Dear Editor:

To preserve and build upon scientific innovation, scientists must first determine whether a change in direction of scientific thought on origins and evolution is warranted. A few probing questions with known answers might be a good way to begin.

After almost a century of discoveries and untold billions of dollars in cost, do we have even one substantiated fact in support of prevailing beliefs about universal origins and evolution? No! Do data from space probes ever fit precisely into current beliefs? No! Would they fit better into another concept? Yes! Is too much money being wasted in vain pursuit of evidence supporting the Big Bang myth? (Sagan terminology). Yes!

Since myth begets myth, shouldn’t we realize the futility of pursuit of knowledge about universal origins and evolution in this perspective? And about why the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate – just the opposite of what the Big Bang predicts.

If the right answers are not to be found within the BB perspective, doesn’t this tell us that the BB concept must be the major problem in this scenario? Is science wrong in clinging to the BB in spite of its incapability of providing accurate interpretations to the many brilliant discoveries of space probes – interpretations likely to provide even more questions than answers? Is there an alternative in which new and old data can be interlocked precisely to provide answers to questions that may never be answered via prevailing beliefs?

Fortunately, there is an alternative that warrants full consideration: the FLINE-BEC model of universal origins and evolution. The new model has been carefully constructed with factual evidence during the past 35 years (1973-2008). Findings of space probes continually fulfill its predictions, and verify its scientific validity. No anomaly appears capable of escaping its proclivity for solving the mysteries of universal origins and evolution.

Sincerely,

A.A. Scarborough