order (behavioural entropy, inherited from our first parents; Adam and Eve), can only be reliably maintained by an input of spiritual energy/divine, sanctifying grace.

It is a perverse society, which applauds as ‘progressive’, those who rebel against, and deny, the natural order and laws, while appropriating science and culture to suit their regressive, ideological agenda (contrary to fairness, justice and basic human rights). Their denial of fundamental principles appears to be scientifically and socially legitimatised through corrupt, propagandised education, media hype, and intense political lobbying.

The arrogant claim of ‘progressives’, to hold the rational, scientific and ethical high ground, is bogus and dangerous.
The opposite is true.
To rail against the natural order is irrational and unethical. It undermines truth and unjustly denigrates everything which is compliant with the natural order. True science, morals and ethics must wholly respect fundamental principles and the natural order. Christian teaching is the supreme antidote to social entropy, being based on loving, maintaining, respecting and honouring the basic truths of the universe, evident in God’s creation.

ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are false.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/32557999087/in/dat...

If and then - the atheist dilemma.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/46553358861

The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...

…civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience. Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. —St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.

Former Satanist: “I Performed Satanic Rituals Inside Abortion Clinics”
www.lepantoinstitute.org/abortion/former-satanist-i-perfo...

Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...

why liberals care about climate change but not abortion?
www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/why-liberals-care-about-climat...

Abortion is murder 100% proof.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrl9QQHY2vA&feature=youtu.be

Atheist myths debunked - the development of order.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/48113810438

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk


A LEXICON OF INSTRUMENTS USED IN PERFORMING ABORTIONS OF HUMAN INFANTS.
abyssum.org/2019/06/22/a-lexicon-of-instruments-used-in-p...

Who trusts the MSM? Their lies are not just fake news, they deliberately set out to slander those who don’t agree with the liberal left, globalist elite. Their lies are positively evil. Everyone should watch this video and they will never trust the media again: banned.video/watch?id=5f00ca7c672706002f4026a9

The progressive lie in science and society.

The essence of the ‘progressive’ lie, in science and in society, is a denial of both the intrinsic natural order, and the natural tendency towards physical and cultural/social entropy.

In hypothetical science, progressive cosmic and biological evolution deny the basic principles of causality and universal entropy, effectively undermining truth in science.
Although presented as science, they are both scientifically incongruous.
If your initial paradigm relies on the denial of fundamental scientific principles or natural law, it spectacularly fails. To call it ‘science’, discredits the perception of science as an objective search for truth.
To present an hypothesis wherein an effect is greater than its cause, and which requires a naturally occurring, autonomous increase in order, is preposterous fantasy.
Negating the effects of entropy, both physically and culturally, requires an active, sustained input, or renewal of, directed or guided effort/energy. (i.e. energy/effort + information, instructions or rules).

In the social and political field, indifference to, and denial or encouragement of, cultural entropy, masquerades as progressive.

Progressive politics derives from, and is allied to, this denial of intrinsic natural law and fundamental principles. By opposing or negating those guiding principles and rules, which are based on maintaining the natural order, it encourages and supports an insidious, social entropy, which inevitably undermines and ultimately destroys civilised society.

Just as the atheistic purveyors of physical evolution, cosmic and biological, posit the progressive development of order in the universe by denying the laws of cause and effect and entropy, which are fundamental principles of the natural order and science. So, the social allies of physical evolution, the purveyors of cultural and societal evolution, propose a progressive improvement of society, based on a similar denial of the natural order.

False equality and unjust denial of genuine equality:
Rejection of the natural order has spawned an insidious, egalitarian deception.
Demands are made that things which are clearly not equal should be treated as equal, and things that should be equal are denied their rightful equality.

Proponents of so-called, progressive policies seek to impose socially, and even legally, ideas of equality which ignore the natural order.
Equating things which are not equal, demanding equality for things which can never be equal, is quite bizarre, irrational and unscientific. That which violates the natural order is thereby elevated to parity with that which is in conformity with the natural order, diminishing the perception, approval and societal support of the latter.
It is a gross injustice to undermine and degrade social recognition and acceptance of the benefits of compliance with the natural order. Truth and error are not equitable, regardless of any legislation which decrees they should be regarded and treated as though they are.

A couple of examples:
Same sex marriage...
Traditional marriage is undeniably compatible with the natural order, socially, scientifically and theologically.
Biologically, the reproductive, and only, purpose of complementary, sexual characteristics is irrefutable. This scientific fact has been traditionally recognised, socially and theologically, in the institution of marriage, throughout history. The only reason marriage exists is because of this biological fact. There cannot be legitimate equality for any so-called marriage/sexual partnership which is not based on this fundamental principle of the natural order.

The unjust denial of genuine equality:
Abortion...
Biology, through the study of genetics and embryonic development, decrees (without doubt) that a unique, human life begins at conception. There are no ifs or buts, this fact of the natural order is supported by science and, traditionally, through theology and the legal system. Any denial of equality for unborn, human babies is illegitimate, grossly unjust, and contrary to basic human rights.

Human institutions attempt to counter social entropy and maintain order through social constructs; tradition, convention, etiquette, customs, religion, contracts, charters, treaties, laws etc., but the enduring success of these depends on how closely they conform to the natural order.
The success of Western civilisation was mainly attributable to its clear understanding of physical and cultural entropy. Christianity was rightfully endorsed as the supreme antidote to cultural/social entropy.
This is perfectly logical because, as the Bible makes clear, physical entropy is the result of an originally, perfect creation sullied by sin.
Likewise, in society, sin is the cause of social entropy, it undermines the natural order and ultimately destroys civilisation. If you break rules which serve to maintain the natural order, you inevitably wreak havoc.
Christianity seeks to retain and, where necessary, restore natural order in society, combating the tendency towards social or cultural entropy by instilling principles and rules which respect and actively defend the natural order. Just as physical entropy is only negated by a sustained input of directed energy/effort, so social entropy is only negated by an enduring adherence to binding rules and principles. The adherence to such rules and principles by humans, who have a propensity to rebel against the natural order (behavioural entropy, inherited from our first parents; Adam and Eve), can only be reliably maintained by an input of spiritual energy/divine, sanctifying grace.

It is a perverse society, which applauds as ‘progressive’, those who rebel against, and deny, the natural order and laws, while appropriating science and culture to suit their regressive, ideological agenda (contrary to fairness, justice and basic human rights). Their denial of fundamental principles appears to be scientifically and socially legitimatised through corrupt, propagandised education, media hype, and intense political lobbying.

The arrogant claim of ‘progressives’, to hold the rational, scientific and ethical high ground, is bogus and dangerous.
The opposite is true.
To rail against the natural order is irrational and unethical. It undermines truth and unjustly denigrates everything which is compliant with the natural order. True science, morals and ethics must wholly respect fundamental principles and the natural order. Christian teaching is based on loving, maintaining, respecting and honouring these basic truths of the universe evident in God’s creation.

ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe, scenarios are false.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/32557999087/in/dat...

If and then - the atheist dilemma.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/46553358861

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk


The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...



Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...

The universe from nothing?

The law of cause and effect tells us that every natural entity/event/effect requires an adequate cause. Which means an uncaused, ‘natural’ first cause is impossible, according to this fundamental principle of science.
Of course, this fact is fatal to atheist beliefs, because it rules out every conceivable, naturalistic, origin scenario.

One of the ways atheists try to get round the problem of a first cause is by saying - that the universe created itself from ‘nothing’ by natural processes.
If you think the notion that something could arise from nothing, by natural processes, is a crazy idea which defies logic and common sense, you are perfectly correct.
But atheists become extremely indignant at that accusation, and usually retort that anyone who thinks the idea is crazy is just plain ignorant. They accuse them of not understanding science, or what is really meant by 'nothing'.

So just what do atheists mean by their idea of nothing?
Incredibly, it turns out that the ‘nothing’ that atheists call nothing, isn't really nothing at all, but a definite ‘something’, i.e. space/time.

Confused or what?

So we have to ask - why do atheists perversely insist on referring to SOMETHING (i.e. space and time) which clearly ISN'T nothing - as NOTHING? They could, for example, just say that the universe created itself from a pre-existing, natural entity.
The answer is plain and simple … it is an obvious smokescreen.

Why would they need such a smokescreen?

Atheists know that people can easily accept the idea of an eternal nothingness, because ‘nothing’ in its true sense of the word (meaning NO - THING) doesn’t need a first cause. It simply means non-existence of everything.
And that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t need a cause.
Therefore, for atheists to claim the universe arose from 'nothing' means they can avoid having to explain ... what caused that which they believe existed before the universe?
However, the atheist’s ‘nothing’ actually turns out to be part of the existing material realm.
The atheist’s nothing is … ‘space’, and space is NOT nothing. Space is the medium which is around and between cosmic bodies in the existing universe.

In our universe, there is no such thing as empty space, even though it may look empty. We know that ‘space’ contains light, radio waves, gravitational forces, cosmic rays etc. Space is an integral part of the material universe, and is just as dependant on a first cause as the cosmic bodies it surrounds.
Therefore it is evident that the confusion between ‘space’ and ‘nothing’ is deliberate. The real nothing, that every sensible person understands as nothing, is totally different to the atheist idea of 'nothing'.

The space/time that atheists refer to as ‘nothing’ in their “UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING” scenario, apparently also contains energy and gravity.
Hence, the atheist ‘nothing’ turns out to be - not nothing at all, but a definite SOMETHING … And furthermore, it is an integral part of the material realm.
This means that, like all material things, – space (the atheist's 'nothing') cannot be non-contingent or eternally self-existent.
And that is the absolute crux of the matter.
It means that atheists are back to square one with the impossible problem of explaining a 'natural' first cause, because they still need to explain what CAUSED their 'nothing' (space) to exist, which is exactly what they were trying to avoid?

So there is no such thing as ... the universe from nothing. When you hear atheists proposing the universe arising from nothing, you will know what they are really proposing is the universe arising from 'something' which is itself already an integral part of the universe. In other words, it doesn't explain anything at all about a first cause of the universe. It is useless as a credible explanation of origins. It is just another atheist myth that has been debunked.

Why God must exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@

THE QUANTUM EFFECTS, SMOKE AND MIRRORS TRICK ...
What about the idea presented by some atheists that the answer to the origin of the universe lies in quantum mechanics and the so-called 'God' particle?

It is common sense that quantum effects cannot have anything to do with the origin of the universe.

The reasoning of those who propose quantum effects as a possible origin of the universe seems to be that, if something is impossible, just propose that it could happen - little by little -and that makes it plausible. If you make something as small, as simple, and as less complex as you can, people will believe anything is possible.
It is a similar reasoning to that applied to the origin of life and progressive evolution.

But what makes anyone think it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?
Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?
Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.
Something cannot come from nothing - that is an irrefutable fact.
Size or lack of complexity doesn’t alter that.

Nevertheless, some atheists apparently still think …. that, although people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?-
What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?
That should sound much more plausible to the public.
We could even find a particle which we could nickname the ‘God’ particle. Problem solved - apparently!
People will at least think that, even if we haven’t solved it completely, we are well on the way to solving it.
And, of course, if anyone still stubbornly insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle can’t come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a scientifically illiterate and gullible public, in awe of anything claimed to be scientific, to swallow that.

However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle was always an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but some atheists loved it and, predictably, the secular, media hacks also loved it.
What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.
A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God, because it is clearly not adequate for the effect/result.
So those atheists who try to persuade people that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shoot themselves in the foot....
The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.

An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.
The very first cause of the universe cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.
The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains. The end result - the universe - cannot be greater in any respect than that which ultimately caused it. The properties of the first cause of the universe must at the very least, be equal to every property that exists in the universe.
Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.
Furthermore, quantum effects are not uncaused. They are part of a caused, contingent universe and are just as reliant on causes as the universe itself.

So those atheists who think they can replace God with quantum mechanics are entirely wrong, they are interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.
The nickname the God particle actually originates from a book by Lederman.

Wikipedia …
“And since the Higgs Boson deals with how matter was formed at the time of the big bang, and since newspapers loved the term, the term “God particle" was used.
While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs, an atheist, was reported to be displeased and stated in a 2008 interview that he found it "embarrassing" because it was "the kind of misuse... which I think might offend some people” Science writer Ian Sample stated in his 2010 book on the search that the nickname is "universally hate[d]" by physicists and perhaps the "worst derided" in the history of physics, but that (according to Lederman) the publisher rejected all titles mentioning "Higgs" as unimaginative and too unknown.”

____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions