Overview

The Theory of Creative Evolution is the most compelling and comprehensive explanation. For over 100 years Darwinists as well as theoretical physicists have been in a quandary regarding aspects of cosmology and creationism. This theory presents a simple solution for grand unification. It also addresses the origins of life and provides new insight into the workings of the universe. Einstein’s time-space continuum is further defined as a motion-gravity-space continuum, the causality of time is defined as well as the fate of the universe. Finally, Darwinism is marginalized proposing a new timetable and creation paradigm. All scientific knowledge that has come before is now circumspect to the reality that the Theory of Creative Evolution may be true. It’s staggering and profound implications will impact humanity from now to the end of time and redefine the universe.

The Theory of Creative Evolution

      With humanity there exists a transcendental curiosity to know our origins, the mysteries of the universe and, ultimately, our final destination. In historical matters related to archeology, cosmology and paleontology we can never assume any more than a reasonable assurance concerning any proposed theory. In fact, absolute certainty in any area of human knowledge is impossible. We are finite beings limited in all our abilities and perceptions. Therefore, all our assumptions, theories and conclusions should perpetually be held up to examination, clarification and correction. Scientists often claim absolute certainty; but this claim should be dismissed as science must perpetually remain a growing process of insight and enlightenment.
       The greatest credibility to be derived regarding our origins should attempt to tie together several aspects of scientific understanding presenting an obvious difference between myth and theory. The question now before us, does Darwin’s “On the Origins of Species” and “Descent of Man” meet the criteria under comprehensive scientific scrutiny to still be called a theory? Unfortunately, time has not been kind to Darwin. By eliminating design and mathematical probabilities Darwinism limits the exploration of concepts with an inadequate set of criteria. Specifically, the basic concepts and scientific methods under which Darwinism has operated for decades is no longer adequate. This is especially true with computerization in the information age where design is empirically detectible. Without factoring in design and mathematical probabilities this has led to a highly restricted view limiting not just how science understands the world, but also the evolution of life and the human species.
         In reviewing all that we have learned, observed and documented since Darwinism entered the scientific arena so many anomalies, fallacies and inconsistencies surface that a reapplication of the scientific method is indicated. Unquestionably, the mainstream of science displays trepidation at the prospect of intelligent design and the implicit links to an intelligent creator. Nevertheless, science cannot be restrained by the narrow-mindedness of Darwinism and the proposed accidental occurrence of life if observation, mathematics and empirical confirmation indicate otherwise. Opposing the scientific method are myths, which are driven by faith.
           Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. By faith, not logic or reason, scientists assume a cause for matter creation, the Big Bang and the evolution of life. Cause and effect, or causality, is an essential component of the scientific method. Ignoring the significance of causality applied to our origins does nothing to limit chaos or help determine if there is really an ultimate structure or basic unifying principle at work as we attempt to describe the process of life and the physical characteristics of the universe. Moreover, without ever describing an impetus or perpetuation for natural selection it is assumed as a reality of living organisms. Attempts are made to justify them by reason, but are presented as so reasonable that the essence or underlying reality is that all these assumptions are really acts of faith and not of reason or logical deduction. Scientists are caught up in an enigmatic causality conundrum. These are not the tenets of sound scientific observation or reasonable deduction, but are as mystical as any religious or theological assessment of reality.
            Even Albert Einstein attempted to shed some light on the issue. When asked about the view that religion and science are at odds with one another he indicated, “Well I don’t think that is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to me that whoever doesn’t wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead” ®. In essence, a scientist who does not believe in the significance of religion has no value to humanity.
       Darwin placed at the root of life a primordial germ. However, evidence for the evolution of genetic entities is so sparse that paleoanthropologists and biologists can only speculate. Biology is the production of order from chaos. It appears that the carbon atom, impelled by just a little energy, is a splendid organizer. But it is a significant leap from ordered molecules like amino acids to functional proteins. ® Consider the following: the probability of finding that amino acid and a specific neighbor joined together on the molecule is 202 , or 1 chance in 400. For 50 amino acids the probability is 2050 which is pushing the limits of possibility. Even a small protein, like insulin, is a structure of such gigantic improbability (one chance in 1080 , which is a figure exceeding the estimated total electrons in the universe) that the unguided efforts would probably fail to bring about its formation, even given all the galaxies to experiment with for a billion years ®. As such the jump from organic protocells to actual cells is not evidenced in the fossil record. Ideally, we might hope to find intermediates in rocks both older than the Australian stromatolites (blue-green algae) and younger than the Greenland sediments containing protocells. Unfortunately, we will probably find older stromatolites and younger protocells narrowing the time in which the theorized jump (from organic protocells to actual cells) was made, thus increasing the size of the problem ®.
           Moreover, there are no models for how genetic structures involving a complex interrelationship between protein and nucleic acid, or even its most fundamental features might have arisen in protocell droplets. ® Instead the fossil record shows colonies of living cells which simply appeared on Earth, suddenly, as though a lamp had been switched on. Then, for nearly 2.9 billion years very little seemed to happen ®.
        Darwin requires the acceptance of the theory of uniformitarianism, that there exists an origin and then a consistent and uniform progression of life from simple to more complex forms through a process of mystical adaptation and survival of the fittest. However, the fossil record does not show a gradual transformation of creatures into new forms, but instead shows species emerging in geological instants and then not altering in major ways for millions of years ®. Moreover, attempting to explain away inconsistencies in the fossil record by indicating it is incomplete is woefully inadequate as the record likely contains less than one billionth of the living organisms that actually existed. The very process of fossilization is spotty, highly variable and suffers from the ravages of time. The surface of the Earth is perpetually changing. Therefore, broad based and definitive conclusions should be carefully considered, scrutinized and re-evaluated. As we now view the fossil record and apply the numerous technological advancements of today, it presents a picture in opposition to a Darwinian view. Delineated herein are what we now know of the fossil record. Surely, trends, patterns and order can be inferred, but when inconsistencies appear they must be addressed scientifically.
         There is a theory to explain these inconsistencies in the fossil record known as Punctuated Equilibria. This attempts to explain the morphological consistency within (successful fossil) species and of the abrupt replacement by descendants very different in appearance. This is convenient, but appears more like sophistry, or an excuse to circumvent the sudden appearance of distinct life forms. Darwinists want it both ways. Specifically, they want us to accept uniformitarianism, but then they want to explain away the contradictions with yet another theory.
          The reality being what scientists find in the pre-Cambrian rock are only a few scattered traces of life such as bacteria and blue-green algae. Moreover, time has shown that the “cone of increasing diversity” is now turned upside down. Specifically, the time of the greatest diversity of species occurred in the Cambrian strata, not in the present ®.
           In recent years a few biologists, paleontologists and scholars have challenged Darwinism. One of the most noteworthy discoveries is called the Biological Big Bang or Cambrian Explosion. ® Reiterating, the fossil record does not depict a process of life evolution from simple to complex forms with numerous intermediate species. Instead, in the oldest Cambrian strata of rocks there is the sudden appearance of a significant variety of complex animal fossils. Virtually every modern phylum can be found in the Cambrian rock strata. It is though they were just placed there, without any evolutionary history ®. Even in Darwin’s day the lack of any transitional species was a significant drawback. Specifically, if all species developed from earlier, more primitive species, then why is there no trace of it in the fossil record? Darwin himself, knowing of these facts, stated in "On the Origin of Species", “that this is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views” ®. Darwin was optimistic that the fossil record would eventually confirm the existence of intermediate species; however, it has not.
          Another major concern regarding Darwinism is something scientists call "irreducible complexity". This means that there are complex components within living organisms that could have not been created with gradual modification through successive steps. A common example to explain irreducible complexity is the mousetrap. For instance, all of the component parts of the mouse trap must be present and working for the trap to work. If any one is removed, the trap ceases to function ®.
           Within living organisms, the eyes, bacterial flagellum and the internal processes of the cell are cited as being irreducibly complex. They could not have evolved with numerous, gradual and minor modifications through a process of evolution as proposed by Darwin. What Darwin seems to mean with gradualism is that the step-by-step evolution of complex adaptive systems appears to be a conceptual possibility; however, there is no way to prove that it actually happens.
            Today chance and necessity have proven insufficient to account for all scientific phenomenon. In considering alternative explanations one must also factor in the anomalies associated with evolution, specifically species that are close enough to interbreed. Take for example the horse and the donkey, or the lion and the tiger. The problem with the offspring of these interspecies mixing almost invariably produces a sterile mule, liger or tigon. This is just the opposite of what one would expect if they evolved from common ancestry. Of course one might attempt to argue that as species evolve through natural selection they eventually become unable to interbreed; but why? Moreover, some animals give warning signals at the approach of predators, apparently reducing their own safety for the benefit of others in the herd. How does natural selection encourage the evolution of a trait for self-sacrifice? Another significant puzzle is how did the colony types of insects such as ants, bees and termites come into existence? Just as science has not identified the force that drives natural selection, there is no explanation given as to why organic material organizes itself into cellular tissues and complex life forms. Years ago there were numerous philosophical debates regarding mathematical probabilities applied to chance and organization. One such argument proposed that if you take all the parts of a watch then place them in a bag (ignoring frictional wear) that if you shake the bag long enough all the parts of the watch will eventually assemble themselves into a working watch with the correct date and time. There is a significant problem with this scenario. For example, two or three parts of a watch might assemble themselves by chance, but also this assembly might just as well disassemble itself. Assuming a process of continuing organization is not demonstrable, and does not occur in the natural world.
           This is known as the scientific principle of entropy; organization does not come from chaos. It is a matter of empirical evidence that disorder will continue to increase if things are left to themselves. A pile of wood, bricks and mortar exposed to rain and an earthquake will never evolve into a skyscraper. Just like the watch parts shaking scenario, imagine a box containing a puzzle of 1000 pieces. According to the principle of entropy shaking the box of puzzle pieces from now to eternity will not produce a puzzle with all the pieces interlocked, any more than a bunch of monkeys in a room full of typewriters (or computers) could recreate the works of Shakespeare. Granted that intellectually it seems plausible; however, mathematical probability refutes these philosophical organizational scenarios (see Shakespeare link). There are those that would still argue that it is possible, while highly improbable. The most significant problem with these accidental organizational scenarios is how much time would they take?
          However, take for example a Rubik’s Cube. If a human were handed a cube and blindfolded this individual would need 1,350 billion years, at a rate of one move per second to solve the cube; and this is with only 54 color panels and six colors ®. The odds against producing a move with the correct color match are 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. Thus, the odds of chance organization within a cell that uses more than 20,000 different proteins is unfathomable and unrealistic.
          Darwin assumed that the cell was simple; but time has shown it to be exceptionally and irreducibly complex. Therefore, mathematical chance and probability refute Darwin. Humanity prides itself on its amazing intellectual development, but does not make note of its failure to understand the inner workings of even one cell. This is especially troubling when the average human body is composed of approximately 30,000,000,000,000 (30 trillion) cells that initially derive from one single solitary cell. One cell will not only divide, but mysteriously differentiate into 200 different types of cells, each with a unique and special role.
          Also consider the human eye which contains 120 million rod cells and seven million cone cells that can distinguish millions of color shades faster than any supercomputer ®. There are a series of plausible intermediate eye designs among living animals. However, none of these different types of eyes have evolved from the others because they involve different types of structures rather than a series of similar structures growing in complexity. The odds of chance and necessity producing the human eye approaches an infinite amount of time unfathomable and unrealistic according to mathematical probability.
          Numerous other inconsistencies present themselves in the study of the origin of species. One would be the impetus for parasitic and symbiotic relationships in nature. Certain relationships are obligative in that one species cannot exist without the other. Consider the following facts of biology. There is a paralyzing instinct in certain wasps so that they can lay their eggs in spiders, beetles or caterpillars. Then there is the exceptionally puzzling Venus Fly Trap. One might wonder how this plant came into existence. One day in a bog a plant decided “I’m tired of eating dirt and mud. I’m hungry. I want one of those insects flying around. Let’s see, I’ll need to modify my leaves to become pinchers to snap up one of those bugs, in an instant. Then I’ll need some way to ingest it”. Or imagine a tadpole thinking, “I’m tired of being a fat fish eating dead bugs. I want a breath of fresh air, to hop around, catch live bugs with my tongue and sing all night long”. Or consider the caterpillar, “I hate being an ugly worm stuck eating these beautiful flowers. I want to develop wings, fly and be even more beautiful than a flower”. Darwinists actually want everyone to believe that all these remarkable transformations are accidental occurrences. There is no way Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” could be true. His theories are only significant in the partial aspect of micro-evolution, also known as natural selection. It is known that a very rare type of macromutation, called polyploidy, can produce new plant species. It is not entirely absent from the animal kingdom, but still cannot explain the creation of complex adaptive structures like wings and eyes ®. Moreover, its exceptional rarity runs contrary to the universal macromutation proposed by Darwinism.
           If one assumes Darwinism is true then it is perfectly reasonable to adjust the theory as necessary to make it conform to the observed facts. The problem is that the adjusting devices are so flexible that in combination they make it difficult to conceive of a way to test the claims empirically. Apparently maladaptive features can be attributed to pleiotropy or to our inability to perceive the advantage that may be there, or when all else fails, simply to chance ®.
           Large scale mutations in almost all cases produce hopefully maladapted monsters. Occasionally a “hopeful monster” (a new species) with the capacity to survive might occur, but to propagate with what mate? ® Mutations are believed to develop from random errors in DNA’s genetic code when copied. However, to assume that these random mutations could produce a complex organ like a liver, the heart or a kidney is ridiculous. Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
           The prevailing assumption in evolutionary science seems to be that speculation and non-mathematical possibilities, without experimental confirmation are all that is really needed. Darwin acknowledged that his theory implied that “the number of intermediate species must have been inconceivably great”. The reality is, however, that they simply do not exist. As such the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Two features refute gradualism, specifically stasis and sudden appearance.
         Hoping to confirm Darwin’s theories, paleoanthropology adheres to a deliberate self-deception regarding the taxonomic inconsistencies of convergence, parallelism and reversal. ® Convergence is where two unrelated species converge with some very specific adaptations. Parallelism is where some traits evolve independently from the same starting point. Reversal is a trait that has been lost reappears later on in the same species. These inconsistencies pervade the fossil record within the animal kingdom and, likewise, with human evolution.
     In looking at the fossil record regarding the origins of the hominin species and the variations assigned to one of the first humans (Australopithecus) compared to modern humans the differences are exceptionally slight. For the moment, imagine the physical and morphological differences between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane or a Pug and a Greyhound, all species of dogs. Despite all these significant variations, dogs do have limited morphology. Dogs do not evolve to become as big as elephants because they have not been breeding them long enough. Dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change and they stop getting bigger when the genetic limit is reached. After a number of generations, the capacity for variation runs out ®. What Darwin typified in the over-reaching and unbounded power of natural selection is disproved with modern day genetics. Moreover, the limited capacity for variation is found throughout the animal kingdom. It should be noted that most people see far greater diversification within species of dogs than between Australopithecus and Homo Sapiens.
        Moreover, magnifying these numerous taxonomic inconsistencies, well intentioned scientists tend to want to draw a lineage with numerous hair-splitting morphological variations that may be nothing more than racial variances within a species. Take for example that the skull cavity is larger in Neandertal’s than in Homo Sapiens, or the fact that Homo Sapiens are able to interbreed with Neandertals. In addition, there is a pronounced dimorphism related to sex (male and female) which is highly variable within animal species. Morphological categorization of species is, therefore, not an exact science, but more subjective than scientists care to admit.
    The oldest and most complete Australopithecus skeleton is called Lucy. A close examination of this bipedal indicates that she was, unquestionably, human. Lucy is not a big monkey, but definitely human. Moreover, the notion that Australopithecus humans were clumsy, slow and dim-witted does not logically follow. To survive beyond the plains of the Serengeti, in the shadow of Kilimanjaro up and down the Great Rift Valley in Africa Australopithecus humans would have to have been exceptionally agile, could run like the wind and had to be smart enough to exist in an area of numerous wild predators. In some ways these first humans appear superior to modern humans. All of the design characteristics of Lucy indicate that she was human and not ape-like in her construction and movements. Lucy’s (supposed) long legs and curved fingers are generally inconsequential and have no significance to agility or relevance to being bipedal. Every attempt to classify her as a primitive, a monkey or ape-like fail. Lucy’s pelvis bones are identical to that of a modern human and show no similarity to that of a chimpanzee. Likewise, the ankle, knee and hip joints of Australopithecus are undoubtedly human. In reviewing the numerous artistic depictions of Lucy, she appears to be about a size 4. Likely you could put her in a dress, with a hat and a pair of tennis shoes and if she walked up and down a crowded street no one would notice her as being anything but human. She could never be classified as a missing link. Perhaps she was a more primitive human, or merely a racial variation of Homo Sapiens; but she was very, very much like us. Nevertheless, simply placing a monkey’s face on a human skeleton is not science, but more a forced contrivance designed to create a perception where there is not sufficient empirical evidence.

         Only fragmentary fossils of the oldest hominins exist, specifically Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenesis and Ardipithecus kadabba all being ostensibly bipedal. Brain cavity sizes as well as morphological limb characteristics are inconclusive to classify any of these as a missing link. Specifically, some exhibit advanced traits and others primitive traits with no clear evolutionary chronology. It is, however, been suggested that four distinct hominins lived simultaneously in Africa between 3.6 and 3.3 million years ago (absolute time). Even as recently as 50,000 years ago (absolute time) hominin diversity was the rule, with Neanderthals, the mysterious Denisovans from Asia, tiny Homo floresiensis and another small recently discovered Homo luzonensis ® But still, not even one trace, one bone or one fossil of a missing link between apes and man has ever been discovered. Instead archeologists have learned Neandertal technology was far more varied and sophisticated than previously thought. Moreover, Homo erectus possessed symbolic thought. By comparing these ancient genomes with modern one's researchers have found evidence that our own species interbred with these other species. Therefore, this supports the premise that all hominins may be one species composed of numerous races. Moreover, the proconsul and pan genus that includes chimpanzees and the last proposed common ancestor of humans show divergent lineages in the fossil record indicating that paleoanthropologists are missing a significant amount of human history. Later stages of the human lineages are replete with unknowns as well.
        These massive and incredible generalizations based on fragments such as a tooth, an arm or leg bone are insufficient to draw conclusive species differentiation. These remaining bone fragments re-create only a tiny fraction of the picture paleo archeologists are hoping to reveal. These fragments have given rise to numerous off shoot theories about the origin and descent of man. Many are equally plausible or incredible based on the well-intentioned, but misguided premises of Charles Darwin. Some even claim that humans descended from lemurs, not apes. The reality is that there is no missing link between humans and apes. Just as we do not find intermediate species in the fossil record. Therefore, the premises proposed by Charles Darwin cannot be verified, confirmed or replicated. As such, continued support for these so-called theories can no longer be described as a scientific endeavor. Instead an explanation more complete, more comprehensive and more compatible with the fossil record must be adapted.
         In this process Natural Selection should be renamed Ambient Adaptation. Organisms do not naturally select these physical changes; but the ability to change is designed into the organism. Take for example getting a suntan, getting calluses on your hands and feet, working out and getting stronger, or dieting and losing weight. The environment and your behaviors as well as how you react to it and your body reacts to it determine these adaptations. They are not mutations or selected by nature. The same applies to the healing process; it is designed into an organism. Ambient Adaptation adequately accounts for variations within species. However, empirically, these taxonomic inconsistencies are not directed into creating new species. Then there is the question of how sexual reproduction evolved from asexual organisms. “Survival of the fittest” would appear in opposite to the need of a mate to reproduce.
        At a much higher level of conceptual understanding would be an explanation of the forces that have created life, especially as it applies to life by chance and necessity opposed to intelligent design. Stephan Hawking (a noted scientist) once made the comment that everything in existence could be explained by the force of gravity. This statement is false as gravity can only produce spherical symmetry. The bilateral symmetry of most species cannot be explained by any known force in nature, nor by natural selection. The same type of unknown is found in the Fibonacci sequence, which is found in living organisms.
         The issue of bilateral symmetry within living organisms is most puzzling. It is known that certain molecules can produce mirror images of themselves in much the same way as left-hand and right-hand images. These are called stereo enantiomers. However, one or the other must dominate and take over as the geometry of long chain carbon compounds does not permit random associates of both left and right-handed components in their construction. On Earth it was the left-handed variety that won acceptance. The reason for the predominance of left-handed rather than right-handed amino acids as protein constituents on Earth is unclear. ®  It is curious that the selection of left-handed amino acids might have been determined by more than mere chance, indicative of intelligent design more than random occurrence.
        Moreover, the most complex designs appear as uniqueness, especially in the human species. Uniqueness is indicative of design, whereas randomness is indicative of chance. What causes the uniqueness of fingerprints, toeprints and voice prints? They are not random as there are no duplicates. In addition, we have no knowledge or understanding as to why these unusual, provocative and curious patterns exist, nor what process within evolution might create them.
       The intricate design of snowflakes and their uniqueness can be attributed to the molecular structure of the water molecule and as it freezes create crystalline structures with an invariant 60-degree rotational symmetry. However, there is no molecular structure or notion in particle physics to explain the patterns and uniqueness of fingerprints.
      Humans continually see design in species. Darwinists perpetually attempting to dismiss these design characteristics occurring by chance and necessity is inadequate. One can appreciate the zeal, enthusiasm and dedication of these scientists working to confirm Darwinian evolution; but as time passes it becomes obvious that Darwin’s overly simplistic assessment regarding “On the Origin of Species” and “Descent of Man” is seriously flawed. In addition, many scientists overriding preoccupation with atheism regarding creationism presents a frightening omen. The misuse of knowledge applicable to the responsibility of science can produce grave and dire consequences. Specifically, denying the reality of what is overwhelmingly presented in the fossil record challenging intelligent design must be done with a concern for ethics and the sensitivity to relinquish the dogmas of Darwin to a more significant, accurate and empirically driven theory. This perpetual fear that a belief in an intelligent creator somehow diminishes science is ridiculous. It is, however, a very rational fear. Attempting to explain all that exists within the comfort level of scientific endeavor by ignoring or dismissing causality is simple, but not very enlightening. Today so much effort has been invested into accepting Darwinism that its momentum tends to override objective thought and scientific scrutiny. However, now the unilateral belief in Darwinism being based on scientific principles is supplanted with the reality of scientific fact. The brilliance of science is that it is a chaotic process of examination and re-examination wherein all that has been known before can be completely redefined with a new, comprehensive and verifiable theory. So then, how was the universe formed and life evolved to its present state?
        Our universe began in a dark, backward abyss, in a state of apparent infinite density wherein the traditional notions of time and space simply did not exist ®. The universe was created from a singularity (a dot of near infinite mass with no dimensions) to “whatever” cause initiated the Big Bang. In the beginning chemical and molecular evolution see the emergence and survival of complex molecules able to reproduce themselves (from the cold and extraordinary diffuse interstellar clouds) from which even life could develop. There exists a major hurdle to this idea – that very large quantities of H, C, N, O and often iron or phosphorus (organic material) along with sulfur must be brought together, then heated at just the right temperature for a long time before anything resembling even a chlorophyll molecule, much less a self-replicating virus particle, will be evolved.® Again, this is diametrically opposed to the principle of entropy. Proteins are extremely complex substances that consist of amino-acid residues joined by the aforementioned elements in peptide bonds. Their accidental occurrence is not only counter-intuitive to logic and mathematical probabilities, but completely ignores causality.
         The most profound paradoxes to be noted at a high level of abstraction are, first, that the fossil record demonstrates an uncanny and precise parallel to the sequence and chronology of events depicted in the book of Genesis. Second, that simple forms of life occurred first followed by more complex forms, with humans being last in creation. Third, that life originated in the ocean. Even at a high level the events of the origins of species in Genesis appear more consistent and demonstrable than the totality of Darwin.
          A diagram showing the sequence of events from the point of the Big Bang to the arrival of man are juxtaposed and aligned to the book of Genesis matching all known scientific understanding of how the universe and life were created and evolved. The beginning would represent zero time or a realm where time did not exist. The first verse in Genesis Chapter One describes the Big Bang with time at zero. Genesis One verse Two presents the Planck Barrier with “Cosmic Time” of 10-43 of a second, that is assuming that the passage of time (as we know it) existed at all. Prior to the Planck Barrier or Planck Time there are numerous unverifiable scientific hypothesis about the nature of the universe consisting of a false vacuum (void) with supersymmetry, supergravity and super unification proposing a single type of super particle. Continuing on, Genesis One verse two also intimates that the Higgs Field and Higgs Boson are responsible for the Hadronic, Leptonic, Radiation and Matter eras, which are further defined in verses six and seven. This all occurred within a fraction of a second in what has been labeled “Cosmic Time”. Then Genesis 1:3-5 presents the Decoupling Era, further defined in Genesis 1:14-16, with Genesis 1:9-10 describing the beginning of Earth, Gondwana, Pangaea, with the beginning of plant life (stromatolites) in Genesis 1:11. Genesis 1:11 also contains the Archaeozoic and Proterozoic Eras. Genesis 1:12 describes the Paleozoic Era and here through Genesis 1:19 some 2.9 billion years (in absolute time) pass. Genesis 1:20 mentions the Cambrian Explosion (abundantly), with Genesis 1:20-21 having birds, then reptiles, then mammals. Genesis 1:24-25 depict the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras. Finally, in Genesis 1:26 the hominin species (Australopithecus, Neandertal, Cro-Magnon and Homo Erectus) arrive and then evolve through Ambient Adaptation and creative evolution. Then in Genesis 2:7 Homo Sapiens appear. Genesis 1:6-7 could be paraphrased, 6: Let there be a Higgs Field in the midst Higgs Particles and let it divide the fermions from the bosons. 7: … made the universe and divided the vibrations (fields) which were subordinate to “C” (speed of light) to the vibrations (fields) above “C”: and it was so.

         Please note the profound significance in that the Higgs Boson is the invisible component of existence that explains the mysterious ability of creation within the universe giving particles different masses. Without the Higgs Boson the intricate and highly differentiated variety of the “Standard Model” would collapse into a featureless collection of nearly identical particles, and all the fermions (protons, neutrons and electrons) in essence would be massless. Therefore, there would be no atoms, no chemistry and no life as we know it. The Higgs Boson, by all known scientific explanations, is what brings the universe to life ®. The conclusion being that the omnipresent Higgs Field is evidence of an omnipresent creator with the Higgs Boson being the creation particle. Overall, there are a few minor inconsistencies in the sequence and chronology of events in Genesis compared with science, but the parallels are now conspicuous, irrefutable and undeniable, refer to chart.

       The biggest puzzle in the aforementioned chronology is the enigma of time and what controls its rate of passage. This is essential to comprehend our origins and the fossil record. Moreover, speculation regarding what might represent a “day” to a creator concerns many people. Surprisingly, humanity of antiquity appears to have not only documented the origins of the universe, but provided the basis for a more advanced and complete understanding of the time-space continuum.
         At this point definitions of the various time nomenclatures is indicated. First, “Cosmic or Planck Time” has to do with the Big Bang, the genesis of time and the smallest measurable interval of time. Prior to the Big Bang it is supposed that time did not exist, or there is no way to determine the passage of time. Second, there is “Absolute Time”. It is described and generally accepted as time passage at a constant rate (AKA, current Earth time). All dating methods extrapolating into the past are based on “Absolute Time”. However, this proves to be invalid applying a more significant understanding of relativity theory and time dilation. The third type of time is being introduced, specifically, “Relative Time”.
       To help understand components of time passage it is necessary to realize that Newtonian and Euclidean models of the universe still dominate science. However, one needs to be reminded of hyperbolic and elliptic geometry. Both of which are valid and applied to areas of cosmology, astronomy and navigation. They are also used in linear algebra, arithmetic geometry, and complex analysis. They are typified as non-Euclidean geometries. Einstein’s model of the universe is non-Euclidean. (Paradoxically, Einstein was searching for some Euclidean equations to support a view of grand unification.) Nevertheless, the aspects of time dilation associated with relativity theory as one approaches the speed of light is indicative of revelation concerning the age of the Earth as well as scriptural time periods. Time dilation occurs as an inverse relationship. Specifically, as one approaches the speed of light, time dilates or slows in its rate of passage. This brings to mind something called the “twin paradox”.
        According to Einstein’s theories two identical twins born on Earth are separated. For this example, let’s say both are 40. One is placed in a spaceship and travels for one year at an extremely high rate of speed to a distant destination, then returns. When he returns he is age 42 (according to his frame of reference and the passing of time). However, his Earth-bound twin would have aged significantly. Assuming the Earth as an inertial frame of reference and applying a relativity ratio (AKA Lorentz Ratio) of 30 would indicate that the Earth-bound twin would be 100 years old, i.e. ((2 X 30 = 60 years) + 40 years = 100 years old). In absolute terms there are no inertial frames of reference in the universe. All frames of reference are accelerating, not inertial. Moreover, the rate of passage of time and motion within any frame of reference and aging are theoretically linked. Likewise, it follows that the composite motion (and composite gravity) may not only determine the rate of passage of time, but also make it possible for time to exist.
     Paralleling these factors to the creation days in Genesis is fascinating, as we would have no idea how long a day would take to pass. However, we do have a few clues that act to support non-linear time passage. Specifically, the tides are slowing the rotation of the Earth. Currently, the Earth is being slowed by the moon .00001 second/century. The two celestial bodies were obviously closer in the past. But we may never know just how close because the orbital recession going on now cannot be extrapolated back to the time of lunar origins ®. Nevertheless, it would be obvious to conclude that this effect was much more dramatic and even geometric in the calculation of Earth slowing as we approach the time of lunar origin. A few interesting points might be interpreted, such as this slowing process is highly advanced nearing stasis. Moreover, the Earth’s exterior must have been completely molten (fluid/waters) in its early history.
      Therefore, as our Earthly frame of reference is slowing, time (or its rate of passage) is accelerating. As such an individual living in a distant period of Earth history may appear to live much longer, but in actuality may not be biologically older than we are. Paralleling this to biblical accounts, Adam living 930 years, Noah living 950 years and Methuselah living 969 years would represent documented examples of Einstein’s twin paradox.
       If we assume that the average longevity in those days was similar to ours the relativity ratio (Lorentz Ratio) would be about 10, specifically 969 = 10 X 96.9 years. These extended lifetimes would represent time from our current frame of reference. On the other hand, applying the same relativity ratio in the origins of humanity we notice procreation at age 6 or 7. While not completely out of the realm of scientific possibility it does suggest further evidence of relative time; specifically, beginning to have children at age 70 or more years. Likewise, while these humans may appear to age very slowly, how the circadian rhythms of relative time impact puberty or maturation is an unknown. Still, the purpose of these incredible ages and unusual procreation events strongly confirm a notion of relative time in the early generations of humanity.
          During this time period, a day would not consist of 24 hours, nor a year of 365 days, at least not as we relate to the passage of time. Having a relativity ratio this large within early records of humanity suggests even higher relativity ratios as we travel further back in time. Therefore, the Hubble age of the universe given as approximately 14 to 15 billion years, the Earth at 4.5 billion years and all dating techniques based on time being absolute (passing at a constant rate) are inaccurate. Meaning that the age of the Earth and the universe are much less. With a significantly large Lorentz Ratio billions of years may seem to pass in what we now perceive as “a day”. Therefore, the six days of creation (in relative time) matched against the Hubble age of the universe (in absolute time) at billions of years could well be equivalent. Consider that there is no indication in Genesis that these ‘days of creation’ were composed of 24 hours (as we perceive the passage of time). Likewise, there is no indication that these days were contiguous, i.e. one following another. Therefore, one day could have been a billion years, or the time between day one and day two billions of years in absolute time. We also note that biblical lifespans continued to be long, but gradually came to be more in line with our present time. Understanding these thoughts completely alters the generally accepted age of the Earth and all dating of the fossil records.
        Actually, Einstein’s time-space continuum is better described as a motion-gravity-space continuum, inferring that time and its rate of passage are interdependent on both motion and gravity. This then opens the door for a subordinate time, gravity, motion theory. A more descriptive name would be Relative Time Theory (or a Collapsing Time Theory). However, since our origins and the fossil record are based on uniformitarianism, the Theory of Creative Evolution and Relative Time Theory are intrinsically linked. These notions act to further define Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Specifically, there is no such thing as absolute time, no such thing as a straight line; likewise, 1 + 1 does not equal 2 as one approaches the speed of light. Just as time does not pass at a constant rate, but dilates related to motion and gravity; i.e. the more motion or gravity the slower time passes. The rate of passage of time is due to the composite motion in the universe and the composite gravity in the universe acting upon an observer based on their proximity within the universe. Whenever an observer’s frame of reference changes, whether based on motion or a change in gravitational attraction, time rate passage is altered. In comparison to a distant time in solar system origins, today the Earth and other celestial bodies are barely moving. Therefore, the time dilation effects from motion (rotation, revolution and within the Milky Way Galaxy, etc.) would be exceptionally slight, i.e. current earth time rate passage is racing. However, as one gets further from the surface of the Earth the time dilation effects from gravity can be anticipated to slightly decrease, that is time would appear to pass even more quickly compared to time rate passage on the Earth’s surface. Of course, this must be taken in reference to motion, as greater motion increases time dilation. Likewise, motion in orbit around the Earth or any space travel will notice a change in the rate of time passage. The time shells surrounding the Earth demonstrate this effect of time rate change. Nevertheless, accelerated frames of reference such as a centrifuge, centripetal or G-forces, while they provide the perception of gravity, are perceived forces in opposition to gravity and may not be anticipated to effect time passage in the same manner. Yet the increased motion within these frames of reference do impact time dilation. However, the mass of objects in space is so small that the net effect on the composite gravity would likely be negligible, or at a minimum very difficult to measure. Yet this is not the case with motion, as all motion can be determined to dilate time. In short, motion appears to have a more significant effect on time than gravity; that is with small amounts of gravity being referenced. This would not be the case near a black hole or within a singularity.
           The exact relationship between relative time passage, composite gravity and composite motion does not lend itself to a simple, verifiable equation. Currently, an equation would be impossible to prove or disprove because of three factors. First, there is no way to measure composite gravity. Second, there is no way to measure composite motion. And, third, with time being relative, the only possible control value for time would be a singularity where the rate of time passage is zero. Simply, there is no way to directly measure relative time, we can only notice the effects. However, it may be possible to more accurately determine the relationship between time, gravity and motion and then evolve an equation to delineate their relationship, e.g. T = GM2. This might be achieved at some future “time” when it may be possible to measure composite gravitation (G), composite motion (M) and their effects on (T) time dilation and time rate passage. Yet they are, ostensibly, responsible for the rate of time passage, leading then to the three new laws of motion (gravity).

1. In the universe composite motion and composite gravity create time and control its rate of passage.
2. Greater motion or greater gravity slow the passage of time, and at the speed of light (or within a singularity) time stops (time rate passage is zero) and mass (gravity) energy are infinite.
3. Linear or centripetal acceleration is equivalent to the effects of gravity, but only creates the perception of gravity.

        From this we might deduce that the composite motion within the universe was the greatest at the time of the Big Bang. As the universe is expanding the composite motion is diminishing. Therefore, looking back in time we should anticipate a massive and geometric red shift in regard to the passage of time. Specifically, what we perceive as millions or billions of years would be much less. Likewise, this would impact the understanding and calculation of a light year. Scientists have already been able to measure cosmological red shifts of light for galaxies farther away than 50 million light years. However, what is perceived as the increasing red shifts of light may instead be the red shifts of time. Also, be aware that Hubble’s Constant related to the red shift calculations is relative, not absolute, and varies with time.
       There are additional factors that contribute to a view of relative time. For example, the Earth is gaining over 200 tons of material from outer space everyday ®. Therefore, this added mass acts to slow the Earth’s rotation as well as extend the time of revolution around the sun. The net influence of gravity and motion effect current and previous rates of passage of time on Earth. Specifically, toward the beginning of the Earth’s history its speed was significant. Likewise, the composite motion within the universe (which acts to create time) was previously much greater, thus supporting the assertion that time is currently racing on Earth. In addition, since the universe appears closed, i.e. that its expansion is finite and there exists enough gravity and mass (dark and observed) for the expansion to stop and then start to collapse is important. The effect of this would then indicate that forward time progression will eventually collapse (stop and then possibly reverse). The consequences of there being “time no longer” is impossible to accurately determine. It appears that the expansion of the universe is highly advanced in the process and its collapse (Big Crunch) could occur. No one can tell the intellectual impact of time moving in reverse; but indications are that it is theoretically possible. Moreover, the observation that the universe appears asymmetrical, but isotropic, indicates that the process of expansion and forward time progression are highly advanced. Specifically, the composite motion and composite gravity factoring in all the matter and energy (observed and dark) in the universe in proximity indicate that time is racing and potentially nearing collapse. One way to verify if forward time progression is nearing collapse would be to place an atomic clock on the surface of Mars. If, after a period of time passage, there is not a measurable discrepancy with the atomic clocks on Earth then the point of forward time progression is nearing an end. Hopefully, these is a discrepancy as this would then be another confirmation of relative time passage.
       More than a century ago Albert Einstein’s relativity theories redefined the universe. It took quite some time, but now his views have been confirmed scientifically. In the interim many other theories about the nature of the universe have surfaced, specifically quantum theories, string theories, dark matter and dark energy theories. While intellectually intriguing, none of these theories have been confirmed with a high degree of certainty. Moreover, like Darwinism, the evidence is either difficult to quantify, or lacking a means to determine. In addition, Grand Unification Theories (GUT) and a Theory of Everything (TOE) have taken a high priority in the scientific community mainly because Einstein believed in them. However, he was unsuccessful. Einstein believed that “an equation” could tie together the (S) Strong, (EM) Electromagnetic, (W) Weak and (G) Gravitational forces. What do we know? A theory of everything assumes that the strength of all particle interactions merge at high energies. It has further been postulated that perhaps all these different forces are, in reality, one force in different forms; likewise, that the unification of them may be exceptionally simple. Applying an Ockham’s Razor hypothesis, assuming there is only one force, what do we observe? What is apparent is the obvious near geometric decline in force strength as fractions of the strong force. Note the near parabolic decline in force strength.

Strong                                                  S     ≈ 1
Electromagnetic                                   EM ≈ .01
Weak                                                    W   ≈ .000001
Gravitation                                            G   ≈ .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001

        The same holds true for violin resonances, as the shape of the related items is almost identical, while not precisely mathematically verifiable. Again, we note that the causality of forces has been ignored. If there is only one force in play here it would have to be the strong force that binds together protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei. What appears to be happening here is that the quarks of the strong force create resonances or auras (a shadowing effect) that is responsible for the virtual particles that produce the EM forces. Another much weaker resonance is responsible for the W+, W- and Zo bosons and is evidenced in radioactive decay. Finally, is gravity, the weakest of the resonances. This degrading geometric progression is indicative of resonance caused by the spatial separation of particles and the spin and charge characteristics of quarks. These factors produce the bosons and virtual particles responsible for the resonance forces.
         Some of the clues to indicate that the strong force is responsible for resonance forces is, first, the fact that leptons participate in the weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, but do not participate in the strong force. Second, quarks participate in all the fundamental forces. And, third, bosons are the force carriers of the fermions (leptons and quarks), i.e. fermions interact with one another by sending and receiving bosons. However, proving that these are resonance forces by the application of a precise equation may be elusive as that would entail the identification of all subatomic particles as well as their charge and spin characteristics. Moreover, the ephemeral nature of many and instability would make a precise equation nearly impossible. In addition, as matter collapses into a black hole or singularity the apparent resonances would not merge as much as they would vanish and collapse as the strong force would no longer emanate these resonances.
           Finally, quantum theorists tend to want to define everything in terms of particle physics, e.g. light consists of a photon particle and gravity a massless graviton. Nevertheless, the wave-particle duality of light’s photon (bosons) is indicative of something beyond particle physics and string theory. A portmanteau of a partave might be more descriptive of bosons that exhibit wave-particle duality, e.g. a photon. Moreover, like the virtual particles attributed to the cause of the EM forces, these partaves may exist for too short a time to be readily observable and also may violate the law of conservation of energy. If so, proving their existence may be difficult. However, by determining if gravity’s gravitons like light’s photons exhibit wave-particle duality this might then act to support this view of grand unification. Likewise, the existence of these partave bosons are much simpler and more logical than the view of multidimensional strings. The unification of all fundamental forces may find a highly verifiable commonality in the speed of light. Simply put, if the speed of gravitons operate with attraction at the speed of light, therein lies the commonality and unification of all forces. The biggest stumbling block to grand unification is assuming Euclidean mathematics has direct applicability to solve it. Stepping back and looking at unification without mathematics provides a simple, plausible and, most likely, a valid understanding of the characteristics of the universe.
          More significant and possibly verifiable is the correlation between time, motion and gravity. The universe has now been further redefined. Nevertheless, a new type of uncertainty can be anticipated as essentially all types of measurement, including time, indicate the relative characteristics of the universe. Therefore, absolute certainty may be impossible.
           Bringing all of this full circle, Darwinism was a grand and elegant theory that ruled biology almost exclusively for over 150 years. Nevertheless, scriptural aspects of creationism find more demonstrable parallels to the fossil record, uncanny and irrefutable matched against current scientific knowledge and understanding. In essence, even one statement or one aspect of truth found in scripture may well be worth significant scientific investigation.
           Darwin did, however, identify one very significant aspect of the origin of species. A creator did not blink everything into existence with one act of creation, but with a series of days (eras, epochs, generations) of creation. As these periods of creation were executed some detail of the Earth and even life processes are presented, culminating in the eventual creation of modern man. Unfortunately, without any significant opposing theory, Darwinism has evolved into a defacto standard. In short, it must be true because no one has come up with another timely and plausible explanation for creation, the origins of the universe and the evolution of life. The famous philosopher of science Karl Popper at one time wrote that Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because natural selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore, explains nothing. It is a tautology. However, if you make a statement like this to Darwinists, they will invariably become defensive and likely even emotional. They might contend that evolution is a fact (not a theory). But, when they are presented with the facts, they do not want to accept reality. These thinking errors cannot persist as science does not operate that way. Parallels do not automatically translate into progressions. Take for example a future generation find the remnants of a Hot Wheel, a Tonka truck, a pedal car, a VW Beetle, a limousine, and finally, an 18-wheel tractor trailer. They might conclude that they are evolutionary. This is obviously a tightly linked design progression. However, other than all being representative of vehicles, there is no correlation that one evolved from another. Take an even tighter design scenario, specifically a marble, a pearl and a ball bearing, which are all almost identical in size and shape. Nevertheless, there is absolutely no correlation in their origins. The same holds true for embryonic development, while similar in appearance they are arrived at with a series of different techniques.
        Whether one subscribes to a proposed biblical creator is inconsequential to an acceptance of this theory. The empirical evidence in the fossil record, the irreducible complexity of living organisms, the mathematical probabilities of chance creationism, modern genetics, not to mention bi-lateral symmetry and fingerprint uniqueness, completely marginalize Darwin. So even if one does not believe in divine creation, clinging to the aging theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” is no longer science because it is not driven by sound application of any scientific methodology or critical examination.
        Any enlightened scientist must now dismiss or disregard the Darwinian origins of species based on the aforementioned evidence and reasons. It presents more problems than explanations and needs to be abandoned. Moreover, the assumption that natural selection has amazing creative and organizational power that is capable of producing exceptionally beautiful and complex biological organisms is not supported by any empirical evidence or observation.
       Reapplying the scientific method indicates that the fossil record confirms that a process of uniformitarianism related to life is false. Sweeping and dramatic transformations in the process of life on Earth completely negate uniformitarianism. Mass extinctions are common, an allegorical comparison to Noah’s Ark is suggestive of this reality. Fully developed species appear world-wide, in an instant, with absolutely no traces of any evolutionary history. Darwin now presents one of the most questionable doctrines in the whole of science.
      In conclusion, with scripture one might only speculate about its content regarding thousands of years of replicative fading, language translation imperfections and semantic ambiguity. Ostensibly, what humanity defines as scripture was never meant to be scientifically demonstrable, nor a verifiable historical account. It would appear that it started in a state of greater accuracy, but has been (and still is being) altered by well-meaning and well-intentioned enthusiasts leaving us in some areas with a shadow or a trace of its original intent, with the beginning and the end being the most pristine. However, if the beginning of Genesis is accurate and the book of Revelation can be validated on some level then all that remains are details. Surely these details could spur the development of one, one hundred or even one thousand different religions. Religion is unquestionably an invention of humanity attempting to explain the unexplainable as a creator would have little interest in religion. Religion to a creator may appear as a woefully inadequate critique, with over 99.9% of the details and explanations missing or impossible to delineate in language. But is there a creator?
         Taking in all the scientific knowledge, mathematical probabilities and inferences in scripture, the possibility of a creator is nearly a foregone conclusion. What form a creator takes and methods of communication might best be left to the religious enthusiasts, as there is no religion in this theory. Scripture is analyzed for its scientific applicability, not to validate any religious point of view.
         Nevertheless, science and history should not be antagonistic forces positioned to discredit scripture as there are no infallible histories. Detailed analysis reveals that the scriptures are not infallible, but they still contain a great deal of truth which we can find no where else corroborated by all that we do know. The positions and ideas in this theory provide new insight into centuries old texts, therefore acting to suggest that the scriptures are living and timeless texts with hidden or yet to be discovered knowledge and understanding. All told, as a timeless book of science and history the bible is likely the most complete of all texts ever written. Conversely, Darwinism has evolved into a quicksand of ever shifting theories, excuses and workarounds that can no longer be considered an application of the scientific method. Once one analyzes the minuteness of geologic details, facts and evidence there emerges a magnificent, complex and directed history of creation not based on chance or accident. Reapplying the scientific method indicates that the nature (essence) of living organisms as well as creation provide growing information that the mysteries of the universe are far more complex than once was theorized. Specifically, creation problems emerge such as the Planck Barrier, the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson which are undoubtedly inspiring, but also complicate the understanding of our origins. Where did these things come from and what compels them through the process of creation, organization and even life? Then there is Dark Matter and Dark Energy comprising a far greater percentage of existence we don’t understand compared to what we believe to understand. Please note that Dark Energy has been estimated to account for 68.3% of the universe, with 26.8% for Dark Matter and only 4.9% to the mass/energy of ordinary particles. As such over 95% of the universe is a mystery that we cannot access or directly observe; a welkin exists beyond our grasp, but also within our midst.
        Finally, the once simple Atomic Model has been completely redefined through the discovery of quarks, quantum mechanics and quantum chromodynamics (particle physics). However, as mentioned, the quantum hypothesis is not only at odds with certain aspects of relativity theory, but it introduces an unavoidable element of unpredictability or randomness into science. It does tend to allow us “in principle” to predict much of what we see around us within the limits set by the uncertainty principle (Planck’s Constant). In practice, however, the calculations required for systems containing more than a few electrons are so complicated that we simply cannot do them ®.
      No matter how scientists try to sidestep the reality of our creation, paralyzed by the enigma of our origins they cannot escape the brilliant complexities interwoven creating life. To ascertain that we evolved from some primordial goo is not even remotely plausible, as it cannot be demonstrated, confirmed or replicated. Scientific discovery must include all aspects and even non-mathematical conclusions related to an area of study. Ignoring even one can seriously jeopardize any hypothesis. It may be convenient to draw parallels. However, doing this without empirical evidence negates the premise. Generally, the scientific community is satisfied to accept an illogical premise as it maintains their comfort zone. Nevertheless, no one could ever claim scripture was developed to pacify one’s comfort zone.
         Paradoxically, scripture may be able to confirm certain aspects of scientific endeavor. For many its purpose seems esoteric and aloof, but in reality its perfection comes in its ability to perpetually and universally feed the transcendental curiosity that pervades humanity. The very thought that humanity can envision a creator is perhaps the greatest evidence to indicate the existence of a creator.

       Some read scripture looking for reasons to doubt, others reasons to believe. For the scholars and purists in-depth and detailed analysis reveals paradoxes, contradictions and enigmas. For the faithful it provides many life lessons and food for thought. For the futuristic theorists and scientists, it provides a prophetic paradigm for comparison. Bear in mind, any text, in any language, in any time period developed by humanity to describe omnipotence could be compared to an ostrich trying to comprehend Einstein. At best the sum total of all scripture might be nothing more than a brief sketch of a creator, undoubtedly fraught with inadequacies demonstrating the inescapable reality of our limitations. However, as time passes attempts to discredit scripture only magnify the desire to know more leading to an eternal hope that we are not alone, but are a simplistic piece of a much larger and complex reality. In this moment, perhaps now you see greater scientific evidence to believe. If so then Newton’s, Darwin’s and Einstein’s belief in a creator and the correlation between science and religion compels us all to look beyond the page.

_______________________________________________________ the end _____________________________________________________

There are several external references ®. However, because of the religious/scientific overtones of this white paper as well as it not being prepared for scientific accolades or pecuniary interests the exact references are not provided. Nevertheless, any individual reading this white paper will notice quotes taken from the works of The King James Bible, Donald Johanson, Stephan Hawking, Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin. The author wishes to thank all the scientists for their contributions to this paper. Please ignore the notation of "Copyright (C) 2020 My Website" tagged to this website, this is all in the public domain. However, the author also realizes that he has taken a great deal of creative license and liberty regarding both information and images, i.e. those licensed and those that may be subject to copyright. In the spirit of fair use and the potential for acceptance of this theory, he reminds those whose works or images appear that he is accepting no monetary benefit from this theory. Specifically, it was purely a scientific and intellectual pursuit. However, if valid, it will forever change our perceptions of life, the passage of time and the characteristics of the universe. It could be the most important theory ever developed. As such your words and images could be immortalized far beyond anything you could ever imagine. Perhaps the creator appreciates your participation. Never forget... Everything belongs to the creator.

.

Doppelgangers?

Grandma

The following assessment was created for the faithful, not for scientific accolades or monetary consideration. The theory should get the reader to think differently about Darwinism and creationism.  

The Theory of Creative Evolution

Lucy

https://creativeevolution.yourwebsitespace.com/?r=1704485638597