13 Greatest Paradoxes of All Times

Can someone be both Alive and Dead at the same time?

The question may seem contradictory, but in reality, the answer is yes. Living things can be both alive and dead at the same time, and non-living things can be both dead and alive likewise. But, how can this be?

In the beginning, Lawsin, the author of the duality paradox, first thought that everything exists in pairs. When something goes up most likely it will go down. A magnet always has north and south poles. Electricity runs with positive and negative connectivity. Everything in the computer world was built using only two digits, zero, and one. Other examples are white and black, A and Z, roots and branches, crest and through, right and left, yin and yang, nothing, and everything. Physicists classify physical objects as either matter or energy. Whereas, Biologists classified things as living and non-living. Most of these objects have been dissected sliced and broken down into the smallest particles known as electrons(-) and protons(+). In the end, Lawsin found the ultimate building blocks of Life are made up of space and shape. The discovery was uncovered when Lawsin was developing the Dualparity Theory. Thus, if everything is made up of shape and space, then obviously living things are not alive. It is like saying that if everything is made up of atoms, and atoms are not alive, therefore, we, humans, are not alive as well. Thus, everything is dead and alive.

If we follow this line of thinking, then we need to prove otherwise if we are alive. However, since the original premise of our argument is about Life and Death, then we will simply stay on the topic. Yet, if you are curious to learn if we are alive or not, you can read the following articles here: How do you know if you are alive or not? or here: Death: The Final Genetic Code.

In the standard accepted norm of human understanding, most people believe that they are alive or with life. And that the process of life begins with birth and ends with death. But according to the Dualparity Theory, Life exists in pairs, at its least. In truth, Life is a multi-experience happening in various events all at the same time in a given moment.

The Riddle of the Glass is a paradox that claims that everything is both moving and stationary at the same time. For instance, a glass of water on a table, which seems to be still as you read this article, appears to be motionless. Most ordinary people, including you, would agree that it is not moving. But in reality, the glass is actually in motion. You might think I’m crazy, but this is actually just one of the many experiences that the glass has. The glass is actually both moving and not moving. 

Depending on what you compare it to, the glass is actually experiencing different motions. Relative to the chair, the glass is still. Its first real-time experience. Relative to the sun, the glass is roughly moving in a circular path at the speed of 70,000 mph. Its second real-time experience. Relative to the center of the galaxy, the Milky Way, the glass is roughly moving in spiral shape at the speed of 500,000 mph. Its  third real-time experience. And relative to the universe, which is expanding away from its source, the glass is moving in a linear motion at about 140,000,000 mph. Its fourth real-time experience. Therefore, in real-time, the glass is moving all at once in circular, spiral, and linear motions and possibly not moving at all.

Based on this remarkable lawsinian concept, it follows that Life is both alive and dead or both dead and alive. At the least, life arises in pairs. Each of the pairs seems to exist alone, but in the real world, both being alive and dead simultaneously exist at the same time. In fact, they coexist together. They are interconnected, indivisible, inseparable. As the adage goes "The Duality of One is the Unity of Two". 

More of Joey Lawsin's logical arguments:

About the Author :

Joey Lawsin is the author of the book "Evolution of Creation". He is a visionary who wants to change the world by rewriting the textbooks with new concepts that debunk the old scientific, theological, and philosophical ideas of antiquity. He published a book in Physics, created a conscious machine known as Biotronics, and formulated "the Dualparity Theory ". The article above is an excerpt from his book "Creation by Laws".  

Evolution Mistakes

First drafted 2000 published 2008 revised May 2012
by Joey Lawsin

Evolution can't make dogs have wings. If it can, there would be dogs somewhere flying above us. But seriously, this type of evolution will not happen. Nature and aerodynamics will not let it.

According to Originemology, for Evolution to work, it needs some pre-existing life forms, then it must follow the 7 cardinal rules of the creation process, and finally, reproduction or radiation must take place first before new species can be created. Interestingly, Darwinian Evolution is the by-product of either Cosmic Evolution or Chemical Evolution, two creation theories that both carry no pre-existing life. So, where did Darwin get the pre-existing life forms? What are these pre-existing living forms?

Darwinian Evolution asserts that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. This species looks like an ape and looks like a man but neither an ape nor a man. I called it the Apeman. If it's true that apes and men evolved from the interbreeding of apemen and apewomen, then mathematically and logically, these species will diversify into (1)apemen, (2)men, and (3)apes. However, men and apes are still walking on earth even to this day, but our original ancestors - the Apemen - can't be found anywhere. This lack of physical evidence is a telltale sign that the evolution theory is incorrect.

Furthermore, using the Punnett Square, the chance of knowing the number of offspring by interbreeding interspecies can be determined. Mathematically, this measurement by percentage can provide statistically the actual counts of the offspring. For example, if two species "A" and "a" are crossbreed, the by-products of the two would be AA, Aa, and aa. The big A here represents the dominant while the small "a" represents the recessive factor. According to Punnett, although the recessive factor disappears every second generation, "a" always reappears during the next successive generation. The recessive attributes appear again with the dominant traits. If Punnett is correct, thus, at some point, an apeman will come out again as the by-product of this interbreeding.

Also, the natural law of heredity can be applied inversely by interbreeding the descendants of the ape-people - (M)an and (A)pe.

Based on the Law of Heredity, Man or Ape can either be dominant or recessive. In this example, the M or A will be dominant, and the m or a will be recessive. If the dominant A or M mates with the recessive a or m, then, as shown in the table above, the offspring will be 25% pure dominant apeman, 25% part ape part man, 25% more manlike than ape, and 25% recessive apeman. Whatever the case may be, the table suggests that some beings in the human race will degenerate into apes or apemen, and some in the groups of apes will degenerate into men or apemen. This shows that at any time in the evolution process, either an apeman, a man, or an ape will most likely evolve. Where are the ape-people?

On the other hand, if humans originated from Africa, it follows that apemen or the ape-people also thrived in the same locality a million years back before the primitive men.  It also follows that other animals, like amphibians and reptiles in large quantities, lived and thrived in that same place before apemen and primitive men evolved. As we traveled farther in time,  there were single and multi-celled organisms floating in the Pacific Ocean, invading the barren land and eventually evolving into amphibians and mammals. If some of these organisms were transformed into various species of mammals, birds, plants, and reptiles, we would expect hundreds of creatures, part reptile, part bird, part mammal, or even part plant in this locality as well. Where are these creatures?

Darwinian Evolutionists have been hunting for the Missing Link; an intermediate species that bridges apes and men. These Missing links, in the form of fossils, skeletons, or even living, are necessary to make evolution more credible. If it is true that zebras evolve into giraffes, a lengthy, gradual transformation could have occurred where various transitional species were produced along the way like a half-zebra-half-giraffe species. Where are these in-between species (missing links) in the transition now? what about the other evolutionary transitions, where are the missing links between reptiles and birds, reptiles and apemen, fish and plants, amphibians and mammals?

Dinosaurs were extinct 70 million years ago. Their bones were buried deep in the strata of the earth undisturbed. Using these geological layers, fossils, and bones of species transforming into birds or dinosaurs can be strategically located. How come scientists could not find even a single intermediate species in all these various strata? If there is really a missing link, is it really an intermediate species or it is something else as suggested in viegenesis?

Prehistoric Events: 

4.6 billion           The origin of the Earth
3.8 billion            Replicating molecules form
3.5 billion            Unicellular - first life evolved
2.1 billion            Multicellular organisms evolve
1.1 billion            Eukaryotes evolved.
570 billion            First arthropods evolve
520 million       First fish
500 million           Pangea forms
480 million        First land plants
390 million    First forests
370 million          The first amphibians
320 million          The earliest reptiles
300 million          Supercontinent has begun to break apart.
230 million          Dinosaurs evolve
200 million          First mammals evolve
150 million          First birds
130 million          Flowering plants evolved. Bony fish diversify.
100 million          The first bees evolve
65 million            Non-avian dinosaurs and ammonites become extinct
14 million            The first great apes appear
4 million              An early hominid (Lucy) lives in Africa
1 thousand          Homo sapiens evolves


Here are other interesting issues that caught my attention about evolution:

Did the very first primordial organism split into two where one part has evolved as plants and the other part has evolved as animals? Did the first animals and plants evolve from many pairs or from a single pair? Did they start evolving in one locality or scattered in many parts of the world? How did it happen that a gigantic dinosaur evolved from a small isopod or crustacean? By radiation? By reproduction? By Mutation? Really?

Based on the geological and biological timescales, the transformation of multicellular organisms started from fish then plants then reptiles then mammals then birds apes to men. The order of evolution is a continuous natural affair. However, if all these organisms were given ample time to evolve, then planet Earth would be littered with hundreds and thousands of various species roaming around us. However, why are fishes not changing into plants, plants into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and apes to men or vis-a-vis nowadays?

If man descended from apeman, why is our intelligence more sophisticated than our hairy cousins? Since these close relatives of ours came before us, it is logical that their minds will develop first then ours, not to mention that there are other 330million species (Erwin 1983, Wolosz 1988) of plants and animals that evolved from the first primordial cell in 3.5 million years. These other species will probably develop equal or higher intelligence than us. If the rules of evolution had prevailed for so many million years, then some species should have reached the same status that humans have to this day. But, why only us? The event violates mathematical probability! If I have 1,000,000 coins and I toss them all into the air, the chance of getting head once is too much too impossible.

If plants and animals all evolved from unicellular organisms, why did these primordial creatures exist unchanged nowadays? Why they have not mutated? A universal law called the Zizo Effect tells us that what zips in must zip out. That life begets life or that the input = output. If we follow the ZiZo effect, a pre-existing life must form first to produce a life form. Where did the pre-existing life come from?

Evolution differs from Creation. Evolution does not propose the creation or origins of life. It just tells us how life evolved once they are formed. Creation on the other hand tells us how life is formed. If life comes from dead matter or non-living things, then why all these objects surrounding us are not transforming into living things? If some fish developed into plants and amphibians, why not all? If some species became human, why not the others? Why are some animals and plants native to certain places and not in other places? Why do apes have thick fur while humans have none?

The Evolutionary Hair and Tail Loss Mystery:

First, how did scales evolve into hair? What happened to our tails?

If Darwin's theory is true, then we may conclude that our hair evolved from reptile scales. But how, when, and why?

Second, why did hair disappear from our bodies?

I believe that humans were naked for more than a million years before animal-skin clothes were invented. Because of this situation and timescale, it is hard to imagine that our first ancestors survived the hostile climate and unfavorable weather without going to extinction. Even these days, people living inside a cave naked for just a couple of weeks will either catch a cold or skin disease. If they sleep naked for a month or even a year, eventually all of them will die.

However, since we are here today, what do you think happened to why we survived generation after generation for a million years NAKED?

And what happened to the tail we inherited from our closest cousins, the monkeys?

The Evolution Dilemma:

If evolution is a fact, what would evolutionists say about the following questions:

1. Which animal has only one *biological sensor?
2. Which animal has only two sensors?
3. Which animal has only three senses?
4. Which animal has only four?
5. If humans have five senses, which animal has six senses?

*Note: biological sensors are our eyes (seeing), nose (smelling), ears (hearing), tongue (tasting), and skin (feeling).

Now let us make our quest more interesting. All mammals, including humans, have the same ten organ systems in terms of function: the digestive, respiratory, circulatory, urinary, nervous, muscular, skeletal, reproductive, endocrine, and integumentary. These biological systems may seem complicated but each system evolved from simple to complex. If so, can we really find hard evidence of how all these systems evolve from one organ to another, from one system to another system, from one animal to another animal?

We can summarize the Mistakes of Evolution based on the Law of Heredity or Inheritance. It tells us that dominant to dominant can produce recessive, however, recessive to recessive can only produce recessive. Also, in random breeding, a species would always breed with relatively close relatives. This means that a dog in New York is much more likely to mate with another New York dog than with one in Nevada. An Alaskan malamute is more likely to mate with another malamute than with another breed of huskies. A man with an ape? You be the judge!

                     

       ( ....  not yet edited and to be continued  ... )

~ "We live in an abstract world that created the physical universe." ~ Joey Lawsin

About the Author :

Joey Lawsin is the author behind the new school of thought "Originemology". He is a revisionist who wants to change the world by rewriting the textbooks with new concepts that debunk the old scientific, theological, and philosophical ideas of antiquity. He published a book in Physics, created a living machine known as Autognorics, and formulated the assertion on "The Evolution Mistakes". The article above is an excerpt from his book "Creation by Laws".

Disclaimer: The author retains the copyright to most of the research materials on this site unless cited otherwise. However, some of the articles are edited on a day-to-day basis without notice. If you are interested in using any of these works for the purpose of scholarly study or debate, please first inform the author by email or cite the author's name or source as follows: A Journal of a Creative Mind, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.