attempted murder




hidden science

you really need to know




Read it below

Then buy the hardback book 

It's what God would want you to do!

(I'm pretty sure of it)

  Read this explosive chapter to get you in the mood

Watch the Youtube advert



McG Productions Ltd


A McG Productions Ltd Title


Registered Office:

22 St John Street, Newport Pagnell, Milton Keynes,

Buckinghamshire, U.K., M.K.16 8HJ


Published in Great Britain & the USA by McG Productions Ltd


First Published in Great Britain 2010

First Published in the USA 2010

This First Edition published 2010


Author and text copyright© ‘Scrooby’, 2009


Illustrations Copyright: Public Domain



The moral rights of the writer have been asserted


All rights reserved: This publication is sold (and made freely available online) subject to the condition that it or any part of it shall not,
by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated or reproduced or copied by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior consent of McG Productions Ltd and the author, and then not in any form
of binding or cover other than that in which it is

published and not without this condition being imposed on the

subsequent purchaser.


British Library Cataloguing Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library


ISBN 978-0-9564714-0-6



"This is a book of hidden science that reveals the fact of God. In so doing, it reveals why human Evolution over millions of years is not true. By demonstrating the transcendent wonder of Nature that can only be the work of God, it unpicks the thread of Evolution in its entirety. Darwin could scarcely have imagined how accurate he was in predicting ‘light will be thrown on the origin of man.’ What he had in mind, though, was illuminating the Evolution of man from common ancestors with apes, yet light itself shows us he was wrong. The last 300 years have been a proving ground for all of us, showing us in our true colours in the battle for reason and faith, but at this time and with this book there can be no more doubts: God is real."


                                                                            Scrooby, 2010.


01 The Unknown





  The most reliable source for information regarding the universe outside of religion is - like it or not – NASA: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These guys have more money than anyone else to play around with and they know how to collect data and present it to the public. All factual scientific claims regarding cosmology in this book can be sourced at the NASA website - from elsewhere on the internet too, for sure, but NASA’s got it all locked down pretty tight. A scientific fact on cosmology found there is as sure a fact as you’ll find anywhere else and I want you to hold the fact written big and bold above in your head as we go along. The universe is bigger than its age allows... The implications are truly staggering. It is no exaggeration to say that we may well be on the brink of the biggest event since the creation of the universe and, according to some very influential people, the less you know about God the better.

  But first things first: there is no endorsement from NASA of anything in this book. However, NASA allows use of its web-based information - bar the NASA logo - provided no one claims any kind of endorsement from NASA. Well, this book certainly claims no endorsement from NASA since one of the purposes of this book is to account for one of the mysteries of the universe: the fact that scientists have long known of the existence of God and have chosen not to demonstrate the proof. In fact there is a systematic attempt to cover it up. That’s right: God is real, is known, and the fact of His existence is being hidden from you right now.

  We’re in The New Dark Age.




  The title of this book is admittedly provocative - do I really mean to suggest that someone actually wants to get God in the cross-hairs and pull the trigger? Well, maybe not quite so literally, but this is the media age of ridiculous excess and cultural abandon where meaning itself is in free fall. The centre of intellectual gravity lies within each of us instead of academics - professional thinkers, no doubt - so that whatever we think and say is no more, no less valid than what anyone else thinks and says. In that climate I trust at least this title will galvanize opinion one way or the other - ridiculously over the top, or not far enough; or maybe just right: a kind of Goldilocks title. There is an ongoing attempt to murder God in covering up His existence and denying Him the oxygen of organized scientific truth; not just faith-truth, but actual scientific evidence-truth. For science, God is no mere philosophical abstraction from the ghostly palimpsest of Nature’s unfolding architecture, layering present upon past through which we see only shadows of that past: science has found Him.   

  That’s a difficult fact to swallow, I know. If your god is science then you had access to that information all along, whether you knew it or not. When I found out, I felt tremendously saddened. Why on earth would something as explosive as that - a fact that we can all surely rejoice in - be kept from us?

  Well, think about it. There’s a lot of money in science. The moment science shows you God, science is over.

  Science is the exploration of the unknown through experiment. When everything is known, experiments become superfluous. The money dries up. But keep the unknown alive and the money keeps flowing.

  You will therefore find the most incredible contortions of theories to keep the game alive and no scientist will help you put the jigsaw together when it effectively derails the gravy train.

  One of the ways to derail the gravy train for any one scientist is to put the jigsaw together for the general public, because the machine that is the scientific community will round on that scientist to discredit them - why should that one scientist take all the glory and put all other scientists out of business?

  So no scientist can afford to reveal the truth because they will have an army of scientists lining them up against the media wall to be shot by the media guns - discredited to the point of career annihilation; their life’s work in shreds.

  Similarly, since big business funds science and also funds the media, anyone in the media attempting to do the same will be likewise discredited. Anyone else who puts the jigsaw together is then easy prey for the media guns - for who can challenge the guns of this all-pervasive, all-powerful machine and hope to come out with their credibility intact?

  When the facts are true and you want to discredit the facts, you need only discredit the author of the facts. It’s a trick lawyers use to great effect in court. The facts themselves then become tainted by association and people disbelieve the facts. They work hard not to, but remember, doubt creeps in and that eats away at the truth. And doubt is all they need to sever the link between you and God.

  But what if you hide the writer? What if the author remains anonymous? No glory for the writer, but no career wreckage or financial ruin. The only way then for the truth to come out is for the author of this book to remain anonymous. I ask that I be known only as Scrooby - and even as I write it I can hear the media hounds baying: “Scrooby Who? Scrooby Don’t! Scrooby, Where Are You? Scrooby? C’mon!  Scrooball, more like.” The inevitable media mock-jocks, lapdogs of media giants.




  But why Scrooby? The Founding Fathers of America were the Pilgrim Fathers who started out in England. A place called Scrooby in Nottinghamshire is their spiritual home. It’s where they first gathered as one to create a New World, or indeed a New World Order - no harm in wanting to try to change the world for the better. It’s now a small village with an ancient church, one pub called The Pilgrim Fathers and a couple of dozen houses. But it’s where it all started. 

  Scrooby is therefore a name synonymous with new beginnings, and in taking that name this author hopes finally to let us start again, from the scientific truth of God - a truth kept hidden from us all by the most powerful people in the world.

  So if you think - as many of the credulous and easily spooked are led to think - that hiding alien contact is the greatest conspiracy on earth, or that “the British royal family killed Diana” is the greatest conspiracy on earth, or even that the Queen herself is some kind of lizard under all that fine breeding - none of which I subscribe to I might add, but have no interest in researching the details to provide evidence to the contrary - then you should think again. The fact is, the greatest conspiracy on earth is the systematic cover up of God’s actual existence - a fact not for the credulous or the easily spooked, but a proven fact that eliminates doubt. Small wonder it’s got its enemies.

  Oh, so it’s a conspiracy theory book. Right. Gotcha! We don’t need to take it seriously. Well, if a fact is a theory go right ahead and relegate the most explosive truth to the ‘weird phenomena’ shelf, but the ‘conspiracy’ is fact and the scientific truth of God’s reality is known, no matter which category you find this in.

  Does that shock you? It should. The world’s Western media is largely controlled by people who know for certain that God exists but won’t tell you.

  Why would they do that?

  Just take a look at the way money, death, rape, murder, sex, Evolution, violence, witchcraft, freemasonry, and aliens, to name but a few themes, take up about as much space as weather reporting and with equal conviction and enthusiasm and you’ll realize that there is a general conspiracy of silence around goodness, kindness, love, marriage, commitment, and faith in God.

  Take a look at the decades of desperation to prove life exists on other planets - notably Mars - as if our own lives depended on it, and the countless attempts to convince us of this in order to relegate you and me to less than the miracle we surely are in the universe.

  So far, nothing, despite billions being spent in the attempt, money that could no doubt have clothed and fed those most in need for the next one hundred years and beyond. Got to get your priorities right, though, right? Got to find a fossil of a micro-organism somewhere, right? Surely to goodness they can’t be so clever and yet so wrong! And then if ever they find this speck of life elsewhere maybe we can all say, see, not so special now, are we? God cannot exist because we found the fossil of a micro-organism in space, on the moon, on another planet, a meteorite, whatever. What a dismal spectacle we make of ourselves sometimes, all in the name of science.

  Well, unfortunately, time has run out on that little project. For God is a scientific fact and the greatest conspiracy that’s most damaging to us all is the one of silence around these core scientific discoveries, which, when put together in the right way, reveal God to be as real as anything Newton knew when the apple supposedly fell on his head!

  Oh, you’ll hear of the hunt for the God particle, sure you will. It’s supposedly the missing link for scientists that completes the picture of all matter, without which, it is claimed, they are left with a mysterious puzzle of cause and effect that goes round in a circle. But with the God particle, they claim, they will pretty much solve the puzzle and show that something can come from nothing in a spontaneous, random way, and therefore there is no God. Almost - but not quite. Enough doubt is all that’s required. And how ironic, they think, to call the one particle that will disprove the need for God’s existence ‘The God Particle’ - the one particle whose discovery will annihilate God. Almost.

  Well, not so fast, guys. The time has come to reveal the truth that God not only exists, but science has already proven His existence, and everything that can be done has been done to hush it up.

  And what’s the greatest way to hush something up in the 21st century? Not hide it in the conventional sense, that’s for sure. God isn’t being held captive in some Area 57-style compound! No, to hide in any conventional sense a brute fact as big as this would be futile; the hiding and inevitable ‘discovery’ by some rogue element only strengthens the truth of the discovery - no smoke without fire. If it’s hidden and discovered it must be true. That’s how the media operates now: a conspiracy is true because the ‘facts’ are hidden - See Area 57/alien conspiracy theorists on this one.

  No, scientists are smarter than that. They appear to have worked out that the best way to hide anything is to put it in plain view, such that anyone who ‘stumbles’ on it will not see it as the fact that it is. The smoke and the fire, but sufficiently far apart to make us think they’re not connected. It appears to be a sleight of hand as accomplished as any performed by the greatest prestidigitator - a magician’s art taken to the nth degree: it will be presented as information that is freely available, but in a jigsaw puzzle, so that other scientists can communicate the fact to each other; while the rest of us going about our daily lives, if we stumble on the facts one by one, even in the same book, might think little of them.

  Only when the pieces of the jigsaw that are freely available are woven together in the correct way does the fact of God’s existence become self-evident and true. Are you aware, for instance, that visible light is sensitive to atomic structure? Do you know the implications of that fact? Did you know that 95% of the stuff of the universe is unknown to physicists? They calculate its presence but don’t know what it is. These are small facts that form part of a larger puzzle - facts freely available, but never put together for anyone to see what it all means. Well, we’ll come to these facts and much more, later.  

  But again, no scientist will put this picture together for you, nor will anyone in the media - the media that is otherwise so happy to pour out routine facts about death, rape, murder, money (always portrayed in a negative light as destabilizing, untrustworthy, but gosh somehow so darn necessary in our lives!), anything anti-good.




  Something inside us, by the way, trusts the message from TV that evil is at the heart of the human condition, as perfunctory a fact as the weather. See how easily the news switches from one to the other without a beat, subtly numbing our disgust or horror at the monstrous way we treat each other - did we all not see the pictures from the prison in Iraq of the prisoners piled up on top of each other for the gratification of those misguided soldiers?

  That kind of behaviour should not be construed as representative of all soldiers, by any means. And God has His soldiers, to be sure - nothing wrong with defending yourself. But the fact that it happened and was flashed around the world adds to the tsunami of sickening images we see daily swirling around us wherever we go, and indeed alluded to or painted vividly on the radio. If you have children, you’ll know how hard it is to police this stuff. Even the best broadcasters have lost any pretence at caring for the impressionableness of young children, as willing as anyone to place rape and murder and sexual deviance at the top of news headlines on stations geared to the young and old alike - it’s just so routine.

  The media in the West revels in the worst aspects of being human and justifies it by saying that’s what we want to watch, as shown by the ratings this stuff gets, and besides, they cry, you’ve always got the off-button. What, so TV, the greatest communication medium ever devised, the greatest persuader, educator and entertainer is to be the preserve of the morally trashed? The rest of us have to switch off?

  The fact is that if you serve up nothing but horror, death, war, sexual pornography, violence, and the whole panoply of negative aspects of the human condition you will eventually find a market for that kind of programming. That’s why it’s called programming. We the viewers are being programmed, and that’s the irony.

  People no longer switch off because they think moral bankruptcy is entertaining. Let’s all watch people humiliate each other on TV, that’ll be fun. The editorial decisions being made by those in power make it very difficult to conclude anything but that this serves some kind of anti-human agenda, trying to convince people that the age-old Hobbesian observation is right, we’re all really rather ‘nasty’ and ‘brutish’ in our short little lives.

  And see how that word ‘programming’ is in plain view and no one bats an eyelid? That’s an example of what seems to be the type of thinking and methodology employed in this scientific conspiracy to ‘hide in plain view’ the truth of God’s existence - actually naming the intention of the plot in the name of the plot to programme the general public’s view of anything they like, from war to what the heck money is in these ridiculous financial times. 

  Turns out money is whatever the hell the money-men say it is - they can pluck it from the butt of a rhinoceros and call it money! It’s an illusion in which the workers continue to work to pay off the debt to the men who print the money we use to buy things we don’t need, but which they use TV and other media to convince us we do need - like in the movie Back to The Future, for instance, a fun movie in which the pinnacle of existence for the boy, Marty, is to get the girl and the great car - they go hand in hand: love and possessions, see?

  See the way it works? Subtle programming to distort our value of a fundamental in life, love, by suggesting love and money go hand in hand. Multiply that distorted value by the thousands of images and subtle suggestions we are bombarded with daily and you’ll agree that it is at least extremely difficult not to be persuaded by the media in looking at the world in the way it wants us to look at the world. We have to be on our guard so much to counter this kind of nonsense. The media says it reflects reality, but in largely reflecting the negative it actually distorts reality and in so doing encourages us to have a distorted view of ourselves into the bargain.




  Occasionally, the ‘message’ is allowed to appear to malfunction. Occasionally, you will see examples of goodness in programmes and news, but it’s the exception. I still hold out hope that in our hearts we know that the human condition is mostly good and only occasionally ‘malfunctions’ yet in the media you would think the reverse is true. So why would the media report the reverse of the truth about how we behave towards each other, day in, day out as if it were somehow the norm? Because the people behind the media are ‘big business’… Money. But how does that explain things, really?

  The root of all evil - it has been said - is money. That’s a little overstated, perhaps. But in this period, the Credit Crunch/post-Credit Crunch, I think we can all agree that money is something of a snake-eyed monster that has coiled around us all for far too long, busting up families and love too often for it to be a force for good. It is, no doubt, a force for well-being: without money, we think, we couldn’t enjoy ‘the good things’ in life - a holiday abroad, for instance; your favourite chocolate. But if you’ve ever seen cameras go into some of the poorest places on earth you will see some of the happiest faces alive, some of the most genuine, bright smiles. The University of Michigan’s ‘World Values Surveys’ compiled data in the last decade on the happiest places to live in, and the top five were Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador, and Puerto Rico!

  Suddenly, nations are struggling for food and water, in Africa for instance, and we go rushing in with our cameras, but before the famine takes hold we can see that their way of life engendered true happiness. The surveys support what we can see with our own eyes.

  But the famine does kick in, Nature doesn’t provide and we see the most awful consequences of life without money. Our international response is good-hearted. It’s therefore seen to justify the West’s way of life in allowing money to underpin our lives. But money has its uses only. It is not inherently ‘good.’ It is a system that assists in our general well-being, nothing more, nothing less. There’s nothing ‘good’ about it. Indeed there is some debate as to whether in fact our financial assistance to poverty-stricken countries actually does any good because they can never get a foothold on self-reliance, but it’s a moral tightrope to consider withdrawing help now for the long-term good; a gamble on future prosperity in the face of immediate disaster - a very, very tough call.




  So, nobody wants to do away with money, don’t misunderstand me. It has the power to relieve a good deal of the burden of our lives, but it also has the power to corrupt, and those who have practically all the money and run our media and big business set an agenda on our TV and in our media generally that deceives us daily into thinking that we are, by and large, a pretty loathsome bunch, when of course we’re not. We’re the reverse.

  For the most part we’re truly good, but we’re led from that path more often than not by those with money. Didn’t someone once say, “Greed is good”? As overstated as that is, it does strike a chord with many people in the world who are prepared to subdue their better selves in the greedy pursuit of money and all that it can bring, such as power and status. And negative scheduling only serves to reinforce the notion that we’re really locked into this odious state of existence, an odious existence that only money can relieve us of in our daily round of shopping for power and status.  

  Sure, there are slots on TV for ‘good’ things. But the scheduled slots attract the converted, the already ‘good.’ In this way the media will say they have a balanced schedule. But the whole picture is not the sum of its parts. You can claim there is equal TV time devoted to good and unconscionably bad news if in one day you show all bad news from 6am to 6pm and all good news from 6pm to 6am; but you can see that scheduling times are key. The balance is a false balance. Who watches TV at 3am? Not many.

  And when it is clear that it is not in fact balanced even in this skewed way, that in fact goodness in human nature is identified and discussed for just a fraction of the TV time in the year - that for instance in news, if there is good news it’s a slot at the end of the whole news that was mostly an onslaught of unconscionably bad news - you will surely agree that this is a major attack on the human spirit at the heart of our media. A very real, very deliberate, very focused attack on the heart of you and me, from the heart of our TV - a TV we have come to love and trust like a surrogate mother.




  Many of us were baby-sat as children by TV, so you can bet we love it, to some extent at least, like a parent. Ever heard of ‘separation anxiety,’ when a parent leaves a small child for a moment? The tears mark genuine anxiety and distress. That same bond between a mother and her child is literally handed over to TV from a very early age so that when children are denied access to it, or access to it is suddenly shut off, say at bed time, elements of separation anxiety kick in. Is it any wonder we have learned to bond with our TV? And when a parent tells you something when you’re a child it influences how you think and feel about the world. You trust the parent.

  How then do you think we will respond to unconscionably bad news all the time? I think it’s inevitable that we get just a little more callous. Daily horrors wash over us with a sigh and a shrug at best. To paraphrase a famous quote, evil grows when good people do nothing about it.

  We’re all made to feel that this is somehow inevitable, it’s just the way we are as a ‘species’ and we’re largely helpless in the face of our biology. We Evolved this way (capital ‘E’ always in this book, in case the word slips gently into the vocabulary in this context while you’re reading this), a part of Nature that is beyond our control. That’s the message.  And I think it’s time we banned that word ‘species’ in relation to human beings, by the way, we are not a mere biological category; we should reclaim our dignity beyond biology’s taxonomical reductionism. To me it is as offensive as any racist term.

  This helplessness in the face of random biology is a view endorsed by the endless stream of programmes and apparently random commentary that ‘confirms’ the ‘truth’ of Evolution (which we’ll come to - and you can be sure that project is bust by the end of this book). But what is true, and will be made demonstrably clear as we go along, is that this drip-feed of deception as to who we are, what we’re really like deep down and where we come from has been orchestrated by an international conviction that God must be rooted out of the hearts of all people, and fast, at least to the extent that they are sufficiently doubtful as to rock the foundation of their faith. If that is achieved, they will claim “mission accomplished” at a crucial turning point in our history.

  Throw apathy, an increasingly unstable view of our own identity, and moral relativism into the mix and it’s a bonus. Everyone’s point of view is equally valid and besides, what can we really do about anything anyway? And who is that ‘we’ or ‘I’ in the shifting sands of personality that grows ever more atomized and splintered in the carnival of our modern lives? We are being neutered by the money-men and the media into thinking we are little more than worker ants on a treadmill, of little meaning or consequence, powerless to act in a Godless universe in which our value is worth only what the next person says it’s worth, so you’d better enjoy the view while you can get it, get fit, get your teeth whitened, try not to offend anybody, kill yourself rather than be a burden to others, and don’t imagine you’re worth anything to be bothered about after you’re dead - except a funeral, if you’re lucky.

  What a grim view.

  Well, this book is going to change all that, if that’s what you think. You are worth more to the universe than you can possibly know right now. The guy in the gutter and the gal on the throne? There is no difference between them as far as the universe is concerned, they are both equally vital. Without either one of them, the universe itself wouldn’t exist. For one, the universe is a closed system, no energy in and no energy out. All parts equally vital. And there’s a lot more to it than that, as we’ll see. You are so, so special, each and every one of you - not in some gushy, sentimental way, some woolly-minded, liberal-hearted way, but absolutely, fundamentally essential, so much so that any one of you who were ever convinced by friends, family, gang members, girlfriends, boyfriends, whoever, that you’re really ‘not all that,’ well actually you are, and trust me, this book is going to arm you with the greatest power you have ever known, so strap in and get ready for the revelation of your life.




  But despite the soul destroying news in our 24-hour-news-media world, I maintain hope that the true human condition cannot be made to be so stripped of faith in ourselves to be the flinty, callous individuals they would have us be, nor made to doubt if we believe in God, no matter how hard they and their media lackeys try.

  The greatest unifying moment in the world this century to date was in 2004, when a tsunami swept through the Indian Ocean, killing 226,000 and displacing 500,000, in response to which those with money dug deep into their pockets and tried to help. Almost everyone who could, did help it seems, right across the world. The human spirit came together like the good thing that it is and this was as uplifting as anything I’d witnessed in my lifetime. Actually, the media was caught off guard by the international response to that disaster, never imagining for a moment that, despite its best efforts, the human spirit could be so generous. But while generous global responses to similar disasters will no doubt happen again, this was an all too rare moment in the sea of negativity and bleakness they present to us.




  So, in answer to the question, why would big business - that sustains science research and controls the science community and the media - systematically ‘cover up’ the known existence of God? Well, when they support financially the daily attack on the human heart, the nihilism and Godlessness in the media, they are certainly not going to champion the existence of God and they are certainly not going to let the greatest scientific discoveries in history come to the aid of religions around the world. They will, however, support the endless parade of scientific endeavors that routinely cloud the scientific fact of God’s existence.

  Now I don’t know who these big business folk are, and maybe the system is so grotesquely bloated that no individual is to blame and the system itself lives on despite good individuals coming and going, like some self-sufficient behemoth bestriding the globe, but the money is driving it, no question, and I guess that in the age old view of the Holy Bible this is something of a struggle between the forces of good and evil, though in any religion the routine clouding of the scientific fact of God is tantamount to fraud - the greatest fraud we’ve ever known, and it’s about to be exposed.




  The question as to what precisely is going on here, though, beyond some vague sense of a struggle between good and evil, will be dealt with shortly. But just to go back a bit, I stated that you don’t need money to be truly happy. Happiness is an elusive quality. Europe’s children, for instance, some of the richest in the world, are reported to be among the most miserable and suicidal in the world, with Britain’s children coming out top of the leader board as the unhappiest in the West, according to a recent Unicef study of 21 industrialized countries. How can that be if they have Nintendos and the like coming out of their ears? Money, goods, wealth, these things do not make for a happy existence. Only love in a stable family can do that. And even then it’s often only the essential starting point on top of which a constantly renewed sense of self, of community, of being valued for our accomplishments helps to sustain us for the long term. For many who live without God, they may be content if they have enough money coming in and a stable, happy family, so God is an irrelevance for them. It may be that by the end of this book they will ‘find’ God and a truer, sharper sense of happiness that they could never have dreamed of, but that’s not the aim of this book. This book is not written to bring people closer to God, or to attack the media, or scientists, or money or the West. To be honest with you, I don’t know of a better system to move to from where we are now. We’re stuck with capitalism and we should learn to make the best of it. No, this book is simply to provide the scientific and mathematical proof of the brute fact of God’s existence, and the necessary fact of the lie that flows from this proof that we descended from any other creature, and the cover up that’s apparently been systematically taking place in science and in the media. Wittingly or unwittingly, editorial staff play into the hands of a longstanding agenda to obscure the truth. And there really is a scientific truth about God. We’re surely all entitled to know what they know and how they know it.









02 God’s Honest Truth


  The philosopher, Nietzsche, who died in 1900, pronounced God ‘dead’ following advances in science, including Darwin’s theories that suggested all living things had Evolved from a common ancestor; and, as a result, Nietzsche predicted there would be a worldwide loss of perspective, a loss of moral grounding and of any meaningful sense of objective truth. We would, he thought, descend into a world of multiple perspectives with no one view capable of rising above another in a jungle of meaning and values. As the philosopher, Heidegger, who died in 1976, put it: “Nothing more remains to which man can cling, by which man can orient himself.”

  And sure enough, following the First World War from 1914 to 1918 between Germany and the United Kingdom, and latterly the United States of America, the world suffered something of a nervous breakdown in which no God that loved His creation could be seen to stand idly by amidst all the carnage. He was therefore either dead or never existed to begin with, as predicted by Nietzsche. We were now on our own, subject to no higher law than that devised by man. A seed had been sewn that began to grow across the century.

  But between 1927 and 1931, a Catholic priest, Georges-Henri Lemaitre, started to persuade the scientific community that, while one might not believe in the moment of Creation as described in the Holy Bible, the scientific evidence was in fact there to back it up. The evidence was overwhelming and no one could deny it, try as they might. Even Einstein initially dismissed it until faced with the facts. Scientists do not hide individual scientific truths - in the same way that this fact, proven by the Catholic priest, could not be hidden away - even if they appear to engage in a collective refusal to put the jigsaw together for us to confirm that God exists. But if I ask you, “Who invented modern cosmology?” you might look to Einstein, perhaps. I feel fairly confident, however, that neither you nor any school that you or your friends attended, nor any university, has placed this Catholic priest at the heart of modern cosmology. The fact that modern cosmology is forced to follow behind the illumination of a Catholic priest is embarrassing to say the least, but the facts do not lie. The only way then for the world to march ahead with its anti-God agenda was to sideline the Catholic priest, Lemaitre, whose revelation was not fully accepted until the 1960s. If you know of him, you know of him by picking up books on science, not because the media helped you find him. But you’ll find any number of popular references to Einstein.

  It should be clear from this historical fact that a single moment of Creation was an unwelcome discovery in science, or why else does the name Lemaitre remain unknown in popular culture? Scientists know. He cannot be written out of history. But did you know? Well I confess I did not know. And it was in the discovery that I re-evaluated all that we’d been taught about the origin of the universe.




  When I first approached McG Productions Ltd to publish the book, they asked why? They are such a small business with no publishing clout. The owner and his young son had published one book, a Christmas story, through a print-on-demand internet company. Hardly Penguin Books, or Bantam Press - though if you find this book here is later published through any other publishing company it will no doubt be because McG Productions Ltd has decided to team up with another publisher, and that’s fine by me, that is for McG Productions Ltd not for me to decide. I really don’t mind so long as the facts are printed. Well, I told them it helped that their emerging links with the Third Way business model - a model that tries to bridge the gap between social and business enterprises - caught my attention, for one thing. They clearly have good intentions. I was also responsible for one of the first one million website ‘hits’ that bought into their phenomenon that was Golden Key Quest, an international treasure hunt that had puzzles as markers dotted around the internet. It attracted a lot of attention from over 70 countries for its use of cryptography, especially from military and secret services all over the world. Although it didn’t reach its target audience to fully launch - as yet at any rate from what I can tell - their first puzzle got me hooked and I liked their world view of helping each other out. So sure, they were a fun bunch with a good heart.

  But if I’m honest, it’s largely the fact that they have nothing to lose in publishing this book that makes them the number one choice for me. They are at the bottom of the rung and have nowhere to fall. I’m sure they won’t mind me saying so. They are therefore beyond compromise, which is a priceless asset in this endeavor. There is one final reason beyond this that makes them a rational choice, but we’ll come to that in due course.

  When there are forces at work that will do anything to stop me from revealing the greatest conspiracy of all time, when every website I have ever created to reveal this truth has mysteriously been ripped down within minutes, you can bet I’d be thankful that anyone would risk publishing this material. Not the Lemaitre airbrush - that was the starting point - but the whole systematic programme to disentangle God from cosmology. Might the Second World War have been avoided had Lemaitre’s noble discovery been more widely championed across the world? If the world had been galvanized by the explosive discovery of a single point of Creation as the Holy Bible describes, instead of scientists treating it with disdain for the first few years and then only grudgingly accepting its incontrovertible truth in the 1960s, would the world have been a different place? If the current masters of spin had been able to take hold of this one fact and unleashed a marketing campaign that placed it front and centre in all our lives would we have gone to war at all? But who controls the media? That’s right, the money controls the media. And God wholesale does not make money. Nor does it serve the anti-God agenda. 

  When I discovered that the owner of McG Productions Ltd was a Catholic, I suspected that would harm my cause and almost decided against it. Critics might round on him and somehow use his faith against the book’s integrity. But the book is true for all religions that place one God at its centre. God really is a scientific fact, and it seemed that the odds of finding publishers without any links to faith and God would be next to impossible. The downside was outweighed by the up.




  So here it is: the book of books; the ‘conspiracy’ to end all conspiracies.

  The hidden scientific truth that God exists.


  While the big bang theory remains undisputed, scientists have worked very hard to offer natural causes that remove the necessity of God in the equation. But the facts they have discovered need ever-increasing levels of sophistication to avoid telling the truth that nothing but God is responsible for everything.

  God truly exists. And here is the scientific evidence laid bare. You won’t even have to take the leap of faith. You will walk away ‘knowing.’

  How you then choose to deal with that knowledge is up to you. Will you change? Stay the same? Only you can know. Just remember that some people know He exists yet still reject Him. So knowing is just the first step, but knowing for sure is a great step to be offered at this crucial time in history. You have choice based on facts. Few in history got the same chance. I wish you Godspeed, whoever you may be and whatever your faith.

  I advise only one thing: do not think the truth is revealed in the final pages. The jigsaw is the whole book, so the truth is not revealed at the end to skip to. If you want to know the truth you need to follow the book chapter by chapter. The truth emerges when the whole book is read (hence no quick-dip indexing or contents pages). In this same way, those who have worked to keep this secret have spread the knowledge thinly, disguising it in full view... for no one to see. Not on bank notes, or in sculptures or paintings or architecture - nothing so obvious - but in the very fabric of their own discoveries. You’d better believe they’re the smartest people alive, but even they need to communicate. And the moment you communicate you betray your method. Ironically, it may well have taken chance and randomness for this information to be made known to me - or not, as we’ll see - and I offer it to you in the hope that it changes all our lives for the better. Read this book from cover to cover and you will know that God is real, once and for all.




  Before we get to the details, why does the truth remain hidden? Beyond those who hope to preserve reputations and careers, why are the money men pouring money in, endlessly, to make it look as though the scientific enterprise were continuing as if God did not exist? The answer is pretty simple when you think about it: if the money stops, then there is no pressure to continue hiding the truth. At that point the collective army of scientists and media folk would have nothing left to lose and so would be happy to tell it like it is. But the money-reach is so all-pervasive as it stands that vested interests remain and the truth remains hidden. That’s certainly how it seems.

  But still, why? Why would those with money and the safety net of money not feel protected to reveal the truth themselves? Are they all part of some giant evil machine? Wouldn’t at least one be good and also feel financially protected enough to ‘come out’ as it were, as a closet God-knower? What if I told you that some people were ready to do just that, sensing that we were approaching a period in history that demanded the truth be known - what’s to stop any one of those people from revealing the truth?

  Well, let’s take a look at how we got here, and maybe that’ll give us the answer.

  Before the Credit Crunch, and for many decades, those with money and true power on earth were apparently lock-step in agreement that the truth should be kept hidden to serve an unconscionable agenda: to persuade us that not only is God dead, as Nietzsche would have had us believe, but that he was never alive to begin with and that chance and randomness alone answer the questions: where do we come from and why are we here?   

  In the transition from disbelief in this chance and randomness, those who believe in God are first asked to doubt. Science often convinces sufficiently well for even the most intelligent and ardent believer to doubt. To help, the persuaded become the persuaders, The New Dark Age evangelists who offer the reasonable view that the world is so beautiful and they already feel so well-disposed to others by chance that we don’t need God to be good or to enjoy the world.

  How true that is!

  We sink into a comfortable sense of the equal value of our own self-generating moral centre, as good as any God might have shown us. And even if there had been a God, or there still is a God, we get along just fine without him so who gives a damn. There’s pornography on the internet, there’s beer in the fridge, and there’s football and Friends reruns on the TV. Is there much more we need? (For Friends, choose your international vapid equivalent of cosy TV, if they haven’t already sold it to your country).

  In the U.K, one of the smartest guys alive with a double-first from Cambridge University, a TV comic, writer and critic, David Baddiel, is happy to go on TV to discuss his use of internet pornography like it’s as ordinary a past-time as watching football. By all accounts he’s a good man, a decent man, still marked by his own Jewish faith by his own admission, and yet his casual reflections on the merits of pornography are well documented. Leaving aside his specific views, who are we to find fault when there’s so much intellectual firepower brought to bear on that point of view? We are driven by biological needs, no doubt about it, and we have grown used not to dwelling on our moral doubts about ourselves. Somehow, we’re told, they’re hang-ups from a religious heritage that clogs the arteries of our free spirit, a spirit that works better and flies truer when there are no religious-induced moral questions holding us back.

  If no one gets hurt and everyone’s acting without coercion and wants to involve themselves in any arena that religion finds questionable, well, ‘grow up’ and away from your religious heritage because it’s not letting you be you. That’s the thinking.

  Sounds tempting. Like a teenager getting the keys to the house. Hard to resist a party. And no doubt we’ve all had our parties in our time!

  And somehow, when smart people sanction the break-away from traditional shock and awe at pornography, it chips away at any moral core we may have had because who are we to say our view is right when such smart people choose to do the very opposite of what we grew up to think is right? Their intellectual rigour persuades us that we are wrong and so we are free to give in without too much angst, safe in the knowledge that smarter people than we are did all the moral questioning for us. We’ll just be happy to join in the end result without question.

  Surely, in other words, if truly smart people think something, they must be right? Right?

  Now translate that drift from one moral centre to another into the world of science and religion: among the smartest people on the planet, top scientists and mathematicians routinely tell us that chance and randomness underpin our universe. To those who’ve been brought up to believe in God, that’s a bit like pornography - the taboo made acceptable by very smart people. This is not an attack on pornography, by the way. I think it exploits men and women equally but as a biological being I know that it has a certain gravitational pull that’s difficult to repel. Someone once said that to be a man is like being chained to an idiot, with the smart guy up top often getting tripped up by the idiot in the pants! Bill Clinton, anyone? But the pornographic analogy does serve its purpose in showing how even the most shocking ideas can be made to seem acceptable with the sanction of very smart people (and a constant media-creep on all our channels).

  There was something called The Enlightenment around 300 years ago, nudged forward by a philosopher called Spinoza, who said the immortality of the soul was false, the laws of the Jewish God were no longer binding on Jews, and rational thought alone should be front and centre in our moral lives. God was on the run, as far as the very smart people were concerned. So many smart people before them were fooled by their subservience to religion, blinded by faith to see the obvious truth in the heavens - if only they would think a little more and shake off the yolk of religious dogma. This Enlightenment was in reality the road to a New Dark Age, and we’re in that New Dark Age today.




  So the question was, why are those with all the money and power hell-bent on keeping the fact of God a secret? Let’s remind ourselves what their money fuels in the world and you will have your answer to that question: a media focusing almost exclusively on despair, nihilism, war, famine, recession, depression, sex, drugs, violence, disease, death and destruction, to name a few themes. And the next question was, how come it stays secret? And we easily figured that it would all come crashing down if the money stopped flowing. And finally we asked, what is it that stops the individuals with great power and wealth who may happen to be genuinely good in the face of all this anti-goodness from revealing what they know to be the truth about God? And then somewhere in there I mentioned the Credit Crunch…

  Think about it, the vast history of the systematic killing-off of God - in a way that serves the anti-God agenda of men with almost all the money in the world - is a history suddenly overturned by the embarrassing fact of God’s existence. This existence is discovered by scientists whom they were under the impression would continue to march ahead with the Enlightenment agenda, to remove God from peoples’ daily lives once and for all, in a welter of scientific evidence that undermines any possibility of His reality.

  In the face of that vast history being undermined, anyone tempted to reveal the truth would simply be cut off from the money; and while any one individual might try, we have examined how that’s not possible unless one wishes to be destroyed in the media, and financially - or relegated to a footnote in history (as was Lemaitre). The only person who could possibly risk revealing the truth is anyone who happens to be good and also one of the all-powerful money men. But how do you show them that they are no different than anyone without money? You create… a Credit Crunch. You show just how vulnerable even the richest people are in this system of money.

  Don’t you think it’s a heck of a coincidence that the greatest crisis in the confidence of money itself was created in 2008/9? There’s a reason for the timing, and we’ll come to that.

  Money is an illusion that can vanish in an instant. It is only a medium of exchange at the behest of the people who control it. Before money we had bartering. But you have to have something with which to barter and you only have that if someone lets you keep it to trade with. The sheep farmer can trade sheep for cows only so long as the truly powerful let him have the sheep to begin with. If you’re a billionaire who wants to buy a jet plane you only get to do that because someone more powerful than you lets you have something called money to buy it with.

  Only those with the power to create money have the power to take it away. If you are among the truly rich and powerful and you had it in mind to reveal the truth to end all truths, that faith is no longer a requirement because God does in fact exist and can be shown to exist by scientists, what’s to stop you from revealing this truth? Are you not immune from the ravages of poverty and powerlessness with all your wealth? Well, the Credit Crunch was a demonstration of power, ultimate power that those who think they have money and power have it only because the truly powerful lend it to them. Now, not even the rich and powerful are free to tell the truth or risk losing everything in a media blitz and money storm the like of which they could not have imagined possible.

  The Credit Crunch was the coup d’état to end all coups d’état in which the global economic powers were made to surrender to the true money-men once and for all. In this climate, no-one feels immune to act freely when so much is at stake and all apparently hangs on a thread controlled by the whim of the creators of money.

  And why now? Well it’s now because some knew and some are good and some may well have revealed the truth at this time in anticipation of a moment in history that has long been promised: a new era, which, when it is reached, will be too late for anyone to come to the truth by themselves. And when those good people were cowed by the Credit Crunch, only the anonymous way was open to them. And not all would risk it.

  This is the more practical reason that helps explain my choice of publishers. All other publishers with clout could be traced back to the ultimate source of the publishing house’s money. The guarantee of anonymity comes only when there is absolutely no link between the publishing house and the names behind the money that supports it. Any publishing house that McG Productions Ltd or its original owner who owns the rights to this book decides to work with to widen the readership is purely a decision for them, not for me, so no link can be traced back to me.




  All of this is no doubt difficult to absorb before we’ve even begun to look at the scientific facts, but bear in mind that the mathematics involved in creating the Credit Crunch came from ex-NASA scientists, with their impenetrable mathematics being dumped on greedy bankers. You can check that on any search engine. That alone should tell you who’s in control and what the real agenda is in all this - not NASA scientists, they’re genuine scientists who want to reveal the scientific truth as they find it. But the powers behind the bankers who employed those mathematicians in order to unravel the system of money - the ones who fund NASA and all of us in the West, operating at several removes from the funders themselves. Not the brokers of power. Nor yet the brokers behind the brokers of power. But the shadowy figures who stand behind those people. And God knows who they are!

  But why use ex-NASA scientists’ mathematics to strike at the whole financial system? Well, if the mathematics are seen to come from ex-NASA scientists, who would question their virtue?




  Okay, this is all pure speculation. Nobody can prove any of this so-called agenda, so what does it matter? It’s just paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense, so let’s just get back to our lives, right? That’s how I felt when I first discovered the facts, not willing to believe there could be such a monstrously banal pulse beating at the heart of our media when such a rich vein of discovery had been mined by our best and brightest scientists. The phrase “the banality of evil” seemed tailor-made for the moment. I thought there must have been some ridiculously stupid editorial oversight in history. And then I dug deeper...

  So, if on the next page you turn to you are staring at God and He is staring back at you and you are shown that that page in history has been hidden in plain view because apparently the people who truly run the world find the fact of God unwelcome and, to continue to understate the matter somewhat, wholly inconvenient in their agenda to eliminate Him, would you feel as saddened as I felt? And would you take the greatest risk and get the information to the public as well as you were able, knowing that only anonymity could shield the truth from being hidden forever? I really don’t want to go to my grave not having done all I could to tell you what I know and how I know it. There really isn’t much time left.

So here goes…













03 GOD

The Proof and How to Get There


  The publisher of this book recently turned 42.

  42 is popularly considered to be the meaning of life, thanks to The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, as if a number could in itself explain everything...

  In the approach to 42, I’m told the publisher went partially blind in one eye, for no accountable reason. He was philosophical about it, even able to joke that it rather concentrated his focus in life! He has the most beautiful wife, the most beautiful son and daughter, a lovely house, and for a while he wasn’t sure if in a few short weeks (it happened that fast) he would be able to see them again. It seemed that he had to take stock, not just financially (would he be able to work anymore?), but emotionally, mentally, spiritually, all at once, with blindness looming. He was facing a crisis and as I heard this, two separate thoughts occurred to me: “Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la diritta via era smarrita…” (In the middle of our life’s walk I found myself in a dark wood for the straight road was lost) - this from Dante’s Divine Comedy, written in 14th century Italy, with the opening lines set in hell. The second thought was a recollection of a maxim, attributed to Socrates, the Greek philosopher who died in 399BC: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

  The man who would publish this book had reached a crossroads, just as I had recently felt similarly that my own life required a fundamental re-evaluation.

  At around the same time, 2009, I was reading that our sun was said to be experiencing an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting longer and with a higher percentage of spotless days than previously known. Preliminary findings from NASA, as at October 2009 compared with the previous minimum in 1996, showed that there was also a drop in the sun’s irradiance by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV (Extreme Ultra Violet) wavelengths. Since 1990, solar wind speed had dropped 3%, temperature 13%, and density 20%, with the magnetic field at less than 50% strength! As a result, the heliosphere which fills the Solar System has dwindled in size, resulting in an increase in the level of cosmic radiation walloping the earth and its atmosphere. With 2012 just round the corner and End of the World feelings mounting with the end of the Mayan calendar - popularly thought to be December 23, 2012 - it seemed peculiarly coincidental that the sun would suddenly take such a striking turn for the worse.

  In this climate of mounting anxiety there’s a definite urgency, a gathering desperation to tackle a dying earth in the face of an apparently dying sun that’s fading far more rapidly than seems credible; and in the midst of this desperation similar to Doomsday scenarios circulating in the run up to the year 2000, I noticed an equal force mounting against God and in defence of God, on and off the internet, as if a cosmic struggle were being played out here on earth.

  Most notable was the furore surrounding the Creationist movement and the Darwinianistas over the origin of man. From God in 7 days? Or from chance and randomness and subsequent natural selection with successive genetic mutations over billions of years? In addition, science had recently chased the God particle - in the gigantic doughnut-shaped Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, in Switzerland - to no great effect in initial attempts but the apparatus was in place to re-create the universe in miniature, and maybe find something called the Higgs-boson particle that seemed to excite the molecules in every physicist’s brain to boiling point – it’s like the prime mover, the self-generating first trigger that starts a chain reaction in Nature; if you find it, you find the answer to the universe without the necessity for a God to have created it. (Almost). That’s the basic idea.

  The media devoted a good deal of time to it, as I recall, in the count-down to the first attempt that fizzled out in a damp squib. But the chase has only just begun. There was even a worry that, in trying to recreate the universe in miniature, somehow this would actually destroy the universe! This fear was quickly dismissed by the experts who then appeared to mess up the calculations on the magnets surrounding the doughnut ring and the attempt ‘failed.’   

  In the immediate aftermath of this apparent failure, I admit to thinking it didn’t make any sense to be so confident about not destroying the universe in the experiment and then immediately go on to fail in the experiment because the experiment wasn’t as finely tuned as it needed to be. The latter point didn’t inspire confidence in the former. I wondered were the media invited to witness the way it will work when it does work, as a kind of primer for the main event in which we won’t be a witness because it will work. The universe will be destroyed! With 2012 round the corner, it seemed oddly coincidental that the greatest minds in science would prepare us all and then fail so spectacularly to make it happen. Was the failure deliberate? Perhaps not a general conspiracy, but sabotage by a few devotees of the anti-God conspiracy, delaying the event for the right time?




  This is the way conspiracy theories can emerge, from random coincidences that are blown out of all proportion, so I shook my head, vowed not to read any more Dan Brown novels and was content to stick to the scientific and mathematical facts as I knew them and dismissed my own momentary suspicions. The facts were what mattered.

  However, the overall effect of recent events was to leave me sensing there was some kind of unseen alignment of forces, the hidden hand of fate, perhaps; a pattern where there shouldn’t have been one, or maybe God Himself orchestrating in me at least a sense of the mounting importance of this time. Was there a ticking clock on all this? A countdown? Were elaborate attempts to continue to hide the fact of God just a delaying tactic, creating enough doubt to sustain a trend of Godlessness in the West to a point of no return? To a point when knowledge of the facts would come too late? If ever there was a time to reveal the proof of the existence of God once and for all, I wondered, maybe that time is now.

  We live perilously close to some catastrophe or other at every turn, whether it be a tsunami, an earthquake, a forest fire, a deadly global disease, war, local famines, global food and water shortages, terrorism, hurricanes, floods, gun crime, knife crime, murders, rapes and killings (with just under half a million intentional killings recorded globally in 2004, according to the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development). So someone, somewhere, is experiencing what appears to them to be a cataclysmic event akin to the end of the world, and for them it truly is just that. And in the midst of it all, there is a clamour for clarity: what on earth are we? And why are we here? If God exists, He often appears to have left this neighbourhood long ago, or so many people think. And anyway, who really cares, so long as we each try our best to be nice to each other, love where we can, respect each other where we can, and do our bit for the environment, right? The rest is just so much chatter, on the TV, in the gossip columns, the pub - Armchair philosophers most of us, content with the odd comment that leaves us faintly bewildered as to what the hell it’s all about, and never truly satisfied with the answers we hear and read; it’s chance and randomness, so get used to it. But underneath it all, we know that’s just not an adequate answer.

  And so here was I, in the middle of the road in my own life, having contacted a fledgling publisher in the middle of the road of his own life; both ready to reveal God as He truly exists, at a time that could in some respects be seen as a crossroads for the earth too.

  In deciding to reveal the scientific proof of God’s existence now, at this time, I seemed to be working in conjunction with forces beyond my control and it seemed that now was indeed the right time to act.

  I envisioned a journey, like a pilgrim, Bunyan’s pilgrim perhaps, on the road to enlightenment and salvation, and decided to frame the rest of the book as a journey of discovery, like someone coming to the information I already knew bit by bit, as if for the first time trying to prove the existence of God from scratch - a believer on a quest.

  I trust the journey will be good for all of us and that you’ll share with me in the mystery of the universe that truly does belong to God...









04 Light! More Light!


The illustration above is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material for educational or informational purposes is not protected by copyright." The WMAP satellite pictured at the far right of the illustration is the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which measures differences in the temperature of the big bang’s remnant radiant heat — the cosmic microwave background radiation.


  I’m on a journey of discovery to prove God’s existence, so when a study in 2005 by Dr. Jon D. Miller of Northwestern University found that one adult American in five thinks the sun revolves around the earth, it seems fair to say that, in America at least, faith in non-scientific thinking is one fifth as strong as faith in science itself, which positively asserts that the earth revolves around the sun; and so it is to science, logic, and mathematics that I think we should look to prove that God really does exist, because the majority will only be persuaded in the temple of reason, of mathematics and of physics.

  The shape of the universe, at current thinking, is ‘flat,’ with its rapid ‘inflation’ from the big bang drawn - as the NASA illustration above shows - a bit like a megaphone, perhaps, or the shape of a released catapult. And there is a most incredible fact in the universe that has never made front page news, and it should stagger you. It is far and away the most important discovery in the history of science and it has been presented as a tucked away footnote for all to see and think nothing of:


The universe is 14 billion years old,


it is well over 14 billion light-years across!


  Not a catchy headline. Maybe that’s the reason you’ve never seen it in the papers or on the news.

  I’ve rounded up the number from 13.7 billion years to 14 billion years for convenience, not that it makes the slightest bit of difference to the overwhelming reality; I mean think about it - the universe is so much bigger than its age makes possible. It is in effect much, much too big for its chronological boots - by a staggeringly big margin.

  How is that possible?

 Just so we all know what we’re talking about, a light-second is 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers). It’s the distance travelled by light in a second. So this second of time is 186,000 miles in distance. A light-second=a second, which also = 186,000 miles. The light-year is this light-second multiplied by the number of seconds in a year. So you multiply the distance of a light-second by the number of seconds in a year to get the distance travelled by light in a year. A light-year is 5,865,696,000,000 miles (9,460,800,000,000 kilometers). So a light year = a year, and also = 5,865,696,000,000 miles. But, the above fact shows us that when the universe was created, in this second of time, space itself covered more than 186,000 miles (300,000 km), and in the first year it covered more than 5,865,696,000,000 miles. In 14 billion years, light should have travelled no more than 14 billion x 5,865,696,000,000 miles. In fact it travelled 94 billion x 5,865,696,000,000 miles. Try entering that into your calculator… It’s roughly 7 times faster/further!  The crucial fact is that light speed is determined by Einstein and everyone in maths and physics to be the fastest attainable speed, and it’s fixed. To keep it fixed, age (in seconds or years) must be no greater than light-speed (in seconds or years), and vice versa – the universe can be no bigger than its age/no older than its size. To break this rule is to break time and space itself.

  But it is bigger than its age. By a long, long way.

  So, again, how is that possible?

  We break sound barriers by making machines travel faster than the speed of sound, but the machines are not made of sound. Sound is not breaking its own barrier - the machine is doing that. How can an object travel faster than that which links its structure? Light is made of... light. For light to be in all places across the universe at the same time and the time it takes to get there is faster than the speed it is known to travel at, then either it travelled at a speed faster than its own speed is known to travel at or something faster than it carried it across the universe at a speed faster than itself; but as Einstein and others have shown, light speed is fixed and it is the fastest thing in the universe and anything that goes faster smashes the time and space barrier.

  How did we arrive at this incredible juncture in history?




  The answer is that background radiation is confirmed to be uniform right across the universe - 2.73 Kelvin, to be precise (that’s -270.27oC) - so that, bar the odd hot spot like our galaxy, it is the same temperature, give or take a fraction, at pretty much every point.

  This means that all heat ‘information’ is carried across its length uniformly. Both sides are the same age and were ‘born’ at the same time, at the same place. But each extremity reached its size faster than the time it took to grow. Faster than the speed of light! It got to be as big as it was before it could possibly ‘know’ how big it was. But if it distributed the heat information across all points evenly in all places at a speed that is faster than the speed of light, what does that say about the space-time continuum? It breaks down right across the universe. Yet locally, say here on earth, space and time seem inextricably linked: space is created in time, and time is created in space, together. How can space have exceeded time in the creation of the universe? The other end of the universe got there before the fastest possible time...

  Now, that’s a fact to think about!

  Check with NASA. Check anywhere you like. It’s real.

  Last time I looked these were the best links:





   If the links are broken, it might still be cashed by Google or some other search engine that’s relevant to when you read this, so click the cashed version. But the information is really all over the internet and in any serious science book. NASA and really any reputable university in the world should have websites geared towards this information and they’re our most reliable sources in the world.

  …But wait a minute...

  …Is NASA really saying what we think it’s saying?

  Didn’t cosmologists all agree that there was a big bang, a singularity, a single point in time and space when all things began?

  That bit is undisputed.

  So how is it now possible for that point to communicate the possible states of existence to all its parts if all its parts flew away from its point of origin at a speed faster than it could communicate (light speed) the information that it needed to exist in the same way on the other side of the universe? It had to take with it all the same details, right across the expanding universe and have the same details at point Z as point A, yet got to point Z with this information intact faster than the speed of light. Faster than time and space itself! The things that travelled in the expanding space-time are bits of information that could not travel faster than the speed of light and yet they are there at the other end of the universe, which is further away than 14 billion years would allow. No matter which way I or anyone else puts this, the inexplicability of it remains.

  The precise facts are:


The Universe
Age: 13.7 Billion Years
Size: 94 Billion Light Years Across


  The most distant objects in the universe are 47 billion light years away, and since that calculation is made by looking at stars in one direction, we need to double that figure to account for stars in the opposite direction, making the size of the observable universe 94 billion light years across. But the universe is only 13.7 billion years old - “Hubble time.” (Hubble called the universe “suspiciously young.”). The universe therefore expanded at roughly 7 times faster than the speed of light. These are the facts.

  What have scientists made of it since this was discovered? That is, after they all realized that everything they had been working on for the last 3000 years had effectively been sidelined as child’s play. For this fact - and make absolutely no mistake about it - is the mother of all scientific facts. And here’s another way to explain its implications: if light had mass (and it doesn’t) it would become infinitely large at light speed but anything with mass cannot reach the speed of light, only approach it as its mass increases, so it becomes too heavy to accelerate further. The fact that the mass-bound universe not only did this, but did it and then some! is tantamount to miraculous.

  Well, scientists knew the implications and they have done their best to remain calm, to play it down – and then they proposed any number of mathematical contortions to try to get around this fact. And one such contortion stands up to scrutiny: the accelerating expansion of space, which is also a NASA fact. This fact helps us to get around the non-breaking of the speed-of-light rule as follows: each space-expansion horizon moment holds the limit of light speed and carries it a distance beyond the distance that light itself could travel in any space-expansion horizon moment; so that something is keeping light-speed constant, yet creating space into which it moves for the first time at a rate faster than it can travel. In other words, light is at its limit and in freeze-frame against the space-expansion horizon, but the space-expansion horizon speeds on ahead at what appears to be a speed that is around 7 times faster than light speed, which is meaningless really, since faster than light speed is the precipice to infinity. So what space-expansion at an accelerating rate answers is the question of how light got to be where it is faster than it could travel - it was ‘carried’ there.

  What it doesn’t explain is the fact of space (not light but space) being larger than time allows. In the first second of time, space could not have expanded beyond 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) and, in every subsequent interval of time, space could not go further than that, and yet it did and it has by a staggering margin. Space was created (space expanded at each new horizon) faster than the speed of light. It’s as if a volcano pumped out waves of molten lava (space) at faster-than-light speed carrying freeze-frame light on its back, and each new wave of lava is each new space-expansion horizon, creating the universe as it goes. Google ‘Metric expansion of space’ (locations of objects sitting in space get farther apart with a force and velocity greater than any that is known or understood), then ‘Renormalization’ that allows for a possible ‘negative mass’. The conclusion of these two crucial areas of study is this: if no ‘negative mass’ then expanding space has non-zero mass, and because Special Relativity predicts energy=mass, infinite inertia results from light-speed expansion of space, i.e. no acceleration beyond that speed! Non-zero vacuum energy (=mass) is mathematically infinite without the ‘renormalization’ of ‘negative mass’. But space did expand faster than light-speed. You need a theoretical mathematical contortion of ‘less than nothingness’ (‘negative mass’) to begin to make sense of faster than light-speed space expansion. The only other option is to say that space is a pure vacuum with zero mass, but nothing is subject to acceleration if it does not have mass, yet in the latest theoretical model space expanded at an accelerating rate! Force = mass x acceleration. But if no mass, then on what is the expansion force acting to cause acceleration? Physics, chemistry, maths, science, all of them are now beyond comprehension in this arena.

  The God-deniers (Evolutionistas, as I like to call them) had long marshalled their arguments against the History-deniers (Creationistas, to continue the theme) to the point where they felt utterly unassailable. They were right and that was that. All the science was going their way. But this fact alone – of space expanding at faster than the speed of light – destroys everything they stand for - utterly, completely and decisively.

  Yet there is much more, besides. And this book is going to walk you through every stage of what this all means for the Bible and Evolution so that there can be no more debate. God exists. As scary or as exhilarating or as meaningless as that may be for you. It is the truth.




05 Time and Tide


  In the first half of the 20th century, scientists Rutherford and Soddy had discovered that some atoms decay, and they decay at different speeds. That decay was ‘radioactivity.’ Select any radioactive sample and half of its atoms would decay in a certain period of time. They called this the ‘half-life.’ Pitchblende uranium was examined. Remains locked in rocks gave a radiation count. The amount remaining in the rocks was worked out to indicate it must have been sitting there for around 500 million years to decay to so small a sample. This is the exact way in which this thinking operates. Note the way it automatically assumes knowledge of the original proportion of decayed to non-decayed atoms when the earth was formed. But it was a necessary assumption that supported the slow march of time needed, to allow for the gradual Evolution of man from a non-human common ancestor. And no one had any way of saying otherwise for certain because the time scales seemed plausible in the light of geology, of fossils and of Darwin’s theories. This was game and set for Evolution… but not quite match.

  Countering this, in 1927, Lemaitre began to persuade the science community of the big bang theory, not fully accepted until the 1960s. Supporting Lemaitre’s theory, in 1967, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected microwave radiation, as predicted in 1948


by George Gamow. This gave us the basis of measurements that now confirm the universe grew at a speed faster than the speed of light, which only the scientist Alan Guth in 1981 attempted to make sense of. But still no one has been able to explain how the universe could employ a speed faster than the speed of light in its creation - a NASA-confirmed fact of the universe to end all scientific facts.

  Some scientists have been so startled by this that they’ve actually tried to recreate the effect themselves in experiments involving ‘quantum tunneling.’ It hit the headlines in 2007 when Dr. Gunter Nimtz and Dr. Alfons Stahlhofen laid claim to the success of their experiment that they believed showed it could be done, and it went as follows: two prisms with a small gap between them - Microwave signals fired through - First prism reflects most microwaves - Remaining microwaves tunnel through gap and through second prism - Reflected signal and its quantum-tunneling counterpart arrive at their respective photo-detectors at the same time - The end.

  If you’ve ever heard of the late, great British comedian, Tommy Cooper, you’ll appreciate it was done “just like that.” Tunneling photons are therefore believed to have bridged the gap between the prisms instantly, violating the 186,000-mile-per-second speed limit laid out in Einstein’s special theory of relativity. But so far no-one is rock solid on the results because of the difficulty of being sure of things at the quantum level, which we’ll come to.

  Instead, scientists continue to theorize about a hypothetical substance called tachyons. Doesn’t really matter what they’re called as they’re hypothetical and they inhabit the realm of mathematics beyond known reality, which is interesting, but non-conclusive. Whereas we have the very real space in the cosmos to see that in actual fact something that was faster than the speed of light carried light across the universe as the universe was being created.




That’s a potted history of where we are now. But no school would get this on their curriculum front and centre, as it should be offered. It is science, after all, but why not this explosive fact? Why haven’t all the Evolutionists suggested this scientific NASA-confirmed fact be subjected to analysis by every single school child on the planet? Are they playing for time, is that why? They need maximum doubt at the optimum time? I shudder to think why.

  But if so, then this fact places their project in the greatest jeopardy. They know it and now you know it, and the implications change everything we ever thought was true about the creation of earth and our place on it. Suffice it to say here that it throws every aspect of vast-time-dependent Evolution-from-common-ancestors clean out the window. And I do mean every aspect, from use of dendrochronology (tree-ring)-timing to varves (glacial lake layers)-timing, to coral reef (rings)-timing, to radioactive clocks and exponential rates of radioactive decay (atoms decaying to form other atoms), and on and on. It doesn’t even throw it ‘in doubt’ - it is simply dead in the water.




  These world-history ‘clocks’ exist and are real, but they all rely on a zeroed clock - a moment we can all agree that the clock of the timing mechanism starts ticking.

  For instance, in dendrochronology, you daisy-chain your way back in time with all existing trees by looking at the matching rings from youngest to oldest tree and when you run out of trees that take you back reliably about 6000 years and less reliably to about 11,000 years you find you have to imagine the continuing daisy chain going back in time because you’ve run out of trees! If we had existing evidence of tree rings going back millions of years that would be one thing, but we don’t. Instead, dendrochronologists start extrapolating, imagining the continuing daisy chain. You deduce that if there were more trees then there would be more time in the past. Perfect deductive reasoning. Imperfect conclusion.   If we had X therefore X is true!

  I think we can safely conclude that dendrochronology is not on the side of Evolutionists. No, their greatest weapon, they think - and we’ll get straight to it -  is radioactive decay. Molecular clocks, too, but since molecular clocks are calibrated from radioactive decay we need only look at radioactive decay. And it works like this:

  Imagine a fictional element has a half-life of one half hour. If you have 100 kilos of material at point zero, in one hour you have 25 kilos of material, as follows:


time (hours)






material left








  We can all agree that Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years; that is, the lifetime of half of a given number of Carbon-14 atoms (or isotopes) is 5730 years – statistical probability says half will decay, though saying precisely which half cannot be determined! The point is, after a certain time some atoms of which we and all things are made start to disintegrate and turn into another kind of material. In this case, Carbon-14 decays to Nitrogen-14 and then to Carbon-12. A fixed proportion of whatever unstable material (called ‘parent’ atoms or isotopes) is found lying around at any given time will change at a constant rate to another material called ‘daughter’ atoms or isotopes. The world-history clock starts ticking on Carbon-14 when the living thing it is in dies and starts to decay. By comparing the remaining fraction of Carbon-14 in the dead organism with expected levels in the atmosphere, the age of the material is determined.  If we found a sample today and the fraction of the sample contained Carbon-14 levels exactly matching the expected level in the atmosphere then, according to the radioactive decay clock, the earth has just been formed - unless there exists some way of replacing lost atoms (and for Carbon-14 there is, as we’ll see). 

  That’s how these ‘decay’ time clocks work. How long the Carbon-14 atom was in the atmosphere or the living organism beforehand is not needed in the time-clock. The world-history clock starts ticking when the organism dies. 




  If Carbon-14 is found in dead organisms today and the fraction of the sample that contains Carbon 14 levels exactly matches the expected level in the atmosphere, does that mean we’ve only just been created? Not if Carbon-14 can continue to be regenerated from somewhere. Cosmic rays are shown to be instrumental in their constant renewal in the upper atmosphere. So the clock keeps being reset for the world we live in where Carbon-14 is concerned, and only those things that die can start to disintegrate, from when the world-history clock starts ticking on Carbon-14.

  So that’s the basic time-clock principle on which Evolution has based its creed of humans-from-non-human-ancestors. 

  Other atoms that decay have longer decay times - some into the billions of years. The decay times are not in jeopardy with the NASA-confirmed fact of a universe being created faster than the speed of light. The decay times are real and solid. The point at which the clock starts ticking, however, has been demolished - Decisively.

  To explain, let’s assume that the earth was made 6000 years ago by God. The precise configuration of the earth as He decided to design it would have involved all atoms in whatever relative proportions He saw fit - here more Carbon-14 than Nitrogen-14, there more Nitrogen-14 than Carbon-14, and over here neither of those, but Carbon-12, to which Nitrogen-14 returns after the death of a living thing. Any combination of proportions could in fact be in existence at the moment of earth’s creation and only then need the clock start ticking. For instance, when molten rock solidifies, there is potassium-40. After 1.26 billion years half of the potassiun-40 will decay to argon-40.

  But God has decided that the time clock has not yet started on the world. In His Creation, the precise proportion of potassium to argon could be 50/50, suggesting significant time has already passed, but all the earth is being created in one go, at one time, so time itself is being accelerated, squashed into a smaller time-span.

  The physical world - as we now understand it - was being created on a different time-scale - A timescale beyond science as we know it.  Remember, if light had mass (and it doesn’t) it would become infinitely large at light speed but anything with mass cannot reach the speed of light, only approach it as its mass increases, so it becomes too heavy to accelerate further. Yet since the mass-filled universe was created faster than the speed of light as NASA confirms, a wholly different physics and chemistry were in operation as the universe and earth were being created. So, when we work out what will happen to decaying atoms in thousands, millions or billions of years, we look at atoms now and wrongly conclude that because a certain configuration exists in the rock now therefore a certain amount of time must have elapsed.

  But this is not so if the precise configuration we find 6000 years ago is the starting point of the earth. When the clock starts. At that point there has been no decay. Then the current decay proportions we see now are 6000 years into the decay process. It looks like billions of years have passed. It is in fact, in this scenario, only 6000. Only when God starts the clock ticking on life would the potassium-40 atoms start to decay, or the Carbon-14 atoms start to decay within the first thing that subsequently died. Any atoms required in the formation but not required for continued life on earth are used up in the formation before the clock starts ticking.

  You might think that if some atoms no longer exist that were required in the formation and those atoms have a half-life into the billions of years then surely the fact that they no longer exist means we must have been created more than 6000 years ago, right? You would otherwise need to create everything in the right proportions, and accelerate the decay process to get rid of the atoms you needed in the formation but not in the continuation of life. That would require everything being done... at the speed of light, or faster! And that’s impossible, right? The atoms would have needed to be created in the blink-of-an-eye faster than the speed of light, if not the speed of light itself, and for that to happen, we know that even at light speed the atoms would no longer exist. So they need time to form. Billions of years to form. Einstein practically said so, right? So, it’s impossible. Right?


  When a mechanism employed in the creation of the universe is a NASA-confirmed fact, you’ll agree it’s a scientific fact. And when that fact is a faster-than-light-speed operating mechanism in the construction of physical (if largely unknown) “sub-atoms” that hold the whole universe together, and which are roughly the same in all its parts, well then the ability to create a tiny fraction of it, the earth, at a speed faster than the speed of light would present no difficulty.

  The configurations of elements, their relative proportions across the globe, now mean nothing! All we can say for sure is that whatever combination and proportion of elements was right in the creation of the earth at a speed faster than the speed of light is the right combination and proportion at that time, no matter when it was.

  We can never know when the clock started ticking by reference to radioactive decay because we don’t know the precise configuration of elements at that time. All we know is that we started to look at the proportions about 100 years ago and from that time onwards we know how they will decay, not how they have decayed since the beginning of earth’s time.




  At the centre of our own galaxy exists a black hole created from the destruction of one million of our suns. They no longer exist as suns yet were instrumental in the construction of the universe. Since the universe was created with a faster-than-light-speed mechanism, and those one million suns were required in the construction of one of its galaxies but they no longer exist, you can imagine how easy it would be to require certain atoms in the creation of the earth and dispense with them just as soon as the construction was completed in faster-than-light speed. All, some, or none of the elements required in the making of the earth need necessarily exist at the point just after the clock starts ticking on life and decay, except those required for continued life as we know it.

  The combination of elements and their relative proportions is therefore a meaningless clock into the millions or billions of years gone by. We know what will happen, now that we know the proportions, but we don’t know what did happen because we could never have known the proportions deemed necessary for the earth to be just right at the start of it all. And since faster-than-light speed was used in the creation of the universe, all bets are off in the scientific project to persuade you they know exactly what things were like at that point since the fundamental of all science has been blown apart. Space and time are not what you thought they were.  It really is the most significant scientific discovery of all time.

  The standard model in school-room physics is to say that to produce humans you need the universe to be old to create carbon, for one thing, so therefore the universe must be old.

  Well, with NASA’s confirmed fact, that rule has necessarily been rewritten.






06 The Shape of Things to Come


  You should right about now be wondering, how come no one told you about this faster-than-light speed? And if you kind of knew, but never really knew the implications, then maybe you should ask, why did no one spell them out for you? Like Richard Dreyfus’s character in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, confronted with a terrifying mystery, you might well be screaming, “I got a few goddamn questions myself. Who are you people? How come I know so much? What the hell’s going on around here!?

  Or, to put it more precisely now, how come you never knew this much?

  We live in very strange times. Now, Evolution-from-a-common-ancestor is not even a theory - Definitely no longer a fact. But in actual fact it’s a grotesque attempt to saddle you with a view of life that threatens you in a way you can scarcely imagine.

  So, what have scientists done to discredit this NASA-confirmed fact? The best theory, developed in 1981 by American physicist, Alan Guth, but not yet proven despite decades of research, is that the ‘information’ (light) that was spread throughout the smaller universe at the start simply ‘stuck’ where it was in proportion to all other parts and then ‘inflated’ like a balloon (or like raisins in a cake, with the mixture expanding around them) - So it was already ‘in place’ when the universe expanded.

  No-one, however, not even Guth, can get around the established fact that the speed of the inflation of the ‘balloon’ was greater than the speed of light, because the age of the universe is still too young for its size, but at least the rapid inflation theory might explain how the information got in all places across the universe to begin with.

  It is interesting to note that this same physicist is recorded as having said, "It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally."

  When faced with the big bang, and the fact that the universe is too big for its age, anyone who does not believe in God but in randomness and chance must work hard to square the circle of something coming from nothing in the face of evidence to the contrary. For what else explains a moment of creation that employs, in defiance of maths and physics as we know them, engineering skills that are faster than the speed of light except God?

  Guth’s inflation theory is imaginative in its attempt to deflect us from the truly big news in these discoveries: the fact that something travelled faster than the speed of light. The rest is geometry.




  On the question of geometry, though, in my mental doodling moments a point I can’t escape is that for there to be a point of origin, a big bang that ‘exploded’ into the universe, there needs to be one single source of energy and direction of travel, either in all ‘directions’ at once, like a sphere expanding from its centre, or fanning outwards like a wave passing from the narrow mouth of a harbour wall into the bay shape of the universe we currently think of (which is thought of as ‘flat,’ with its rapid ‘inflation’ often drawn like a kind of megaphone, as in the NASA illustration above).

  Either way the energy has one origin, yet the inflation idea appears to need to go in two directions at once - straight out ‘in front’ with the greater force, and ‘to the side’ with a weaker force, and it must first explode and go ‘straight out in front’ before it then ‘inflates’ outwards ‘to the side.’ The energy direction appears to have two points of origin. Like a north wind and an east-west wind, the north wind blowing ‘outwards’ first and then the east-west wind expanding/inflating out ‘to the side.’

  One way this seems possible is if the universe at the point of the big bang was first spinning before it ‘let rip.’ However, for there to be ‘spin,’ there is likely to be spin in all directions, ‘north,’ ‘south,’ ‘east’ and ‘west,’ which would make the early geometry spherical to allow for this - like revolving car wheels without propulsion, waiting for traction, the adhesive friction that propels it along the road. I say ‘likely’ to be spin in all directions because there is an odd ‘left-handed’ spin in particle physics, but that need not concern us here for this general point.

  Such a spherical origin, in spin, would perhaps result in a corkscrew/spiral-shaped universe. However, since all cosmology does not point to a spherical universe but a ‘flat’ universe (and we’ll come to why that shape has merely been settled on for now but is not a confirmed fact), there can’t easily be ‘spin,’ but there can be a kind of oscillation, a metronomic ‘ticking’ as it were, an ‘east-west-north’ buildup of momentum, like a wave.

  The Catherine-Wheel is a good image for the beginning of the universe in spin and momentum before releasing the ‘fireworks’ in a spiraling, expanding universe. And a catapult is a pretty good approximation of the wave effect, with the air being forced forwards and to the side of the catapult capturing that action of the ‘wave’ of energy bulging outwards. When I see the megaphone shape of the fast-expanding universe I try to side-step the balloon/raisins-in-a-cake and flat-universe theory and think of a sprung catapult holding all the energy at the point of release, with the megaphone shape being the after-effect of the released energy.

  Except, there is no space into which it can be ‘pulled back’ before release, though a build-up of energy is there waiting for the moment of release. With this megaphone shape of ‘inflation’ and a flat universe as best guesses only - rather than the known fact of uniform temperature – it’s possible that the actual physical construction of the universe was like the rubber band of the catapult that snaps forward, and the remaining ‘universe’ that is created in its wake is like a kind of back-draft, playing catch-up, which would go some way to explaining the two separate measures of time, with the ‘rubber band’ representing the faster-than-light speed mechanism and the back draft or ‘suction’ it causes representing the rest of time as we know it playing catch-up.

  But then we do have that balloon/raisin-cake analogy to work with so in the end we can see that the single point of origin that expands both directly outwards and also to the sides mimics what happens when we blow up a balloon from one point of origin. We seem inevitably to want to come back to that balloon analogy, and yet there’s something not quite right about it as we’ll see.

  But for now on my pilgrimage, we’ll leave alone the geometry and my mental doodling about the early universe and move on with some more facts to see what we can discover.















07 Nothing

Ventured, Nothing Gained


  Einstein famously ‘proved’ that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. So presumably it is to ‘nothing’ itself that we should look then to explain the fact that the physical universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Shakespeare’s King Lear once advised that "Nothing will come of nothing," but, according to Guth, everything came from nothing, though whatever this ‘nothing’ was it harnessed faster-than-the-speed-of-light ability in the creation of all things. Following Einstein’s calculations of the speed of light, something without mass or weight or structure or ‘presence’ operated at a speed faster than anything could travel to create the space of the universe and everything in it, and this space would itself be of a fabric that could not have mass or weight or structure or ‘presence’ while it was being ‘created,’ otherwise that space would defy Einstein’s fundamental law. It had to ‘be’ in order for the remainder of the universe to ‘move into’ it, but it could not operate within the laws of physics. Likewise the physical things that ‘moved into’ the created universe could not themselves have mass or weight or structure or ‘presence’ while being ‘created.’ Carbon-14, for instance, had to both ‘be’ and not ‘be’ at the same time, or else disintegrate to nothing in the faster-than-the-speed-of-light construction process.

  Then, after everything was ‘in place,’ created outside of the known laws of physics - and faster-than-the-speed-of-light is outside the known laws of physics - a ‘switch was thrown,’ a ‘button was pressed,’ ‘something’ that was not something ‘zeroed time’ and said, "okay, now we start the clock of time on all things."

  But what on earth exists that is both something and nothing? Well, we’re about to find out.

  Has NASA plunged us all into The Twilight Zone, or what?




  Light itself has no mass, but is has ‘presence’ - it operates within the laws of physics, detectable as a wave or a particle, depending on the experiment, so what we’re looking for is not anything that has a detectable wave or a particle. But before we look into this further, it does look suspiciously like the physicists in cosmology are using a coded language where ‘nothing’ necessarily means God, but they cannot bring themselves to name Him. Is this for fear of ridicule or loss of research funding? What else explains the seemingly pathological need to walk into a scientific brick wall and call it ‘nothing’? Wouldn’t it be more credible, even logical, to say yes, it is God, we know it’s God, but that doesn’t help us keep our funding for experiments so can we all agree that it is God when we call it ‘nothing’ so that we can then go on to explore the nature of God in our experiments?

  This would at least show some kind of mental stability, because it is surely more unstable to continue to talk about something coming from absolutely nothing than it is to say okay, clearly it looks as though something can come from nothing which is nonsensical so we agree there is a God, but His nature is like nothing within the realm of physics. So let’s explore what this nothing-state is. Instead, we have this intellectual dance of the subatomic veils where everything is better described as just ‘spooky’ rather than admitting to the mystery of Creation that so clearly belongs to God.




  Anyway, the facts. So, what have we got? We’ve got a space that operates outside of time. How do we think about that? Evolution aside, which is really just a distraction from exploring the nature of God as far as I’m concerned, how do we think about a creative ability that operates outside of time? It’s almost as if we get to tomorrow but we’re in the same place. Space has not moved on, but time has. Time catches up with the space. There is a universal time lag. Yesterday’s place is the same as today’s place. When we look back at yesterday you can be in the same place, but not the same time. So the universe grew in an instant of time that was outside of our understanding of time and then our view of time caught up with it.

  Time is a measure of speed and distance. If any distance is covered by speed in an instant, there is no time except the instant of time. If the speed of created space is faster than the speed of light, time is reversed. Yesterday becomes today but so does tomorrow. Time collapses into itself. In that arena, when things are being created faster than the speed of light, all things can be put in place faster than the speed of light - including planet earth. And as the accelerator is lifted, so then the foot comes off the gas pedal, so to speak, and time is allowed to catch up with space in the creation of all things.

  You can see that, as the final touches of the earth are put in place, time can be made to ‘normalize,’ and so, following Biblical teaching, 7 days at our understanding includes the ‘stoppage’ time inherent in things being constructed faster than the speed of light. In fact, when you think about it, God was coasting when He created the world and all we see. 7 days when set against the faster-than-the-speed-of-light engineering that is a NASA confirmed fact of the universe seems like a bit of a builder’s delaying tactic! Did He break for tea a lot? Well, we know He took Sunday off...




  If I were an atheist, I’d be struggling about now to hold on to my brave intellectual position. An atheist is now cornered into the awkward belief that randomness and chance took hold of two separate laws in creation, one operating within the limits of the speed of light and one operating outside the limits of the speed of light, and balanced them in an instant - two opposing forces, mind you, mutually exclusive, being both in time and out of time, as if the shell of the universe were outside of time and the albumen and yolk inside were operating within the limits of time and space as physics knows them. For an atheist to find intellectual sense within the realm of randomness and chance and maintain perfect confidence in their brave intellectual stance, I humbly submit that they are simply not allowing themselves to think for fear of the knock their pride will take. And that’s okay. That’s being human. But their logic is in error, to put it bluntly.

  God exists. For me, as a pilgrim in the Christian tradition, that makes the Holy Bible true. But just as it takes intellectual rigour and courage to square the circles of contradiction that appear in the Bible - and there are many - so I will continue on my pilgrimage and dig deeper into this mystery to see what science and mathematics have come up with that might naturally explain the duality in the universe, without the need for God.




  For me, the above is proof positive that God exists, but mathematicians have come up with numbers that represent chance and randomness and there are those who are happy to say that, because we do exist, the chance that we could exist was a real chance - precisely because we do exist. You know, because it’s possible therefore it’s true! Randomness is real because we’re here. However remote such randomness seems, the fact that we are here means randomness is true. And we are here by randomness and chance because both these things are mathematical possibilities.

  Do you see how rather lame that intellectual position is? Chance and randomness are real. Life is real. It is as likely as not, the thinking goes, that randomness and chance account for any mystery in the universe. The creation of the universe is a mystery. Therefore randomness and chance is the answer to the creation of the universe...

  One would have to work so hard at deluding oneself to that extent that only some kind of pathological mistrust of a higher authority can account for it. No? Well there’s a chance I’m right, isn’t there? What, no chance I’m right? Are you sure, with your randomness and chance battledress only just on the field? It’s not possible?

  I get it, chance and randomness don’t apply to your brain. That makes sense. How come there’s no chance I’m right, but there’s every chance you’re right? You see, the atheist position is a fundamental exclusion zone that does not admit of the possibility of God’s existence, for on what other basis can one reject God’s existence outright?

  Agnostics at least maintain that they don’t believe because there’s no way of proving it with any certainty - although this book shows that there is. But see how easy it is to show that atheism, that is a rejection point blank of the existence of God based on the use of chance and randomness, is a logical impossibility? - A mathematical impossibility, no less.

  If atheists can be right, then according to the atheists’ tools for arriving at this conclusion - chance - so can believers be right. Therefore atheism, which excludes the possibility of God, is wrong. Unless refusing to believe in God is simply a knee jerk reaction without intellectual engagement - in which case atheists are not even on the field. We can simply think of them in the same way they think of believers - as, frankly, deluded.

  Agnostics say no provable chance, and atheists say no chance whatsoever. But the theory of chance and randomness cannot be right if it does not also admit the possibility of my also being right, since chance and randomness must cover every possibility. If it does not cover every possibility, if it does not cover infinite possibility, then there is a limit to chance and randomness. If limited, then you are most definitely wrong about atheism because there is no limit beyond the impossibility of faster than the speed of light (an impossibility that is in fact confirmed to exist by NASA, and countless other cosmologists), which at the very least makes God a possibility. And if chance operates in the realm of the infinite then there is every chance that God exists. QED, atheism is a logical impossibility.

  If only they taught this at school, we might all be better off. Now all we need to do is demonstrate that agnostics are also mistaken, that in fact we can prove that God exists, beyond any shred of doubt. Not even beyond reasonable court-room doubt, but beyond mathematical, scientific doubt.




  If randomness and chance operate within the realm of the infinite then you cannot predict what will happen. The predictability of something happening is measured in mathematics by ‘probability.’ You might be able to predict the probability of an event occurring if you had a measurement of between zero and one, but not zero, because zero is the ‘impossibility’ limit of the mathematics of probability.

  If something does not exist, then there is no probability, in mathematics, of it occurring. But we’re here. And the realm of the infinite is employed in the construction of the universe. There is no probability of it occurring, and yet is has. Remember, chance can only be a measurement of statistical probability and in the realm of the infinite, probability vanishes. Chance does not exist. To be an agnostic, one relies on the probability of God being proven to exist. Since an agnostic is relying on statistical data within the mathematical operation of statistics, one need only show that to prove God exists one must first eliminate all statistical probability, since only by removing the basis of an agnostic’s doubt - the probability function - can one meaningfully engage the mind of the agnostic, for now what upheld their belief has vanished.




  Disbelief relies on a pedestal of proofs. Remove the pedestal and disbelief cannot function. The pedestal of proof that sustains an agnostic is the existence of probability in proving God’s existence. The universe has taken away an agnostic’s pedestal by removing statistical probability. The impossible has happened. God is not the improbable. The improbable lies within the realm of statistics, not the infinite realm. The infinite realm is the impossible, statistically speaking, probability-wise. Yet the universe does incorporate a known space that demonstrates a statistical impossibility - the infinite speed of creation, something faster than the speed of light in creating heaven and earth.

  The road to Damascus is famous for having shown God’s Son, Jesus, to a non-believer, in a moment of revelation - An epiphany. I cannot imagine what that must have been like for Saul, also known as Paul of Tarsus, to be so suddenly overwhelmed by the fact. I have always known, somehow; I am never in doubt. I am in constant doubt about my own ability to live up to the expectations of being good. That’s surely the human condition and I accept that. I have once felt that God had simply decided I wasn’t worth His time. But doubts about His existence and the truth of Jesus being His son have not been there. Not once. And I don’t know why. I wasn’t always so well able to reason through the facts. But the natural integration of all that we see and feel in a delicate harmony was a kind of unspoken reasoning in itself. The fact of God seemed a given, without knowing the scientific and mathematical facts, and for me it followed that Jesus was a natural part of the whole.

  To then be armed with the facts was no kind of victory or cause for celebration. Indeed the opposite occurred. I was deeply saddened that the facts about God were so well known and that there seemed to be a conspiracy of silence around them. Or, worse still, a deliberate attempt to obscure the facts with subtle reasoning around chance and randomness - whose subtleness, I knew, is no real match for the logic of the facts as they truly exist.

  Science and mathematics found God. Thank God. And any sense of nausea you feel at reading those words is, I suspect, a force in you willing you to reject God, despite the facts, and any sense of relief is, I suspect, the swallowing of your pride. Each one of us is a battlefield on which warring armies clash for supremacy over our character for a decisive reckoning at the end of our lives. Buy that or don’t buy that. That’s exactly the easy choice you face. But remember, many know God exists and still reject Him. If you know this much, and still reject Him, you can say at least He gave you the choice to do so. This is what makes you human and extraordinarily special in the universe.









08 Pilgrim’s Progress


 But there is more to consider - Much, much more. As a pilgrim on a journey, I know that the journey has really only just begun. Despite the facts above, there are those who will continue to dig a hole away from the light. So we’ll consider the light in more detail in due course. There is yet more science that shows us the fact of God’s existence. And it gets more incredible that the known information is not more widely taught in schools.

  The term ‘Creationism,’ by the way - since we’ve mentioned schools - is used as a pejorative term in the Western media, and it fills Evolutionists with horror because they think the classroom must be filled with anti-science. I don’t know what Creationist classes entail, but it need not be a lack of science, that’s for sure, because science does very well itself in showing us that the Bible is in fact true, as we’ll see. What literally true? Yes, literally true. Are you sure? You seem so knowledgeable and all, but still you can’t possibly be trying to make a case for Creationism, are you? It’s madness...

  Well, I don’t have to make a case. The case is made in science already, it’s just that no one will put the jigsaw together for you for fear - in all likelihood - of financial and career reprisals. The fact is Evolutionary biologists are wrong to say genes shuffle between and across species. They are wrong beyond the most simple natural re-coding of DNA within any one species - like breeding dogs from wolves (both from the canine species) - where a species is not a variation on a theme, such as the myriad varieties of plant-life which includes a flower and its sub-varieties, but the theme itself: such as ‘plant-life,’ or ‘canine.’ Evolution would have you believe within-species change is the same as cross-species change, to confuse the debate. But there is only one gene pool for canine and it never gets confused or changes over time.

  The variations are canine-A, canine-B, etc. The DNA will encode: canine-type (which is the one constant), then list all the variations of the canine type to ‘build’ this particular canine. But they’re all canine. The canine-ness is never diluted. Genes shuffle the appearance not the canine-ness. A predatory wolf is a canine, just as a pampered Hollywood schnoodleitzlepug (it’ll come, it’s only a matter of time) is a canine. While Evolution is the increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see certain genes in a gene pool, that does not mean that frequencies of genes means origin of genes in a daisy chain, tree-of-life process extending over millions of years starting from simple and then branching off to complex over that time-frame by some blind, random mutation process. I think the idea of simple to complex is crucial to the Creation, but the inference drawn by Evolutionists is wrong, and we’ll see why as we go along.

  Yes, Evolutionary biologists have done a neat trick in using the same term ‘Evolution’ for changes within varieties as between varieties and they are quick to show those changes within varieties, such as is possible with dog breeding. Supposed evidence of changes between varieties is of a different order altogether.

  And by the way, you may notice a similar muddying of the waters by Evolutionists who employ computer programmers to simulate any natural biological process, as if human encoding of zeros and ones that consciously tell it what to do in a given circumstance in any way replicates the blind, unconscious, random mutation process of Nature that Evolutionists lay claim to.

  Nature merely changes the appearance of a species to the degree that it maximizes its interaction with the natural world around it, optimizing its food supply and ability to reproduce. That’s the beginning and the end of Darwin’s contribution to the reality of the debate. God bless him.




  So in our journey of a fuller exploration of light, I want first to consider the question of colour in Nature and especially flowers. Flowers emerged on earth, the thinking goes, some 130 million years ago (the prototypes were maybe 250 million years ago, but the firm evidence is thought to be 130 million years ago) and they took 30 million years to evolve to the more recognizable flower we see today, with petals. Setting aside Darwin’s horror at flowers in the geological record (he called them an ‘abominable mystery’), Evolutionists say that flowers were originally green and had nothing but a smell of ‘plant’ about them and Evolved their rich colours and smells from cross pollination by insects and wind. In 2009, scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara, showed that when plants are hummingbird-pollinated (they favour red flowers), and are then artificially changed to hawkmoth-pollinated (they favour yellow and white), natural selection works to change the flower color to white or yellow, i.e., the hawkmoth has stray pollen from pale coloured flowers that changes the chemistry of the red coloured flowers. The presence of one pollen grain from a red flower can change the colour of the paler coloured flowers, and vice versa. That’s natural selection. So far so good.

  But you only have to ask the question, where does the original code to employ colour variation come from to provide such rich variation if all plant things to begin with were genetically green and mono-scented? Flowers’ DNA can be examined to reveal enzymes (trigger-proteins) that result in the production of one or other colour. But did plants always have this colour variation encoded and only decided to activate it when the competition for fertilization grew so that Nature felt it needed to ‘switch on the lights,’ as it were, to let plants attract insects using whatever combinations of colours and smells they saw fit?

  You would think this might be a way out of the conundrum, though to delay it seems pointless, but in any case Evolution’s philosophy states Nature is not aware of anything, it merely uses randomly stumbled-upon genetic variation if that variation enhances the project of sustaining life and replicating the genes. So then all colours and smells are random genetic mutations over millions of years and these then mix and blend by cross-pollination as a random by-product of that cross-pollination.

  But still, where on earth did the code to employ colour variations come from if it was not pre-coded? If you’re an Evolutionist, it can’t be pre-coded because that’s foresight and intelligent design at least, whereas you’ve only got random genetic mutation and genetic hindsight that employs no conscious thought. And if everything’s green, cross pollination of green to green isn’t going to create red or yellow! So where did colour variation come from?

  To recap: the DNA code has to be in place from the start, ready to react in the right way for any chemical changes that suggest possible colour variation and to keep that colour reserved for just the flower and not the stalk; plus there is no existing flower at the start that is anything but green. Nature doesn’t know how to ‘switch on the lights’ but isn’t it lucky that random mutation gave it the jump-start it needed to ensure competition between species was possible, otherwise how else would one flower be chosen over another if they’re all originally the same green, mono-scented plant, right? That’s the logic. Despite the fact that they clearly survived as green, mono-scented plants before colour was randomly introduced. So, is colour coding across the entire palate the result of random mutation? All colours? At random? With no planning or design? And if it is, where did they get the colour codes from? How can plants randomly generate a colour as a plant without first having the DNA coding template to react to the new random chemistry change, and where in any case are the colour variations coming from?

  Really, guys, Evolutionists, please - the credibility of your rando-m-eter gets awfully stretched, to say the least. And wait till you see how truly stretched it gets later in the journey...




  While still on the subject of Evolution, it’s a good moment to mention the famous - and unquestionably brilliant - Lenski experiment, where bacteriologist, Richard Lenski, at Michigan State University, subjected bacteria to accelerated generational reproduction that equated to ‘a million years of Evolution.’ It is widely quoted as incontrovertible proof of the ability of organisms to Evolve without the need for a Creator God. Subjected to glucose-rich/glucose-poor, feeding and starvation cycles, it was from the start given an opportunity to ‘eat’ an additional citrate substance it was previously unable to make use of. After many generations, most were still unable to make use of the citrate substance, but one separate strand of bacteria finally did manage to do so.

  Meanwhile all the bacteria in these separate, isolated branches of cultures across many generations grew significantly larger. So we can certainly conclude that isolated organisms can 'Evolve’ in size, produce fitter-for-purpose offspring, and ‘mutate’ from a non-citrate eater into a citrate-eater. They were basically breeding Arnold Schwarzenegger-style bacteria that learned how to ‘eat’ and digest food they were previously unable to eat and digest and they got bigger as a result.

  What this fails to take account of is that within its own DNA it always had the capacity to find a way to optimize its food supply. The four letters GATC that are used to denote the four fundamental chemistry building blocks in DNA are well known. They combine in various ways to form packets of information that tell cells what to do in any given circumstance. When met with an unknown substance, like an unknown password on a computer, the DNA code is pre-written to try any number of brute-force attacks, as it were, on the unknown substance to unlock it for use. Those bacteria cultures that got nowhere with the additional citrate substance had non-specific combinations of GATC strings to compute and they would not all have started out from the same starting point or ‘checked’ the possible unlock sequences in the same way, since the starting point for each would have been subtly different, and the ongoing environment would have been subtly different for each separate culture. The one that got the unlock code right suddenly broke in and found a treasure house of a new food source. That’s not a ‘mutation’ - that’s the bacteria doing its job.

  And nowise could the ‘one million years of Evolution’ experiment be said to be the success for Evolutionists that they think it is, since the one ‘mutation’ in ‘a million years of Evolution’ was a change in dietary habits! So I repeat, Nature merely changes the appearance of a species to the degree that it maximizes its interaction with the natural world around it, optimizing its food supply and ability to reproduce. That’s it.

  The size and shape can seem radically different, as between a dwarf and a giant, a 50 stone person and a stick-thin person. Wide-nosed, flat-nosed, hook-nosed, straight-nosed, brown-eyed, blue-eyed, huge head, small head, a black or white person - The varieties can seem immense. But they are locked into their own species. We can move from herbivore to carnivore and lose our use of the appendix, for instance. DNA changes naturally occur in response to changes required to optimize food supply and ability to reproduce. That’s it. The body of a living organism is pre-programmed to find a way to absorb and utilize a previously inedible organic food source. If in Lenski’s experiment the additional substance had been house bricks it learned to eat, then it would be impressive! But still not proof of anything other than living things will search for ways to find nourishment in practically anything that doesn’t immediately kill it off - that’s how we’re built from the outset. The fact is, citrate is an organic substance. Every feeding organism has the capacity to get used to - to unlock - previously inedible organic substances.

  The one interesting thing in the Lenski experiment is the very fact that all the cultures grew significantly in ‘one million years’ - what they should be asking themselves is that over 4.6 billion years of Evolution suggested by Evolutionists how come all existing bacteria are so miniscule by comparison? No bacteria should be that small anymore and yet they are. And if they are the size they are now after 4.6 billion years of earth’s Evolution, they would have been non-existent 4.6 billion years ago at that rate of growth! Well, let’s just say that this must be accounted for by a glucose-poor, rather than a glucose-rich diet for the real bacteria these past 4.6 billion years...

 No, while there is change within species, the important point is that no species Evolved over millions of years from any other, as we’ll see, and there’s a good reason why this was not and will never be possible.

  For now, I merely want to note that Nature’s key is simple: each person, each animal signals to the world, “What do you want from me? What will it take to make you want me, love me, need me?” From the flower to the bee; and surely we too recognize that drive.

  I don’t want to strain the science here by relaying too many personal anecdotes, but I certainly recognize that impulse, don’t you? - From my earliest days. When I was five years old I found myself alone in a market place, with cattle and sheep being bought and sold. One minute I was with my mother, the next she was gone. In my distress and through my tears I became aware of a lady standing over me with a beautiful, smiling face and a shilling in her hand - worth about 5 pence, or 10 cents, but back then it could buy a little more than it could now. Behind me was a shilling store. The lady sweetly suggested that I buy something and we would then go to look for my mother. Looking up at her beautiful, smiling face, and with the shilling in my hand, I stopped crying and began to think how I should spend the shilling. I guess I’ve been making that same decision all my life, in the same farmers’ market, over and over, comforted by the sweet smile of a beautiful lady. I have no idea who that lady in the market was back then, and I never saw her again, but I survived the moment and moved on, fortunate to have met in my late teens the lady I would spend the rest of my life with. But I remember that test as a child and the questions that rose up in me. What would it take to make my mother come back, to want me enough to come back? But whatever it was, I didn’t have it. When she left, that was it.

  There are many moments of survival in life that test us - test our genes, no doubt. The ones that don’t adapt have their genetic reproductive potential as just that, potential - going nowhere. But the ultimate aim for Nature is sexual reproduction (to ‘go forth and multiply’) - No more, no less; though with the veneer of civilization for us, guiding us sensibly, to avoid the wreckage of our lesser selves. Nature will change in shape and appearance to get close to its natural partner in life, close enough to (eventually) procreate. That’s the deal and the limit of the Evolutionary project. In my youth I consciously rehearsed, in relation to my mother, Nature’s method of survival-and-attraction-towards-reproduction that I would need when I grew up. Of course Freud might have suggested that, like all boys, we have more than rehearsal for our adult lives in mind when it comes to our mothers, but at that early stage I think survival was uppermost in my mind. Without my mother, life seemed a terrifying prospect and I had no way of preventing the loss. I needed my mother in order to learn how to grow, healthily and happily, towards finding my own natural partner in life. Without her, that natural inclination was made all the harder.

  Yes, there is that veneer of civilization for us, but all biological life veers towards this goal of reproduction. Though I’m often tempted to ask, in what warped world would anything in one species adapt away from its own species?

  That runs entirely counter to Nature’s masterly skill at attracting a mate. It spends aeons, apparently, perfecting skills of attraction only then to throw it all away by charging off in a new species direction? Something so brilliant at mastering spontaneous existence and first life itself goes a little wonky now and again - and by accident? Are you sure this is the science you want to subscribe to..? Yes, I’m tempted to follow that train of thought, but I don’t fall into that trap because Evolutionists thrive on our innate shock and horror at the project they present that they hope we’ll all be muddle-headed enough to trip ourselves up. Well, when later we go through the exact process of how we must have been formed, you’ll see with cold, brutal logic that this randomness is a blind alley down which we have been led for far too long.

  Speaking of blind alleys and temptations, the above temptation may be further drawn out to a wonderfully absurd degree that I’ve often heard, but which is definitely to be avoided if you want to tackle Evolution head on. It goes something like this: since the aim of life is to procreate, successful procreation hardly needs to adapt away from that success, to explore new lands of potential barrenness. And even if this is done by accident, what creature with a mutated gene that takes it out of its species is going to find anything to mate with it?

  And how is the thing it mates with from another species going to successfully process the wonky gene that threw it off in the wrong direction anyway, so as to guarantee healthy offspring on down the life of the new species - if it ever got so far as to convince a now separate species to mate with it? And why is the thing that has now got the wonky gene, throwing it off into a new species, going to be attracted to anything outside its own new species? Suddenly, Nature’s saying to it, “I know you were a proto-ape/human, but now you’re fully on the road to being exclusively human, okay? Go forth and multiply with other… proto-human/ape things.” Because the first thing to adapt away from its species is on its own -Nowhere to go, nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide.

  In what world would any species find useful to pass on its own genes, at any point, the less than perfect specimen of its species, as if it says yes, at this moment in your genetic mutation period you are the optimum choice for the survival of my genes - said the plant to the horse! This poor specimen of a cross-over species has to go out and convince those in its old, perfect example of its former species that it’s "still the same, nothing’s really changed at this point in time, so you can mate with me, at this moment...”

  So you can see that the exaggerated point reaches absurd levels, but this kind of thinking is an obvious temptation for some, as I’ve witnessed, and is definitely to be avoided. Because the easy counter to it is that, yes, Evolution is random and besides, the process is so slow, over countless millions of years that the new genetic changes blend seamlessly with the old genes - Unnoticed by the species. A proto-human/ape does not know it is changing into a human. Just as we still have people with webbed feet who, Evolutionists may be tempted to say, hardly realize that this is a throwback to their time as fish!

  We might be tempted to ask, how come it doesn’t mean the person’s changing into a fish, by the way? But this is another temptation to avoid: questions for Evolution to which we do not have ready answers.

  Besides which, the webbed-feet canard is actually the residue of the womb’s process in which we all have webbed feet as our toes separate - the separation process stops a little short on some. It’s not a residue of anything we were or will be, it’s simply the biological process that operates much the same across all species because it’s the right design mechanism for us all, with a few variations on a theme - why reinvent the wheel across all species when the basics are locked down?

  No, I hear you insist, we each carry residues of all that we’ve been in the past. These changes happen by accident, that failure of the toes to fully separate is that very type of accident we find in genes that allows for genetic mutation across species. Really? Okay, so the whole of the universe is created on purpose, with a specific, provable design in mind, as demonstrated above, scientifically, mathematically, but we... we are just an accident!

  No. The fact is that all of it - the theory of Evolution outside of the limited adaptability of a species within a species (for why should not God allow creatures to dress themselves to attract the opposite sex in their species, or for flowers to mimic a bee to draw a bee to it so as to help it spread its pollen?) is palpable, demonstrable nonsense, as we’ll see, and the ‘fact’ of slow time over millions of years that allows for the seamless and unseen blending of genes from one generation to the next is a central plank of Evolution that has been roundly demolished in NASA’s confirmation about time.

   So when I say the case is already made for Creationism, I mean that you simply have to know how to extract the science from the Bible to show that it’s true. And we’re going to do just that.

  Remember, at the start of this book you no doubt imagined that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. The universe tells us you’re wrong. And no, the numbers have not been crunched incorrectly. They’ve been finding the same results for decades. Decades! With ever-increasing instrument precision. So everything you were taught at school in physics and Evolutionary biology has been a distortion of the truth for one end: not the liberation of our minds from the ignorant prejudices of religion, as they might have you believe, but the attempted murder of God Himself.

  Okay, if not a conscious aim - and in all truth it would not be since all teachers are, I think, inspired by the truth - then certainly that is the effect of not placing this information about the speed of light, at least, front and centre in all classrooms. The weight of attack from the Evolutionist camp is undoubtedly difficult to resist, but the speed of light question? The implications for God and Evolution deserve at least a separate class devoted to both.




  Science is not to blame for the apparent silence on all this, either. NASA gave us the facts. But the money-machine and media-machine work hard to distort those facts, while science certainly appears to play ball to stay alive.

  There are even now those so horrified by the implications of what NASA has found that they have done all they can to dispute it, saying the data must be wrong. Every other bit of data NASA comes up with is fine, but this bit that destroys their project must be attacked, albeit delicately, in theoretical research, necessarily at odds with the physical data recorded by NASA but still, they are attempting to unravel that fact.

  Researchers happy to challenge the data, no doubt in all good faith themselves - the scientists are above suspicion in this, merely being commissioned to find an alternative theoretical answer - run a counter argument that instead of the universe being largely the same temperature across as NASA has proven it to be, maybe that’s... a mirage - they have literally used the term “mirage”!

  Well if you want to champion a mirage, go right ahead. That seems about right for the ‘theory’ of Evolution.

  And to entice the doubt, to make us buy the mirage, they have even had to resort to suggesting that our galaxy is the centre of the universe! See how that enticing tidbit could have its adherents? But of course in so supposing that we are the centre of the universe, which would fit well with Biblical teaching, perhaps, they would then use their mathematics to remove NASA’s findings and say the speed of light is back in the box. All’s fixed. We have restored doubt.  

  Unfortunately, the proverbial cat is out of the bag and no amount of mirage-making can undo that. For even supposing we can be shown to be at the centre of the universe, as their mathematics so obligingly confirms, further mathematics can restore the observable NASA facts and still retain our place at the centre of the universe, but that’s a step we don’t need to take. We don’t need to confirm that we’re at the centre of the universe, despite the observable fact that everything is flying away from us in all directions, and we still have the NASA data to show the temperature is largely uniform across the universe and that the universe is too big for its cosmological boots, thereby breaking the speed of light rule in its creation.

  Despite the observational data that suggests we’re at the centre of the universe because all other galaxies are flying away from us, scientists have, as previously mentioned, suggested we imagine a balloon, with dots on, evenly spaced, which move away from each other when you inflate it so that we could be any one of those dots and it would look as though we were at the centre of the universe with all other dots moving away from us. It’s a great analogy. But no balloon analogy, or mirage-concoction, can tear down the still simpler observation of uniform temperature across the universe.

  Game over.

 Although I am tempted to speculate that our own galaxy, being an exceptionally hot galaxy in the otherwise uniform 2.73 Kelvin universe we see - that helps account for the slight variations we see in temperatures - could very well mean that if all things are travelling away from us in all directions and everything else is very cold and in the distant past - and we’re unusually hot - that in fact we are actually the last galaxy to have been formed! Everything else is moving away from us because we are the centre of the universe. We’re hot because we’ve only just been made!

  The unusually large black hole at our galaxy’s centre is, perhaps, an accelerated cooling tower. Our black hole is unusually large (normally three of our suns would suffice to make a black hole, and we have one that had one million of our suns in the formation!) because it has had to take more heat out faster, in a shorter space of time. Yes, the universe looks 14 billion years old. No we are not 14 billion years old. We’re the last of the galaxies, necessarily formed out of other stars exploding (and hold that particular thought), but at the very end of a construction process that in our current analysis of light only looks 14 billion years in the making.          

  However, while it’s interesting to speculate about our galaxy being unusually hot in an otherwise relatively cold universe, it also seems reasonable to suppose that at the big bang moment, the greatest heat and light would be found at the very point at which space exploded outwards to become the other end of the universe, since that’s where all the propulsion energy is concentrated. If this other end of the universe travelled at a speed faster than the speed of light, we would expect to see traces of its cooling process that would be far in excess of anything found here in our galaxy, since the centre of the universe feels less of the effects of the rapid expansion momentum (the exact centre has to stay put to remain the centre). However, following this train of thought it’s also interesting to note that at 3.5 billion light years away we do indeed find the biggest known black hole in the universe with a mass of 18 billion suns! - About the size of an entire galaxy. It’s 3.5 billion light years away and it’s forming the heart of a quasar called OJ287. But it’s not 14 billion light years away…

  So maybe increasing or decreasing heat or light or density or gravity or anything else in a uniform pattern as we move away from the centre of the universe is really the vain search for uniform and gradual breeding of one part of space into another as the universe expands.

  Maybe what we look at when we look into space is not in fact the gradient of development in any embryonic sense, but step-change development.

  In just the same way that in the Bible we find the generations of development and improvement in the creative process, so it is we might account for the subtle variations in heat and light and black hole density in all directions. For instance, 1E0657-56 is the technical name for the ‘bullet cluster’ collision of galaxies that gave substance to ‘Dark Matter and Energy,’ the things that make up 95% of the universe and which no one knows anything about, beyond having no electric charge, being incapable of emitting or scattering light and remaining immune to the strong nuclear force that traps protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei, and largely passing through matter as we know it - though there is a concerted effort to analyze it currently underway in the Soudan Mine in Minnesota. But while we may not know what it is, we certainly know what it does. And what it does is hold together tremendous energies that would otherwise fly apart.

  And since such finds are not found uniformly in the universe, we can surmise that these unusual finds mark test-ground in creation. All around us, in all directions, we see space flying away from us, and it is light from the past, of that there is no question. So with such extraordinary variation in local spots in the universe yet a general temperature uniformity of 2.73 Kelvin, the logical conclusion would be that overall, the trajectory of creation was in one direction with proving-ground hot spots to get the exact recipe right for our own galaxy.

  The difficulty for Evolutionists now, however - just as it is difficult for cosmologists - is that in any of these views that balance light and time, our old measure of time is no longer true. With the super-universe constructed faster than the speed of light our measure of time in our everyday lives is now, frankly, meaningless. And if you are reading this and you went to Oxford University, or MIT, or Stanford, or Harvard or whichever fine university you were lucky enough to go to, or indeed if you never went to university, you will know that, like Alice in Wonderland, we are now down the rabbit-hole as far as the universe goes. Only recourse to God can make any rational sense in the now irrational universe scientists have unearthed.

  No doubt as those without faith struggle to absorb this they will offer more mathematics and more theories, but at the end of it all the fact of God becomes as compelling as the gravitational pull of a black hole. No way out.
















09 Articles of Faith


  Some people have asked me, "Why do you believe in God? Nobody believes in God anymore, right? Except crazy fundamentalists. Scientists have knocked Him off the court years ago, so why go on with the self-delusion, you seem quite bright otherwise, it doesn’t make sense?" To which I reply: "I no longer have to believe in God when the evidence is all around me and out there in the universe. Take a look.

  Don’t believe all you read and hear about Evolution. Science has reclaimed God, but no one’s going to rush out to tell you. Do you really think someone as smart as Tony Blair would say, “No, the queen of Great Britain is definitely not the voice of God on earth, it’s that old pope fellow Britain has been trying to sideline since Henry VIII was on the throne,” if he didn’t know it to be true? Not just believe it, but know it. To turn your back on hundreds of years of British thinking? This guy had the world in the palm of his hand, he had access to top secret information, he knew the heads of all governments - so guys, really, do you think he converted to Catholicism because it was easy, or because it would get him a job in the Middle East, or help him become President of Europe?

  No. He converted because he knew it was absolutely necessary for his salvation (and he was on the road to conversion way before the Iraq war). And you are who, precisely? Someone with a top degree from Oxbridge who has never had a proper job in his life, or who runs a multinational company for X,Y,Z billionaire who thinks Tony Blair is off his rocker?"

  Okay, so maybe the conversation doesn’t go quite like that, but you get the idea. Someone asks me why I believe in God, I say because I always have, and now the facts back me up.

  So, if you still like to doubt, if that’s still your inclination, then the only other observation for you to wrestle with is the fact that the alternative is to place us at the centre of the universe, because the cosmological doubters have had to concede this, knowing that this well accords with observable data that everything is flying away from us, and the balloon analogy necessarily disappears in their mathematics. That would make us the most special galaxy in the universe! What are the chances of that happening?

  The truth is that cosmology is offering us the truth in all directions. Caught between a rock and a hard place with all the available evidence, there are still those who bravely stagger from one mirage to the next in the hope that sufficient doubt will work its way into your mind, like a computer virus for the soul.

  But let’s move on. There are still more incredible facts to unearth.




  I’m struck by the Collins English Dictionary definition of light, which describes it as “the medium of illumination that makes sight possible.” That seems to have more religious connotations than I was expecting from a dictionary. Light is, if it is anything more than electromagnetic radiation, spiritual insight! To some, that may be figurative. In this book you will see that it is real. This is a book of hidden science that reveals the fact of God. In so doing, it reveals why human Evolution over millions of years is not true. By demonstrating the transcendent wonder of Nature that can only be the work of God, it unpicks the thread of Evolution in its entirety. Darwin could scarcely have imagined how accurate he was in predicting “light will be thrown on the origin of man.” What he had in mind, though, was illuminating the Evolution of man from a common ancestor with apes, yet light itself shows us he was wrong. The substance studied in the NASA-confirmed faster-than-the-speed-of-light creation of the universe is light itself, and it shows us so much more as we’ll see. The last 300 years have been a proving ground for all of us, showing us in our true colours in the battle for reason and faith, but at this time, and with this book, there can be no more doubts. God is real.

  “Light travels all possible paths but it is the quickest path that is the most probable,” so said Fermat, the renowned amateur mathematician who died in 1665. If it travels at all then it travels from point A and does not know where point B is but travels the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance must first exist for there to be a path to follow. Therefore the path comes before the light. “I am the way, the truth” and the “light”/(life) said Jesus of Nazareth. Was He communicating to us a fundamental construction of the universe? You first need a way for the truth to come to light/life. The ‘path’ that was created at a speed greater than the speed of light was required for the light to be able to journey along that path. The universe is bigger than its age allows… Space is created for time and matter to enter it…

  But the story of light is only just beginning...




  People of faith already feel they ‘know’ God exists and atheists ‘know’ He doesn’t. But it’s a brave atheist indeed who does not fully know how their own brain works - and none of us does - and assumes residing within their brain is a capacity to learn and grow that is cleverer than their own consciousness but is not the work of God. Just why would the Evolutionary thrust in Nature endow us with more brain power and ability than we’re consciously aware of - or need to procreate - as if it’s on a need-to- know basis? What does it know that we don’t know, and why does it share with us only vague survival and reproductive skills for millennia and keep the good stuff from us about how we actually work as a physical entity until the last few hundred years?

  Hundreds of thousands of years in the intellectual void, apparently - veritable thickos! - until, suddenly, we’re super Egyptians building pyramids only a few thousand years ago; then thinking astonishingly complex thoughts - certainly compared with a monkey, I suspect - in Greece with Aristotle and Pythagoras even more recently; and then in the last 300 years we’re getting industrious with heavy metals; and in the last half century or so we’re on the moon, having discovered the power to harness more than 25,000 miles per hour of gravity-defying escape-velocity. Okay, if you don’t believe we landed on the moon, fair enough, I won’t argue with you, but we do get past the earth’s atmosphere. And that’s the real point. Nature seems suddenly to have accelerated our intellectual grasp. We seem to have left that old proto-monkey-human well and truly behind. Right?

  But why? Has Nature prepared us for something it knows must be an inevitable consequence of the way it has ‘Evolved,’ to borrow from the Darwinian camp, and so has fore-armed us by forewarning us with self-consciousness and a questioning mind clever enough to unravel what it does for us in our name? We’ll see.

  We’ll tackle Evolution in due course (yes, again, Nature adapts the characteristics of a species in the same way dog breeders shape the species ‘canine’ and that is the extent of Evolution; but no, Nature does not change any species into a separate species. Like the guy choosing the cup of the Holy Grail for immortality at the end of the movie Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, you chose poorly in believing that second part, as we’ll see); but I offer science, not faith, in search of God. After all, the things unearthed by science existed before science existed - they are God’s things, not science’s things. For ‘God’s things’ the atheists will of course substitute ‘Nature’s things’ but as a pilgrim I naturally believe in God and so will credit God wherever it seems appropriate, knowing at all such times atheists will credit Nature. All too often, in unearthing the things of God, man claims them as his own and tries to diddle God out of His due, but the treasures of the field belong to the Crown, don’t you think?

  Proving the existence of God is not the aim of world religions. The leap of faith activates what I now call the dormant palace of eternity that lies within the relatively uncharted region of the brain (how I chanced upon that phrase I’ll get to in a moment). What we know of the human brain is next to nothing compared with its abilities and yet we presume to know so much of the universe. In reality all we have done is drawn the equivalent of a “here be dragons” map of existence, sketching out the few things we have observed and reaching only partial, sometimes deluded insights into the ways of our Great Creator.

  Those who are blessed with the gift of faith in God have access to something so profound inside the brain that they need no scientific elaboration, no concrete measure of the data they receive that nourishes their soul on a daily basis. They know and feel the blessed existence of God and that is enough. So when I set out to unravel the mysteries of the universe, to look for God in the concrete, the visible and the known, I worked from the certain knowledge afforded me by my early leap of faith that God not only exists, He is not separate from any one of us - He journeys with each and every human being not only from the outside looking in, but from the inside too.

  This may be scary, but it’s true.

  “To look, then, for God on the inside,” said a religious man I once knew, “one must not look to the heavens; one must close one’s eyes and turn the key we each carry inside us - a key that humbles us, embarrasses the proud, shames the self-righteous and dignifies the tired and lost with a secret companion locked deep inside: the key of prayer.” Well, I had to agree, prayer was key. But who was this guy, and why was he suddenly talking to me in this unsettling way? “There was a man who walked the earth,” he continued, “who said he was the Son of God. He was killed for his presumption. Those who know Him to be the Son of God constantly look to his injunction to pray, to His call to recite the Lord’s Prayer.”

  It’s a simple thing to say a prayer, I knew that much. But then he said something a little strange, which got me thinking it might be time to leave: “Watch for the tingle that embraces the spine and races to the brain.” Right, right. Okay. Gotcha. Before that, I was obviously doing it wrong! “It may not happen the first time,” he said, “nor even the third, but as you allow yourself to disappear, your ego submitting to the awesome majesty that is God…” – and that’s not easy to do, I know, we’re so caught up in ourselves – “…you will approach the thirty third recital.” The thirty third? I had to say it thirty three times in a row? He was kidding, right? “Take it slowly,” he advised, “hold in your mind the summit that is the thirty third prayer. Approach it with reverence. Will it to unlock the palace of eternity within you…” - that’s the phrase that stuck with me, for sure – “…Count ten, fifteen, thirty times, praying over and over until finally, at the end of the thirty second time of reciting the Lord’s Prayer, hold your breath for thirty three seconds and then breathe, deeply, as if coming up for air, and begin:


Our Father, who art in heaven

Hallowed be thy name

Thy kingdom come

Thy will be done

On earth

As it is in heaven

Give us this day our daily bread

And forgive us our trespasses

As we forgive those who trespass against us

And lead us not into temptation

But deliver us from evil

For thine is the kingdom

The power and the glory

Forever and ever



  Now, I’m not big on numerology. But I often wonder if the number 33 has special significance in the universe. Sounds strange, though, doesn’t it? I think it does, and certainly this guy’s suggestion to hold my breath for 33 seconds before saying the Lord’s Prayer for the thirty third time had me a little spooked. Thinking that numbers in themselves have any innate meaning beyond denoting amounts of things was not really something I’d given much consideration to, but when I thought a little more I guess I was often struck by the very odd correspondences we see - and we’ll look at many such correspondences as we go along – and maybe there is more than mere coincidence in some if not all of them, who knows?

  Not only was Jesus of Nazareth believed to have been crucified at the age of 33, a normal human spine has 33 vertebrae when the bones that form the coccyx are counted individually, so when this guy said watch for the tingle in the spine on the 33rd recital of the Lord’s Prayer, there may well have been a concrete reason for this - and no, I’m not a freemason of the 33rd degree, or any degree, and nor was he as far as I’m aware. Though if these number correspondences had any meaning I was sure it was not because of some society with secrets but because they are real.

  Without doubt, the universe is full of special numbers, it really is, I know that much from what I read in mathematics and physics, and we’ll see more of them shortly, but whether they hold underlying truths beyond their special number function I can’t say for sure, and anyway, thirty three seconds holding my breath? Who was he kidding! Fairly obviously, if you deprive your body of oxygen for 33 seconds and take a deep breath afterwards you will get a general sense of ‘gratitude’ from your body, it’s a normal physiological response that sweeps out around the nervous system. There’s nothing special in that. But it will not concentrate itself as a feeling around the spine. Yet in prayer, and in this way, he said, “you are charging up a radio to God. And that is something different altogether.” A radio to God? Last time I heard that phrase, Indiana Jones was talking to his rival in Raiders of The Lost Ark. This guy surely meant well, but after all, a radio to God…?

  Well, I can’t say whether it will work for you, and nor is it necessary to feel anything to reach God, but guess what, it really did work for me. No kidding. The guy was right after all. And I hope it works for you, if it’s ever your inclination to pray. Well I’m a pretty skeptical guy, but in any event that was surely one of the oddest encounters of my life, though I’m glad it happened.

  Sometimes it doesn’t work for me. My preparation is wrong, my mind is distracted, or I get a sense that I’m really only half-heartedly praying. Then it never works, and even with all these things at optimum levels it may never work for you. And that’s okay. But if you have not been blessed by the gift of faith and are curious, then of all the things you do this year practice this odd little nugget and aim to ignite the tingle in your spine. Whether you succeed or not, prayer is still the key that opens the palace of eternity, of that I’m certain.

  Now I know that if you’re intellectually proud, if you imagine you’ve unraveled the mysteries in protons, leptons and quarks and the God particle and the like and have no need of prayer, have no need of God, then faith and prayer are hard to handle, but if you still feel compelled to try the above then great. If, however, you have read this far and dismiss the above as so much hokum and set out to deride its message, then in the best Old Testament tone I can muster - as sufficiently Bunyan-like as I can make it - you will hear a baleful laugh as faint as a whisper that is Apollyon rejoicing, and may both you and he find peace...

  Okay, so I’m still new at this whole pilgrim-like, Bunyan-esque stuff. That much is clear. It’s not my métier, as they say. I’m in danger of sounding like Gregory Peck hunting Moby Dick! But I guess if you truly find all this talk of prayer ridiculous then all I can say is that it definitely takes time to dismantle years of intellectual pride. You give up so much of yourself. And it’s hard. But that’s the idea. Your ego is truly getting in your way.





10 The All-Seeing 'I'


  I’m conscious of the fact that you may come to this book armed with serious intellectual doubts. How can God hear our prayers? And what about what you may have read regarding God’s omnipotence and omniscience? You’ve probably read somewhere that, logically, to be omniscient God cannot also be omnipotent, because He must know His future actions from the start and so cannot change them, thereby rendering Him less than omnipotent. This reasoning fails to take into account the two states of being that God occupies at the same time. Think of the way scientists view light, as both a particle and a wave. Well, which is it? It is both. But also only one thing at a certain time. Light can be two things at once and then one thing under certain circumstances. This is in any science book, and we’ll come to it in more detail shortly. Think of the particle as the here and now, for instance, and the wave as the limitless possibilities of the future, made concrete only in the moment of decision. Since to know all things must include the future and the future is by definition a field of limitless possibilities, all possible futures are known by God and only the one experienced future is determined at the point of decision, collapsing the wave function of particle physics into ‘particle existence’ the moment God ‘encounters’ that moment. Choice, then, remains integral to God’s existence: He can know all possible things at once - omniscient - and at the moment of decision He can also create any one of those possible realities - omnipotent. Since to know all things in advance includes the decision He finally decides upon, all possible realities are known but not physically experienced at once by God. Only the act of Creation itself makes concrete any one of those possibilities, for instance. He can both know all and still leave room for decisions. The decision creates the lived experience. The decision is the power. The infinite palate of decisions from which to choose is the knowledge.

  And with the power to harness a speed faster than the speed of light, any decision could of course be undone, time and action could be reversed, but in being all-knowing and all-powerful, decisions taken are the ones that are right for God for all time, whether He regrets those decisions or not – and He sure regrets a lot in the Bible! In this same way we make our decisions and must live with them, even if we regret them. When God is said to have made us in His image, we get to glimpse exactly what this means for One who is omniscient and omnipotent: He can do everything, can know everything, but chooses to live with the decisions He makes, even if He later regrets them and hopes to change things for the better. We are not similarly all-powerful and all-knowing, of course, but we understand that to be so still requires power with responsibility; choices to be made that one has to live with.

  The seeming paradox at the heart of light being both a wave and a particle has in the past been viewed through a Schrödinger’s cat mode of thought: basically that theoretical physics discovered a way to view the sub-atomic world as operating in a dual state of being and non-being at the same time and only coming ‘into existence’ at the exact moment of interaction with the known universe. In a box a cat is alive and dead in a certain hypothetical experiment, and only when we look in the box - observe the molecules - is the cat now either alive or dead. The physicist, Schrödinger, who died in 1961, mocked the idea with this very scenario, but this is now the startling conclusion of sub-atomic physics: all things are possible at each moment until ‘interacted’ with – which in the case of particle physics means: ‘measured.’

  So that God is easily able to be both omniscient and omnipotent. There is no contradiction, or paradox. Science, effectively, can show us the way to God on the outside, if we look.

  Prayer, on the other hand, leads us to God on the inside… Many are bewildered by the claim that God is able to listen to each and every one of our prayers. There are surely too many of us and how in any case is He able to hear the whispers over the din of the world?

  The life we live, day in, day out, rarely gives us time to unravel the realities behind our daily reality. For example, experiments by the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden have shown that when a special cyber-helmet is placed on one’s head and its vision onto the world is linked to the vision of someone else in the room, the person is automatically placed inside the head of the other person. They then cannot distinguish between the reality that is perceived by the person across the room from their own lived experience inside the helmet. It unsettles the perception of who is really experiencing our lives: are we each an individual ‘I’ or is that an illusion created by the physical shell we occupy? Do we in fact share a common ‘deep consciousness’ that roots itself outside of our physical bodies, a consciousness that allows for the perception of individual experience by one strand of the whole slotting into our bodies for the duration of our lives, a consciousness that is all of us held together at once in some invisible soup, some dark matter and back to which we return at the end of our lives?

  This metaphysical idea is one of the counters to the criticism by Evolutionists that a designer would not be so poor at designing the internal organs of the body! I know, can you believe the audacity of some of these people? They have no idea how any of life gets going and they think they could do better in the design of the eye, for instance, that, as they see it, gets the vision all back to front. The retina is back to front, they say; the photocells point away from the source of the light. The rays of light have to pass through a load of wires before they hit the photocells. Only blind Evolution, they say, could be so clumsy at first and then try to correct its mistake over time. Similarly with a giraffe’s laryngeal nerve that goes from the brain down to the bottom of the neck and back up again to the throat area, instead of cutting a corner and going straight across; or the tube that channels semen, the vas deferens, from the testes to the penis - they see this tube hanging awkwardly over the ureter and conclude only blind Evolution could get the design so wrong. A God could not be so useless!

  Well, firstly, God is not a German car manufacturer, which seems to be the limit of design for Evolutionists.

  Secondly, when the brain is wired even a fraction of a millifraction incorrectly the brain function goes wrong. You think something as magnificently precise as the brain, with its billions of connections and decision-making processes is poorly designed? No it isn’t. You think Evolution would chance upon perfect design in the crucial area of the body and screw it up elsewhere, when it’s functioning normally? No it wouldn’t.

  So instead of trying to figure out how the two can appear to be contradictory, why not use the mental power we have to see how they could be complementary? How’s that for more imaginative thinking? How about we see why what Evolutionists call the “elegant illusion of design” on the outside is not also quite so ‘elegant’ on the inside…  

  Well, here’s how any spatially-mapped organ in the body may come to look like it’s taking the long or awkward route: there was an experiment by Nobel prize-winning embryologist, Roger Sperry, in which the belly skin of a tadpole was removed and the skin of its back was removed, and the skins were swapped, grafted back to front. When the tadpole grew into a frog, Sperry tickled the front and the frog reached for its back. When he tickled its back, it reached for its front. Sperry believed this indicates that the body’s early development is governed by chemical signals - the ‘skin’ signal is localized in each part of our body as it is made, with the nerves sniffing out the pre-coded signal on the skin. The skin, no matter where it is, says ‘back’ or ‘front,’ ‘up’ or ‘down,’ ‘left’ or ‘right’ and also ‘ear’ or ‘nose.’ Picasso was clearly way ahead of his time because he appears to have intuited a fundamental condition of life, confirmed in this experiment: there is no particular place in our three-dimensional world that has a concrete locality outside of our brain signal’s pre-written sense of where that locality ‘should be.’

  So when I see the experiment that has the two people with cyber helmets on and one of them is in one corner of the room and they are made to feel as if they are in the position of the person at the other end of the room, this clearly goes to the heart of reality and our spatial awareness. When I saw that experiment I immediately thought of the Sperry experiment and then imagined that our two cyber-helmeted people were each given a compass. Before they placed the helmet on their head they would be asked to face away from each other, one facing north, the other facing south according to the compass they were looking at.

  For the first person, the arrow is pointing to their chest, say, so that north is behind them. Let’s call the first one a ‘he.’ He would have to walk backwards to head north (towards the person behind him, a ‘she’). For the second person, the arrow is pointing away from her chest, so she would have to walk forwards to head north (away from the man behind her). Now they put on their helmets. They are asked to look at the compass ‘in front’ of them. Their brain has already told them in which direction they need to walk to head north, and they should be walking in the same direction, one backwards and one forwards as they do so. With the new cyber helmets on, the memory of the first should still tell him to walk backwards and the memory of the second should tell her to walk forwards, in direct opposition to what their new spatial awareness tells them to do.

  In which direction do you think they would walk? Do they reverse their direction of travel, heading south instead of north, while they think they’re heading north? Is what their memory tells them or what their eyes tell them, in opposition to the original ‘fact,’ the determining factor? Well, this experiment was never conducted as far as I know and the result wouldn’t matter because it shows us that confusion is likely, even for a brain that has just told itself to walk backwards or forwards. When it sees the new arrow pointing in the opposite direction to the way they thought they were going to walk, they will hesitate. Imagine then a brain that is wired from birth, like the tadpole, with the swapped skins’ signals that are like swapped cyber helmets. 'Real’ north is only what we perceive it to be from the signals wired from birth.

  There is then no true north, south, east or west. No up or down, no left or right. Only relative position. So for a designer of the tubes within the body that are made not for our eyes to perceive but purely for biology to function, notions of up, down, left, right, distance and short cuts are meaningless. There is a function. The pathway to wiring that function need not conform to our pre-wired notions of spatial elegance or design efficiency. Especially when that notion of spatial elegance and ‘design’ efficiency is a relative function of the pre-wired chemistry and not an absolute. In other words, three-dimensional design efficiencies are products of the brain, not realities in ‘real reality.’ The frog has shown us that much.

  The ‘work’ a design does in Nature is its brilliance and elegance and design efficiency. The biological result and the work it does is our route to the magnificence of God. The rest is an arbitrary construct that is the product of our three-dimensional point of view, a view that has no basis in ‘real reality.’




  I know, all this metaphysical stuff! But this is God’s realm. Beyond the physical. And further corroboration of the disjunction between our reality and a higher reality comes as follows…

  In another experiment recently documented by scientist John-Dylan Haynes, the subject - we’ll call them a ‘he’ for convenience - was asked to make decisions while connected to a brain-mapping scanner. As the subject was asked to decide between two possibilities, he believed he made that decision, and at the exact point of making that decision he pressed a button. As he lived the moment of decision, he pressed a button. Incredibly, however, the brain scan showed that up to six seconds elapsed between the brain making a decision and his being aware of ‘suddenly’ making a decision and acting upon it. That is, six seconds before he thought he had decided, his brain had already decided.

  The brain scan illuminated two possible colours for his decision, yellow for one decision and blue for another. The part of his brain responsible for activating the yellow lit up six seconds before he believed he made the decision. The part of his brain responsible for activating the blue lit up six seconds before he believed he made the decision.

  Conclusion? Inference from the data? Our consciousness is alive and independent of our being aware of it. So our sense of ‘self’ is an illusion. Our deeper selves, connected in a soup of Dark Matter, maybe - or God - assigns a physical body a specific consciousness that allows it to function, believing itself to be independent of everything around it; but its connection with the ‘deep consciousness’ that binds us all governs the decisions. Our true selves are in the ‘space’ between our physical shells and the common glue that binds us: our minds. Not yet our souls, I don’t think. I’ll come to that when we reach the Holy Bible. But certainly what constitutes our minds.

  There is a fascinating area of research into the possible physical dimension of the mind. While experiments are inconclusive, it has been said that, when a body is weighed in a sealed unit at the moment before the point of death, as has been done by terminally ill patients assisting science, and it is observed that the body gets lighter at that last moment, the moment of death, we can say that there is a physical dimension to the mind that rises up out of the body. It has weight. Measurable weight! And it releases its hold on the physical brain to return to the common All, which is God.

  Some even suggest that it is not merely the mind, but the soul that is being measured. To say that it is the soul within us may be true.

But there is something in the Holy Bible that leads me to believe it is in fact our ‘conscious mind’ that has weight, if the experiment accounts for the weight of anything that leaves the body upon death. Our ‘soul’ is something immortal that does not reside within us, within our mortal bodies; but rather it is, I think, something to which we return after death, but to which we are connected at all times until we do so, like an umbilical cord between the mother and the child. It’s not an easy sell, I know, but when we get to the Bible, you’ll see what I mean. We can keep calling it the soul until we get to that. 

  Now you can believe or disbelieve the basis of these experiments if you choose to, but I picture a single entity whose wires or tendrils, or even vines if you like, reach down into our known reality, each vine a person connected to the whole and being given a sense of individual lived experience until ‘our time on earth is up.’

  That seems fantastical, right? And how does all this relate to prayers anyway? Well, a computer can easily detect any one bit or byte within a computer at any one moment, and there are millions upon millions of ‘connections.’ The whole is the sum of its parts and that’s what makes it work. The whole of the universe is the sum of its parts. All parts connect to each other. Electricity fires up our own circuitry but it is connected to the ‘deep consciousness’ that lies outside of our physical shell so that a prayer from any one of us does not get lost in the ether, as it were. Prayers are ‘heard’ because the thought is connected, physically connected to that ‘deep consciousness’ that lies outside our brain function.

  There is, to continue the computer analogy, a central server that ‘reads’ all computers attached to it. God is acting in much the same way as a central server, able to pick up on any signal ‘sent’ to it. It seems we needed to invent computers before we could truly cope with this thought. It turns out that listening to our prayers is conceivably a surprisingly simple process.

  If God’s DNA runs through us like a stick of rock, as it must since we have a common origin and I believe the common origin is God, not just Design, then we never die, as such - we inhabit a body for the duration of a life of which one part of our brain remains connected to the common ‘All,’ which is God.

  Perhaps it is easier to think that we are not yet ‘born,’ and that the “breath of life,” spoken of in Genesis, is when we regain our immortal soul upon death. Instead, we have the “blessing of life,” as described in Genesis, that is not yet the “breath of life” - the blessing of life is this realm, the breath of life is the immortal realm. It’s a theory, certainly, though there is textual evidence in Genesis to support this as we’ll see  - specifically the sense that before Adam, “man” was created with the blessing of God; but later, Adam comes on the textual scene and gets the “breath of life” in Eden. He will “die” if he eats of the tree of knowledge, so before he does so he is immortal, destined not to be part of the rest of man and all Creation, which already exists by the blessing of God.

  When he does eat of the tree of knowledge he ‘dies’ - that is, he is banished to our current mortal realm. He and his offspring have to work their way back into God’s favour, but the rest of humanity already exist by God’s blessing. Adam and his offspring are God’s chosen people because Adam was given and then lost his ‘life,’ his immortal life, given to him by the breath of God. The Chosen people, the Jewish race, are living as we all live, in this realm that is not yet ‘life,’ not yet immortal life. We all, Jews included, live by the blessing of God only.

  But the Jewish race have the distinction of having a first father who was immortal. The rest of us (the Gentiles) do not have this distinction, but we can gain our immortal soul, like Adam, by the Grace of God, at the point that we shuffle off this mortal coil.

  Okay, so this is not an easy thing to grab hold of, I’m well aware of that. But when we later go through the text, you’ll see that it’s not hard to see why this theory holds water.

  Meanwhile, it seems clear that, putting souls, minds, life and death distinctions aside, common to all matter is God. We are connected, physically, at all times.

  Since we know that computers stagger us in their capacities, it should come as no surprise that we will be staggered by the ‘programming’ skill of God.

  You wonder can God hear our prayers? Heaven’s above, that’s the easy part! The answer to our prayer is often the most difficult to fathom.




   So if I believe in God, as I do, and feel that I know He exists and need no external data to corroborate that feeling and so take the necessary leap of faith that is nourished daily by the act of prayer, why then should I set out to unravel the mysteries of the universe; to look for God in the concrete, the visible, and the known? Is there a secret doubt lurking inside me? No. For me - employing my best pilgrim tones at this point - with God within and without, above and below and in all things, His signature running through the universe like DNA, I am not challenging God in unraveling the mysteries, I am not questioning His existence, I am not even offering a sop to those who doubt and need evidence to believe. I don’t think that’s God’s way into the palace of eternity. No, in unraveling the mysteries I’m awakening in me the greater clarity of mind required to better appreciate the majesty of God and share the truth as I discover it to be, to bear witness to that truth. I’m a pilgrim on a journey, and I seek a revelation.

  We have been given faculties beyond our present understanding of them, that much is clear. God, housed within and without, above and below, and in all things, allows us to look upon His face if we care to - He has given us the ability to reach heights of understanding from where currently only He is able to view the universe. It is because He is also within us that we can access this ability, for we are made in His image, mind and all. God is within and without, above and below and in all things because ALL is of God, and we partake in an awakening through faith and love and charity and hope - and, yes, scientific investigation.

  To those who remain happy in atheism, content that theirs is a brave and splendid intellectual position - despite what we have discovered so far - perhaps this is not the book for you. But whoever derides faith, champions the Humanist cause, and places man alone at the centre of our universe because that’s all they know, they may find it easy to reject God and stand in bewildered pity at the sight of those with faith in God, convinced of our delusion. But as God lives within all of us, He will not reject any of us if that’s our wish. How could He? We are of God, like it or not. There is no escape from ourselves in life, and in life God walks with us, a part of us, his DNA running through us like the proverbial stick of rock. So let us, together, further illuminate that rock.













11 Space and Time


  To begin at the beginning: space and time. In the Bible, the first words are ‘In the beginning…’ And the first word is ‘in.’ The word ‘in’ is used here to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits - expressing a spatial, temporal relationship. In. In the end, in the beginning, at some point in the middle, or any point between the beginning and the end. This is how we relate to the notion of space and time. We understand that time flows like a river from source to sea. But then what happens to the river that flows from source to sea? At sea it evaporates, rises up, reforms as a cloud, falls as rain on a mountain and so begins the cycle again. The beginning, then, is only a re-beginning? Why am I being made to think in circles when I read this?

  Look again, now, at the first words of the Bible. ‘In the beginning God created…’ God chooses a moment in time, the beginning of time and space itself, to create. Is that how it was? But in order to create time and space, God cannot also be of time and space. And yet He must know of time and space in order to create it. This seems like a paradox. Let us remove God from the paradox a moment and see if it works any better. There is a moment in time and space where time and space come into existence. No, let’s go further back and take space out of the equation, because it says, ‘In the beginning…’ and so time exists before space. It’s within a moment of time that space is created. A moment exists where space is created. But that moment works in a realm that moves faster than the speed of light...


  But let us take that moment in time and cut it in half.


  If time can be measured then it can be cut in half (if you’re a mathematician and you’re into fractals, you’ll know where I’m going with this). Now we have a whole other complete unit of time, which is itself half the time of the original time. But if something exists and can be halved then it can be halved again. And again… So now, recalling God, the time it takes for God to decide to create the universe includes the time it takes for the decision to emerge, form and be executed. At each of those points, the time it takes can be halved and halved again. If each point along the decision-making path can be divided into two and then again divided into two and so on, each point in time can itself be divided… yes, infinitely.

  Place a ruler (preferably not the President of The United States) between you and the nearest wall to you. Halve the distance and then halve it again. At some point you touch the wall. The distance between your finger and the wall appears to collapse to nothing, joining you and the wall in a touch. Mathematically, however, no matter how close you appear to get to the wall and close enough even to feel it, you cannot, mathematically speaking, actually reach the wall because there is an eternity of halving the distance between you and the wall.

  The same is true of time. And yet still we feel the wall, we feel time passing as we approach it, approach the moment and pass through it, watching time become history. It seems we approach eternity at every turn, with each apparent shift in our relation to space and time - we wait for the kettle to boil, we pick it up when it has boiled - being met by a comfortable sense of reality. These appear to be continuous streams of infinity swirling around us in all directions at once, coming together to form a sense of ‘the here and now.’




  But what is a sense of the here and now? In your head you can visualize two points in space and between them you can visualize a distance. In your head you can see yourself walking the distance from point A to point B. Now, ask yourself this: have I walked that distance in reality? If not, then does that distance you have visualized exist at all? We say that it exists in the abstract - in your mind, as if your mind were somehow not connected to the ‘real world’ of space and time. But we can ‘see’ the distance. In a dream we can even ‘feel’ the distance - it’s a palpable reality, capable of being touched and felt within the confines of our mind within sleep. We say ‘sleep’ as if our brain dips out of reality for the duration, and everything we experience within sleep-mode is a fabrication of our mind that has no basis in reality. But if reality is what our mind sees and feels while awake, why is what we see and feel while asleep any less a reality?

  Perhaps it’s because we can’t manipulate it or measure it with concrete certainty, over and over; we can’t test its parameters with scientific tools. It does not bend to our conscious will, so we accord it no status in reality. But this is our conscious mind talking when we dismiss its reality. Our unconscious mind makes no such distinction. A dream can seem as real as anything we experience in the daytime, so our unconscious mind is happy for us to believe it is real while asleep.

  We spend about one third of our whole lives on earth asleep. At 90, you’ve had just 60 years awake; at 30, just 20 years awake; and at 9, just 6 years awake. If the balance were the other way around, spending just one third awake, would we be more inclined to say life is in fact mostly sleep and dreams?

  What if we were to say that only 10 percent of our lives was spent awake - in ‘reality’ would we have to conclude that most of the time our existence is a fiction? If just one percent of your life you spent awake and 99 percent asleep, what then? Surely dreams would take on a whole new meaning for us. We would naturally say that they are where we ‘live’ and that our waking reality was but a delusional interlude. We would necessarily value sleep and dreams much more and accept that what feels and seems real in dreams is actually our life’s true reality because we would not give just 1% of our existence, while awake, the status of truth and reality and value the remaining 99% of our existence as little more than rest in an unreal landscape.

  But we can’t do much in dreams, and anyway they don’t really get in the way too much, whereas while awake we can control our environment, interact with it in a controlled, measurable and concrete way, and that’s what makes it reality for us. 

  Fortunately, we do have a better balance between sleep and being awake, yet the ‘here and now’ is still only two thirds of what we would call our reality. We exist while asleep, but our dreams are not our reality.

  The thought of the distance between A and B, whether while asleep or awake, is but the memory of our experience of distances between lots of As and Bs. So before a human being can visualize a distance between A and B they must first experience it, log it in the mind and remember it. So now life and reality are what we recall of lived experience. We couldn’t in fact spend 99% of our lives asleep and in a dream and 1% awake, because that 1% experience while awake actually gives us the dream material we need to dream - there surely wouldn’t be enough material to keep the dream going for the remaining 99% of the time.

  So, sleep merely sorts out the day’s experiences for us and cements the memories. But the A and B must first be there for us to experience it and then recall it. Life outside the mind must first exist for us to experience it and recall it.

  So whatever reality is, we don’t make it, it exists already outside our minds. Whether the particle must await our observation for the particle to ‘come alive’ or simply ‘be alive’ and await our observation of it for us to experience reality, the effect on our brain is the same. We simply ‘look at’ reality, and experience reality as an after-event, allowing for the speed it takes for the light to interact with our eye and our eye to interact with our brain and for our brain to log and recall that event.

  We connect with reality through memory. But the memory is a physical manifestation of the brain. It operates in a specific part of the brain. That ability to perceive, log, and recall is built into the brain from the outset, from the moment of conception. Genes from parents meet up in the new ‘being,’ so our ability to perceive, log and recall is written in a man’s and a woman’s genes that combine to form the new genetic encoding called the ‘human’ you and me.

  But - and this is where it gets truly interesting - if I am descended from all living things, then the first thing was encoded with the ability to perceive, log and recall. If encoded with the ability to perceive, but not log then it could not recall. If encoded with the ability to perceive and log but could not recall, then it could not learn to grow and adapt from recalling the things it had learned. If it was encoded with the ability to recall, it must first log what it recalls and also have an ability to perceive in order to log, so to perceive is crucial in the genetic code.

  But how does it learn to use what it perceives without learning how to log?

  No, it must come ready-armed with the ability to perceive and log.

   To perceive and log is to actively store information. To store information one must know the value of the storage and how to retrieve it, so the notion of memory must come ready-wrapped in the gene pool, because without the notion of memory, one cannot encode it to begin with. Is it possible that perception in the smallest part of Nature already incorporates logging and memory/recollection? Is the smallest part of the atom - the Higgs-boson, perhaps, or smaller still? - built to perceive, log and recall from the start? The alternative is for the ability to perceive to be one part of Nature that attracts a second part of Nature, the ability to log, which attracts a third part of Nature, the ability to recall. But how does a stand-alone entity that has the ability to recall, or perceive or log know to reach out to the other essential entities? How do they know to interact purposefully?

  Or is it mere chance that three separate abilities, to perceive, to log and to recall, are each made alone in the universe, and by chance they come together by the force of the big bang and by coming together form a unit of ‘stuff’ that by itself has the ability to perceive, log and recall?

  It’s puzzling stuff.

  Fortunately, very clever people have dug deep into the well of the atomic structure to find answers to these thorny questions of space, time, memory and encoding.













12 QED, God Exists


  Quantum mechanics is the field of study that looks at the physical reality at the atomic and subatomic levels of matter. Within this field is ‘quantum superposition’ that looks at all possible states of existence for the particles and subatomic particles under examination,


and it shows that where there are more ways for a thing to happen, the chance that it happens goes down.


  This runs in the opposite way to how we are used to thinking, but it is a verifiable mathematical certainty. If there is only one way for particles to come together to perceive, log and recall then they will do so and as they have done so in us, we can safely assume that there was only one way that they could do so, for if there were other ways, we would not be here. We must be, because we could not be otherwise. The universe must be just as it is, because it could not be otherwise. But is this of quantum necessity by chance or design? Is necessity a random chance event or a designed event?

  For these things to have become possible by design, they must either have been ‘thought of’ in a dream - which must in our experience come from a ‘reality’ - or they must have come fully formed from a conscious reality in existence prior to the big bang, which can only have come from a pre-existing state that functioned in the realm of perception, log and recall. We are either imagined by a creator who imbues us with dreamlike perception that feels real, or we have been imagined by a creator who then set about creating our universe and then living things capable of perception, log and recall. Either way, perception, log and recall are three fundamental conditions for existence and if we are designed then they necessarily pre-existed the big bang.

  So then chance plays what kind of role prior to the big bang? Things that exist, exist of necessity whether by chance or design, but what of things that don’t yet exist? Perception log and recall must exist prior to the big bang if we are designed as these are encoded realities that need to be computed before launching onto existence. But what of chance, prior to existence? 

  There is no mathematical reality that can quantify either chance or design prior to existence itself. It is only at the quantum level that the mathematical formula above exists - the more chances, the less likely. Nonexistence occupies an infinite realm, where chance is meaningless since there are no parameters, except infinity. In the infinite, chance is therefore nonexistent. Even using quantum formula, chance is nonexistent prior to existence because chance is infinite, so therefore it is infinitely unlikely that anything depending on it for its existence is going to happen. And you can’t pin down infinity at any point to make it happen. In the infinite, there is no chance.

  Since there is only one other way we can come into existence, by design, we have therefore come into existence by design. As we do exist, we are of necessity, but only design can account for it, mathematically speaking.

  Looking at this more plainly, this seems possible because design is not a function of number. Chance is a function of number. Design is not. Chance computes numbers to underpin its reality. Design can operate in the infinite because it is not a concept that operates in a quantitative state. Design is thought, not quantitative number - it may use number to assist in the realization of thought, but it does not itself rely on quantitative number. So again, since we have come into existence we must therefore have done so by design. Mathematics shows us we are designed, not randomly created. To be randomly created from nothing is mathematical nonsense. To be designed fits the data.

  It is clear, then, that perception, log and recall are three ‘skills’ that must have come together as one from the outset and not ‘pulled’ together by random chance, because if the universe is designed, as mathematically it must be, then it need not rely on chance to wait for the three fundamentals to come together to form the basis of life, it need only design them to be a three-in-one thing, from the start. This is the shortest route to its actualization in reality. For one thing it would be long-winded to rely on chance to get it right. That is a condition also underpinned by quantum physics, namely a reformulation of the classical physics notion of ‘the principle of least action’ in which everything from a photon of light to a lobbed cricket ball takes the most efficient path from its starting point to its end point. Chance is much too inefficient a tool to employ to get the job done, so, obeying the laws of physics too, perception, log and recall would not come together by chance, but by the efficiency of design. 

  Now, I didn’t create mathematics, and I didn’t work out the fundamental mathematics of all things at the quantum level. Somebody else did and it can be found in any quantum physics book, but there will be no full exploration of the necessary logical implications, as it appears to be but one strand of a complete puzzle that no one has yet seen fit to bring together in one place.

  Why the silence? I think we’ve touched on that...

  Added to this, since genetic codes are handed down from one or other parent, they are not mixed like in a washing machine, but are ‘selected’ from one or other of our parents, this means that for the first parents, male and female, they each needed one or other parent to provide them with the genetic coding for perception, log and recall. The gene can’t come from both.

  Remember, perception, log and recall is one thing with three functions; an integrated whole, that needs each one at the same time to function as a whole. And as perception, log and recall have been shown to be necessary as a job lot from the start, so that they could not have come together separately from other components as the first necessary components (one gene code performing three functions, just to be clear), so it is that the first parents of whatever species must have had only one parent, who gave them the necessary ability to perceive, log and recall (Adam is given this gene by God, for instance).

  But this means that the first parent must have had two of the job lots - two sets of perception, log and recall, so as to be able to give one to the female and one to the male.

  Therefore the first thing that came into existence came complete with the ability to duplicate (God).

  So now not only must the first thing come complete with the ability to perceive, log and recall, but also to duplicate (God duplicated perception, log and recall from Adam’s rib, to create Eve’s perception, log and recall). The idea of having the DNA, as it were, to perceive, log and recall built into the first thing in the universe is a mathematical certainty. To add to this the necessary requirement to duplicate lends wit to wisdom. It is wonderfully concise, and tantalizingly geometrical. There are therefore five things required to create the universe: perception, log, recall, duplication... and the Designer, existing in an infinite realm before all things - God.

  So, to recap, the first living thing on earth if arising spontaneously, at random, from nothing, would need to be able to duplicate itself, as does each human cell, but it would itself need one parent to give it the other single gene required to perceive, log and recall, that three-in-one gene. If the first organism arises spontaneously at random and comes complete with the ability to perceive, log, recall and duplicate, then it only has to figure out - so that we can later figure out, here and now - how to avoid the mathematical certainty that it does not in fact appear at random, since to come from nothing means chance is nonexistent. Infinity doesn’t do random.

  QED, God exists.

  And not just Intelligent Design. God! For Intelligent Design has no place in engineering a universe that is too big for its chronological boots, creating our universe within time after a super universe is created outside of time. That’s not mere Intelligence. That’s miraculous. Truly miraculous.




  In the beginning, God said: “Let there be light...” What are the chances of there being mere Intelligent Design when the exact ingredients for the universe to exist are communicated in the opening lines of the Holy Bible - Space, time, water and light? This was written thousands of years ago, before Newton or Copernicus. Space, time, water, light: the recipe for life. The Holy Bible is the received Word of God. The scientific answers were in front of us all along.

  But there is yet more explosive corroboration to come, drilling down into the science and the text in detail, as we’ll see.

  So far we’ve talked in very general terms, but we need to start getting more specific.

    Going back to our view of light as both a particle and a wave for a moment, the physicist Heisenberg encapsulated this world in his Uncertainty Principle, stating, “the more precisely the position is determined the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.” In other words, if you fire gamma rays with small wavelengths at a neutron, for example, and the high frequency/high energy rays/photons hit the neutron and instantly alter its speed, well, we’d know where it was but could not know how fast it was going at that moment. To ‘observe’ is to interact and so alter the observed particle’s speed. If you show the speed, by stretching the wavelength and reducing the frequency of light, well, because the wavelengths are longer you can’t lock down the exact position at any one moment. So speed and position in space mean space-time is indeterminate at the quantum, sub-molecular level and ‘the path’ only comes into existence when we observe it.

  At every turn, existence waits for interaction with an observer before the reality of the moment is fixed. So the wavelengths of visible light for us give the illusion of concrete space and time, but the reality of that space and time is not something we can ever actually tune into. For this to be true, our waking lives are no more certain than our sleeping lives in determining reality, though we are confident that our waking lives inform our sleeping lives.    

  If Evolution were true - not just the Evolution we see in dog breeding and plant characteristics changing, etc, which is just a fact of Nature not proof that all things Evolved from one thing – then, for one thing, Evolution itself must first comprehend this duality we see at the quantum level and resolve it for daily use, otherwise it would never be sure when or where to ‘step forward’ in Evolution. And while it cannot think ahead, it can only react in hindsight (and for Evolutionists it is not in any way conscious) it would have no chance in this uncertain, sub-molecular world. Scientists who subscribe to Evolution and no God will only say that Evolution, by chance, somehow, and they admit to not knowing how, ‘figured out’ how to navigate the indissoluble problem of not knowing where or when you are. Remember, this duality goes for all matter, not just ourselves in our minds. Each particle has to resolve this duality or be pre-coded to do so by Intelligent Design/God. But in order to comprehend the problem beforehand and provide an operating solution that lets things feel comfortable in the uncertainty of space-time it would have to construct a pathway through the uncertainty principle for our conscious minds to accept the reality as concrete, fixed and determinate at every point. But the reality of uncertainty in space-time at every point for each sub-molecule that comes together to first observe the uncertainty, log it, recall it and then figure out how to deal with it as Evolution moves forward, would mean that the originating molecules themselves could not operate on such an uncertain platform. They must have been ‘outside’ the uncertainty system to know how to handle it, otherwise they’d never be certain how to handle it. For practical, everyday use as it Evolves in the gene pool, that is. For, if the originating molecules were formed directly within the ‘uncertainty system’ then its initial ability to observe log and recall and then use the data to Evolve would be impossible, since at the start of all existence, at the quantum level, only uncertainty exists as to where and when anything is - nothing could communicate with anything else to know where and when, only where or when it is - and that means speed or position remain possibilities only - infinities - and the more options for something to happen at the quantum level, the less likely it is to happen so nothing would happen. Life would not exist.

  If there is infinite choice as to which way to interpret the ‘uncertainty data’ then there is no Evolution of molecules. And by ‘observe’ it doesn’t mean conscious interaction, it means coded interaction. And the code could never begin to be written at random or by blind degrees since nothing is certain. Chemical A operates in one way and ‘observes’ another chemical but needs to have it written within itself how to react to the interaction. The uncertainty principle would interrupt the coding since the meeting of chemicals is, in particle physics, ‘to observe.’ At our most fundamental level we are all chemicals observing chemicals. So, even sub-molecular chemicals would have no chance to determine the world around them. All scary, all weird, all true.

  So, only an awareness that resided ‘outside’ the uncertainty system could apply the ‘illusion tweak’ necessary for the molecules to function in a deterministic way - remember, each molecule must be pre-programmed with the correct chemical sequence to first be able to observe, log, recall and interpret the data and then act on all that data to figure out how to decide to move forward. No matter how fast it happens, it has to happen in sequence. And the correct sequence first time, at that, or life is over before it begins.

  The truth of the necessity, the reality, and the fact of God becomes ever more difficult to deny.

  But there’s been a lot of talk about infinities, so just what does that mean, ‘infinity,’ really? The next chapter is not the easiest class to take but we need to look at it because we’re on a pilgrimage - to try to understand the mystery of God through science.


















13 On the Subject of the Infinite


“The book of nature lies continuously open before our eyes (I speak of the Universe) but it can’t be understood without first learning to understand the language and characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and its characters are geometrical figure.”                                                                                                            

                               Galileo Galilei


  A key difficulty for physicists is that black holes exist, and at the centre of black holes there exists a collapse of maths and physics into what physicists and mathematicians refer to as ‘nonsense!’ -  i.e. infinity.

  It’s called a singularity, and Einstein’s maths created it and existing physicists confirm it exists, both in the centre of black holes and at the beginning of all space and time; although the exact difference is that the big bang is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant, and a black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point.

  There are thousands of black holes/singularities in the universe, and one in the centre of every galaxy and what we know about their construction is limited to our ideas of time and space. It takes slightly more than three of our suns to collapse in on each other to create a black hole, but at the centre of our Milky Way is a black hole that was formed from the collapse of one million of our suns! And they annoy the heck out of physicists who sense that they will have to grapple with that nonsense they have called infinity and dismissed as so much bad maths. But infinity is a reality, not a fiction. So what is it, exactly?

  When I first heard of black holes I thought of plug holes and then of safety valves. Gravity warps space and time and presses down on us at every turn. Each space-time moment is coiled with the residue of gravity - and since no-one knows what gravity is, only what it does, the money-fuelled search for the ‘graviton’ is on, by the way - but it is not infinite, except at the singularity of black holes. It seemed to me back then reasonable to suppose that the black holes that have been detected allow gravity that might otherwise be coiled around us infinitely to stream to the safety valve of black holes - with their own singularity - largely evenly distributed around the universe. Without them, I thought, gravity might envelop us and crush us altogether, or we’d all fly into space in a swirling incoherent mass.

  So black holes with pockets of infinity draw down on the pockets of time and space to leak gravity that might otherwise pervade the whole universe, infinitely. They’re safety valves. Maybe even ‘cooling towers,’ as I’ve speculated, taking the heat out of a galaxy; and maybe since they’re at the centre of every galaxy they are in fact the ignition key for every galaxy, so that black holes actually create galaxies (search for quasar HE0450-2958 on the internet for that possibility), just as the singularity at the beginning of space created all of space-time that wraps around them. Why else have one at the centre of all galaxies, if they’re not the creator of that galaxy, or at least fundamental to its formation in cooling down all the explosions in its making? That is if we’re thinking in terms of designing a galaxy. First you need a star to explode, or many stars. Then you wait for it to cool down. The more stars you explode at once in one place, the greater the black hole, the faster things suck down into the black hole to take the heat out of the explosion. Well anyway, scientists are truly undecided as to what they are, but however we think of them, they incorporate a notion of the infinite that needs to be looked at.

  So on the subject of the infinite, which is difficult to picture, I’m put in mind of something else again, Zeno’s paradoxes, alluded to above (reconfigured as fractals in modern mathematics, but it’s all the same thing) and famously focusing on the Tortoise and Achilles in a race. Zeno was the early Greek thinker who worked on the idea that everything is one thing and that nothing really moves in space or time. It goes something like this: Tortoise gets head start in race and Achilles chases him. Tortoise goes considerably slower than Achilles but since Achilles must cover quarter distance before he can cover half distance between them and 1/8th distance before he can cover quarter distance, he will never catch up, since he has to cross an infinity of points between his starting position and Tortoise’s current position.

  Practitioners of Calculus have side-stepped the paradoxes by replacing inconvenient infinities with infinitesimals, immeasurably small numbers, but quantitative numbers none the less, and practitioners of Algebra have felt similarly confident by showing that Achilles only has to run faster than the tortoise to catch up with it, but since relative speed dodges the concept of infinity itself by sidestepping the idea that any motion must first begin for either of them we can safely say that no one has satisfactorily argued against the principle. So let me characterize things as follows in order to move beyond it into something we can all agree on as to how we do come to know space and time as a measurable reality from infinity:


  If objects exist at all, they can be measured.

  If objects can be measured, they can be cut in two.

  If they can be cut in two, there is no limit to the object being cut in two.

  Any supposed limit is merely the outer limit of a further measurable object that can be cut in two, infinitely.

  For the above statements to be false, then nothing can be measured. 

  If nothing can be measured, it cannot exist.

  The fact that we measure means we exist or we don’t exist.

  We can all agree we exist, so then the spaces between us and anything else that exists can be measured.

  If the space between us can be measured, it can be cut in two infinitely.

  This means there is infinite space between us in the street, on the tube, the bus, the train.

  For infinite space to exist between us means there is no space between us.

  There is no ‘gap.’

  If we exist, we are not truly separated from any other object.

  If we don’t exist, then there is infinite nothingness.

  For infinite nothingness to exist, nothingness must have a value for it to exist.

  The value of nothingness is measured in relation to somethingness.

  If something exists it has form (however intangible).


  Somethingness only exists because of nothingness


  Nothingness only exists because of somethingness.

  Somethingness cannot be infinite because it is not zero.

  Nothingness cannot be infinite because it requires something to quantify it as nothing.


So, where are we? It feels a little helter skelter...




  Zero cannot be infinite because ‘infinite’ requires something. The concept of infinity necessarily incorporates an understanding of something without end. The thing without end is not 0 or 1.

 If somethingness is finite and is measured against infinite nothing then the two must be inextricably linked.

 0 and +0something, like 1.

  Existence itself is therefore the balance of infinite nothing and finite something?

  Zero cannot exist without +1?

  +1 cannot exist without zero?





  Infinity is certainly a very difficult idea to grasp... But let’s tread a little further. All particles that exist have their anti-particle, so anything that exists has its opposite. This shows that there is fundamental symmetry in the universe.

  For the universal symmetries to work, the opposite of something is not nothing, it is less than nothing, so the opposite of 1 is minus 1, and to have ‘less than nothing’ is to have a negative reality. In the same way that we look in a mirror, everything is reversed: left arm becomes right arm, etc. But, in the absence of particles and anti-particles, less-than-nothing need not exist for something to exist.

  Only 0 and 1 need exist.

  Infinity of nothing, and something else. Combined.


  Its mirror is the reverse: One and Zero, Zero and One, both needing to be first to exist at all, with no minuses.


  Indeed, minus infinity is still zero and so is nonexistent. As is -1 by itself, because minus 1 when measured from where and what? Meaningless.

  Okay, so infinity must also be a something to exist, because it needs a value against which to exist, but that something must also incorporate an infinity for it also to come into existence. God, mathematically, is, then, zero and one (01), squashed together; not infinity, but not one - but both something AND nothing at the same time, with something and nothing being a fundamental condition of the universe, as we see in particle physics.

  As I’ve worked through this, I’ve just realized that we have 10 fingers and ten toes (you would think I knew that already!). Those are the kind of coincidences that give numerologists a bad name, but it’s an elegant coincidence at least, don’t you think? We are of God, who mathematically is 01, and whose mirror image, in which we are made, is 10!

  So when God said we are made in His image - which is a mirror image - was this, too, yet another mathematical, scientific way to interpret the Bible? With 10 staring back at us from birth?

  Yes or no, the symmetry is arresting.




  Okay, let’s try to reclaim some comfortable thinking-ground. Since there was a time before the universe began (estimated by science to be 14 billion years ago) and because nothing cannot exist as a value without something, so something existed always, before the big bang. For infinity to exist, it requires a value to give it substance.

  So infinity is SOMETHING and NOTHING. At the same time. It is necessarily One-that-also-incorporates-the-value-0-to-realize-it.

  N.E-thing and O-thing.


  But less-than-nothing is something that exists in the universe as we know it. It is an anti-particle, created at the time of the big bang, which we can still detect today. Therefore the substance of the One prior to the big bang is not the substance created within the big bang. In creating the something we know as the universe, the Creator also needed to create its anti-particle equivalent. This is in addition to the 01 existence prior to the big bang. The type of something from the moment of the big bang and beyond is not of the same quality and substance as that in the material we study and measure scientifically.

  It’s as if prior to the big bang there was something called 01, together, and at the moment of creation a separate 1/-1 was brought into existence.

  So that when we number things, we shouldn’t in reality number them 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, but instead 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4,5-5,6-6,7-7,8-8,9-9 (i.e., 1minus1, 2minus2, etc., with the particle and anti-particle existing side by side).

  Then, upon Creation, those joint figures were separated, allowing us to see one thing separately from its negative twin. It didn’t go away, because we can recreate the negative twin in a laboratory, but it is tucked away in the fabric of existence to allow us to function in an orderly way.

  But that +1 is not the same as the 1 that we see when we write 01, because that 01 necessarily incorporates an infinity of nothing (0). The +1 and the -1 we use in mathematics therefore, and which our mind thinks of when we think of something coming from nothing, will never be able to resolve the puzzle of infinity. We must meld 0 and 1 together to do that. Our 1 is in fact a 1-minus1. The other 1 is God’s 1.

  The symmetries hold.

  In mathematics, the law of trichotomy states that every real number is negative, 0, or positive; that is, every element either strictly precedes, is the same as, or strictly succeeds, every other element. But in this analysis, zero vanishes as a real number. We might look at it as the pre-real-number state that gives real numbers the meaning we currently assign them, because in this pre-real-number state things are both something and nothing at the same time. The trichotomy law takes no account of an element being in two states at once, being both one thing and something else at the same time, and so is useless in our current mathematical thinking in this area.

  Indeed, what we may well have formulated here is the basis of an entirely new mathematics. Mathematicians thrive on a notion called completeness, such that any question should have an answer. When the answer was not provided by natural numbers, from +1 upwards, they devised negative numbers. But when the square root of + 1 was found to be both +1 and minus 1 (i.e. +1 x +1 = +1; and -1 x -1 also = +1), they realized that the horizontal number line from minus, through zero to one and above was incomplete because they couldn’t have two different things being the same thing. Worse, when the question was asked, what’s the square root of minus 1? it had no answer, so they devised a vertical axis through point zero and called any number on this new line an imaginary number (i), the result of which meant that the square root of -1 did not have to be incomplete, it could equal i. It’s not necessary to understand the mathematics of it, it is only necessary to see that mathematicians never reconciled the concept of something being two things at once; and impossible sums led to imaginary numbers.

  So let us review this. If the world of somethingness created at the moment of Creation is equal to finite less-than-nothingness plus finite somethingness, then the world of less-than-nothingness is also equal to finite somethingness plus finite less-than-nothingness. Therefore in creating something, one must at the same time create the presence of nothing, not merely the absence of something, but the presence of nothing, i.e. negative reality. 

  What is created in the positive world of our reality was also anti-created in the negative world.


  Something and ‘less than nothing’ come into existence at the same time.


  Logically, then, it might be reasonable to suppose that there is therefore an anti-big bang. This would mean at the time of the big bang, using current cosmological terminology, an infinitely cold, infinitely wide expanse contracted and banged into an infinitely small hole and banged out the other side into our current universe. But it could not have been another separate universe; they must have been connected because it needs its inverse to exist. Therefore, at the point of the big bang, there are two connected universes, one infinitely dense and hot, one infinitely cold and spread out, one in ‘something world’ and one in the ‘less-than-nothing world,’ but they combined to form one universe that has both + and - in it at every turn to create ‘something.’

  However, it’s a bit elaborate to imagine an infinitely cold, infinitely wide, negative expanse in opposition to an infinitely hot, dense point/singularity, so perhaps it would be easier to think of the negative reality wrapped up in the pre-big bang moment itself - a world in which perhaps, outside of time itself, God’s angels were created… Heaven itself!? Who could possibly know the precise configuration and moment of creation of heaven? That’s not within our intellectual gift, except to say that for angels to exist in the realm of God’s kingdom there must have been a time/time-less-ness/place before the big bang for this to be possible. Therefore angels occupy the realm of pre-big bang existence. So, numerically, they were created as -1 and +1 realities prior to our own reality in the -1/+1 reality, so that the big bang moment is not the point of all Creation itself, but only our universe. Everything but God is in the realm of +1 and -1 reality. ‘In the beginning...’ is the beginning of our universe and our relationship with God. The Bible is the relationship of man to God. How we relate to Him in the universe that He created at the beginning of our time.

  Okay, enough with infinity already!

  But, the next question is, did He really create all that just for us? That brings us on to our next chapter.












14 Deep Symmetry!


  The size of the universe has often been cited to demonstrate how insignificant we are and that it is the height of arrogance and presumption to imagine it was made for our benefit: “Our sun is one of 100 billion stars in our galaxy. Our galaxy is one of billions of galaxies populating the universe. It would be the height of presumption to think that we are the only living things in that enormous immensity.” So said the unquestionably brilliant astronomer, Carl Sagan, in 1980.  

  But what is size to God?

  And now that we know that the universe is bigger than its chronological boots - destroying our old grasp of space and time altogether - and we are here at this time now able to discuss this, doesn’t this rather unravel the sense of our presumption, now time and space are not so easy to rely on? The space we see and the number of galaxies may be so finely tuned to show us this precise point, that only God could have created it all, and we have come this far this fast in our development not because Nature said so, but because we needed to know the truth now, to make the right choice at the right time.

  You can see the billions of stars as evidence of our insignificance, or you can see that time and space are irrelevant in the grand architecture of the universe - as demonstrated by NASA - so do not let yourself be cowed by big numbers into feeling insignificant. You are not insignificant. The universe was made for you (and me. Don’t forget me).

  But back to measurements. We haven’t quite done with infinity just yet. In the ‘something’ world, objects are now measurable because the ‘something’ must connect itself to the negative space in order to exist, being inextricably linked, and vice versa; and therefore anything’s full measurement crosses partially into the negative reality, bridging the infinity gap of 01. So that all that exists in our everyday reality has its shadow in the necessary ‘negative’ space that must exist to cross the infinity divide.

  The true number line then is: (etc) -1, 01, +1, (etc).

  Or, more precisely, to do away with imaginary numbers (i), the true number line is: etc… -1(+1), 01, +1(-1)… etc.


  Zero vanishes as a real number.

  The quantity of nothing (0) does not exist.

  Nothing does not exist.  


  And for things to come into existence, for the -1(+1) to touch the +1(-1), it has to cross the ‘infinity divide of 01' to get to +1(1).

  I started Chapter 13 by saying you will often hear that black holes make no sense to mathematicians; it is perhaps because their maths rely on imaginary numbers (i) and take no account of the dual state of Nature that holds both something and nothing to exist at every turn.

  What’s most noticeable in this new mathematics is that the reality created is a triumvirate reality. A triangle, as it were, in which each point is touching God at all times. Who and what we are necessarily remains in constant contact with our negative reality and God. For we need our negative reality to exist, and we must pass through God (01) at every point to achieve that existence. This is science and mathematics, not vague religion. This is why His DNA, as it were, must exist somewhere within us at every turn, in whatever unknown material or immaterial form that may be - like the proverbial stick of rock.

  If you still prefer to think of God as Nature at this point, I trust you can still see the need to be connected to Nature at all times, even while jumping in the air, or flying off into space in a space suit. You are definitely connected to the fabric of Nature at every turn, dead or alive.

  For a distance between A and B to be measurable, there are then two As and two Bs:


e.g. Paddington train st.(=A+) to e.g. Oxford train st.(=B+)

e.g. anti-Paddington st. (=A- ) to e.g. anti-Oxford st. (=B -)


  At each point in space, we straddle the plus and minus world to come into existence at every point of infinity, harnessing finite something and finite less-than-nothing to create enough ‘drag’ (Dark Matter?) on infinity (01) to slow it down to the speed of light, within which sphere we operate ‘normally,’ as if the condition of ‘something’ surrounds us at every turn, awake or asleep. Point A+/A- is now an actual place in space-time. Where the drag (Dark Matter?) on infinity needs to counterbalance more to account for variations in the density of existence, we get what - black holes?

  Energy creates mass creates black holes. Speed of light reaches its maximum speed (electromagnetic waves are at maximum vibration) creates maximum density, creates black hole. Black hole stops further acceleration of speed of light. So without the Dark Matter (?) in place to induce the creation of a black hole in order to stop the speed of light going beyond its maximum, would we experience the same fate as the beginning of the universe that sped to its size faster than the speed of light?

  Maybe black holes are indeed the counterweight to oblivion, within which the mysterious Dark Matter that we can actually observe elsewhere in the universe invisibly holds the balance between existence and oblivion. Maybe safety valves was right.

  But should any one of us be standing on platform 2 from Paddington to Oxford, we’d have one foot in the less-than-nothing world and one foot in our everyday reality. With the negative reality being neatly tucked out of our way so that we don’t annihilate ourselves, for should the negative and positive of the same particle occupy the same space, it vanishes.

  While scientists have in fact confirmed that anti-matter is real and has been made artificially on earth, current experiments show it cannot exist with its twin in matter for long, and both annihilate in a flash of energy if they come into contact. An anti-electron is called a positron, for instance. It has the same mass as the negatively charged electron but is itself positively charged. Electrons exist and are negatively charged, so for its opposite to exist it must be positively charged and so the two can co-exist in close proximity: anti-matter and matter (but they cannot touch, as in the centre of a circle, for instance). The current thinking is that this suggests deep symmetries in particle physics!

  These symmetries point at something and nothing existing at the same time all the time: light behaves as both a particle and a wave. For light to behave as both a particle and a wave, it must be two things at once and to be two things at once it cannot occupy the same place at once unless one half of its reality sits in the positive reality space and one half sits in the negative reality space… crossing the infinity gap as it does so.

  However, despite such fundamental symmetries, Einstein said: “For every one billion particles of anti-matter there were one billion and one particles of matter, and when at the big bang the mutual annihilation was complete, one billionth remained,” and that, he said, is where we come from.




  This is where science is today, with the fact of deep symmetries underlying all things, faced with the fact that something must come from nothing or God. It sees symmetry everywhere and yet at the moment of Creation science is desperate to abandon God and create a lack of symmetry. To imagine there’s a single unique particle of Nature that has no opposite. To think the intellectually unthinkable in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, rather than think of God.

  Instead of God, science creates the ‘just-about-but-not-quite-exactly-symmetry’ in which they attempt to ‘blind us with science’ and persuade us that yes there’s all this matter and anti-matter but all it takes is one billionth of the symmetry to be broken and we’re away. C’mon, you can accept that can’t you? We can, we’re scientists, so can you, right?

  Well, no. Symmetry exists or it doesn’t. Exact and precise and true, or inexact and imprecise and wrong. Matter must have its corresponding anti-matter particle. What Einstein said, in effect, was one particle existed besides all others that was unique and needed all other matter and anti-matter to explode next to it to unlock its unique potential. But all Einstein’s statement did was to highlight the fact that still something needed to come from nothing and he could not resolve this. He tried it with his asymmetrical particle, but still the particle demands an origin. Well, I’m sure he could resolve the quandary, but then that would have fallen into the inescapable fact of God.

  Needless to say, the particles in this asymmetry moment called x bosons are as yet unfound, but the search goes on…

  Take away measuring points and everything is impossible. It is point zero, which is not even an infinity - infinity needing as it does a corresponding value to have meaning. Since everything is impossible all at once at point zero, so not everything but nothing can exist at point zero. Not even God. But something and less than nothing are not limitless possibilities sitting either side of this point zero and because they are not limitless possibilities there is a possibility, they either do or they don’t exist. 50/50 chance. One side of the 50/50 chance says yes, something, and the other says, no, less-than-nothing. In quantum physics, the more possibilities the less likely and with only one possibility either side of point zero - that being something on one side and less than nothing on the other, yes or no, but not no because that would be back to zero, so yes - so they do exist and so have equal weight, mathematically speaking.

  Existence is the de facto experience of mathematical truth. We exist because three values exist in mathematics: something (+1), nothing (0), and less than nothing (-1), but since nothing is impossible, that zero must be changed to an infinity (0 and 1 melded together). God must exist because mathematics exists and the quality of something is pre-written into existence, including mathematics. Those three values exist at God’s behest. God created mathematics, but is also of mathematics (two states at once). And in which of those three values does God reside? All three, at once, because He is what He has made, mathematics included.

  You will note the special significance of this fact for Catholics. The three-in-one principle is a divine principle, in which God is the infinite 0 (or 01 as we now know it), His Son is +1 and the Holy Ghost is -1, in mathematical terms. No wonder Tony Blair converted to Catholicism - as a world leader he would not be foolish enough to know all this and not convert. Who would, except the proud? And didn’t someone’s pride once lead to a great fall?

  And speaking of the Fall, what of evil? Where does that come in the mathematical line up?

  Evil is the conscious rejection of God. Literature gave us Milton’s Paradise Lost to better understand this rejection by one of God’s favourites, Lucifer - the light bearer. So when God said “Let there be light” it was perhaps one of his favourite angels who ‘carried’ this light into our existence. We are each given free will and can therefore know God and still decide to accept or reject Him. That part of ‘being’ which is 01 before existence has no Evil, no Devil, no angels, no people. The Devil, Satan, Evil, is therefore part of the number system -1 or +1, etc. in creating angels and then later the universe as we know it; God created free-thinking beings, capable of accepting or rejecting Him.

  It would be necessary to allow ‘freedom to choose’ to incorporate the whole spectrum of choice, otherwise there is no true free will, since choice might be limited to rejecting God in principle only, rather than in action. Similarly the whole spectrum of actions would need to be known, to make free will and true choice valid potentialities. One might think of evil, but not be evil. The thought need not be the deed. So it is not evil to have a concept of evil. It is only evil to act in an evil way. God created all possible concepts. That does not make God in any way evil. It does, however, ensure that we are truly independent creations, acting according to our own set of values while accepting or ignoring God’s guidance. This makes the acts of evil ideas made real - in which our anti-particle is doing the same thing but in a mirror, so your right arm holds the sword in our reality, while your left arm holds the sword in the negative reality. But the whole spectrum of realities from -1 down and from +1 up can incorporate the reality of acted-out evil. I’m afraid in the logic of mathematics, God gets off the hook we’ve all tried to hang Him on for millennia:

  How can He be all good if there is evil in the world?

  Well, there’s your answer.














15 The Perfect



  It seems odd that Evolutionists and atheists are happy to use inference and deduction to champion their cause and yet shy away from the logical conclusions of mathematical inferences that are so plain to see when that cause is the clear proof of God.

  We accept things we cannot see by inference. For example, Frodo had a creator but does not exist except in the mind of the creator, but there is evidence for Frodo existing at least in the mind of the creator/writer - his words on the page.

  You’ve all heard of the book The Lord of the Rings, written by J. R. R. Tolkien, right? Frodo is an imagined thing. For an imagined thing to come into existence, on the page, it must have a creator, and we are happy to say that we have never seen the writer of the book who created Frodo, but we know he existed because we have his book as evidence. It’s like the fossil evidence, the imprint of the writer’s imagination. For humans who are not imagined but are real, atheists say there can be no writer, and each letter/genetic coding forms spontaneously and finds another letter/genetic coding to combine with and so the human genome is written after millions of attempts at advancing the letter to an organized state into a word, a sentence, a paragraph, chapter and novel, by blind degrees, scrabbling forward with infinitesimal imprecision, trial and error (e.g., the imperfectly designed eye!), to create a human. But what we see all around us is not the fossil evidence of the imagination of a Writer/Creator. No writer is involved. None. And you’d be a fool to think so, according to atheists. An interesting point of view, given what we have now learned of the universe.

  Evolution is an organizing energy that observes, logs and recalls, but must then compute and analyze the data to ‘decide’ how to move to the next level, but there’s no writer. It has done this by the slowest degrees so that it does not know where it is headed and yet it hit away at the wall of darkness that existed before and perceived some aspect of the spectrum of light, and, for humans, selected to chip away at just a fraction of the light spectrum from the outset, but gave the Mantis shrimp, for example, the greatest visual acuity across all of the spectrum of light, the fastest speed and the greatest strike-force pound for pound in Nature and a seemingly advanced intelligence to boot, and all by accident. No design, just random circuitry. That’s the atheist-anti-God-and-Evolution’s truly intellectually brave position in the face of overwhelming scientific and mathematical proof to the contrary at the atomic level - at the first, the original level of existence.

  More concrete proof comes when we see electrons jumping up the energy ladder in an atom, from the centre outwards, (these rungs actually come in the form of shell-like structures, but the ladder analogy works better descriptively to see what’s going on). Hydrogen gas, for instance, can absorb photons of specific frequencies that correspond to the energy gaps between the steps on the ladder. Shine white light at the gas and the frequencies appear blacked out because all the light in the gaps is absorbed. The blacked out area becomes white if the hydrogen is heated up and the electrons started out higher up the ladder. You can measure this stuff. All atoms produce similar lines, at certain frequencies. Like DNA, they identify individual chemical types, from which, like notes on a piano, they strike certain chords for Nature to activate which species to begin creating, and the chord/sound analogy is important because until the key is struck-identified by the gas molecules in our example, the frequency-chord-sound remains unknown. The gas is pre-programmed to first identify and then know how to deal with the photon and the photon is pre-programmed how to react. The space came first (universe bigger than its age allows, pre-programmed how to deal with light) and then time/matter/light are introduced, to which the ‘space’ is pre-programmed to react in a specific way. All things, matter and anti-matter, work this way. Each must first know how to identify and then how to deal with the thing itself for the necessary chain reaction to be possible. We need to keep in mind this fundamental principle of all things as we move forward.




  But still, as a pilgrim on a journey I continue to struggle with so many ideas. I’m certainly having difficulty seeing how infinity works mathematically to form a reality, for instance. How exactly, in space and time, in measurable physics and maths, does each infinite point (0 and 1 together, of course) actually form what appears to be a continuous flow of time? How does God do it? This halving into infinity we saw earlier is a mathematical fact that should unsettle us. The +1 and -1 can be reduced by halving to be re-absorbed into the 01, with the 0 and 1 each drawing meaning from each other. And if you reverse the expanding universe to come to the big bang conclusion, you can also reverse the moment of observation that makes a wave-particle become one or the other, so that in halving something to the point of physical vanishing we re-enter the infinite of something-and-nothing/particle-wave possibility at the same time.

  Why is all this unsettling? Because it’s all about time. And we like time. It is concrete and appears to flow like a river, and yet like a river it appears to curve back on itself, creating itself from itself in an infinite loop. You must first have time to create time. So, again, how does God do it?

  It’s a circular set-up, apparently impossible.

  Whether an infinite stream or served up to us in discrete packets, pulsing towards us, through us and away from us in our wake, time does not appear to have a moment of origin. Events appear to pass from one moment to the next, objects appear to move from one place to the next, but there can be no starting point for either the time it takes or the place it happens, until infinity is reigned in somehow. When I reach for the kettle, my hand must pass through an infinite series of halvings to get there following the infinite series of halvings of time taken for the kettle to boil. For this to be possible, the start must be the end and the end the start. Only a daisy chain of loops - a string of infinities (01s) strung together - can make sense of the moment in time, each moment and event its own infinity point, locked in a daisy chain of infinity points to create the appearance of time and space in motion - a loop.

  But still a loop is a spatial configuration. It has at least two dimensions, and as such can be measured. If the loop can be measured then it can be cut in half and so on… Or can it?


The perfect circle:


  A loop only becomes a circle when each point meets in a perfect circle, otherwise, with anything less than a perfect circle, it’s still just a loop, with a circular trajectory (starting where it ends), but imperfect circularity (not nice and round). Yes, we can measure straight lines within and across a circle to finds its radius, its diameter, but we cannot cut the circle in half and still retain its ‘loopness,’ its circularity. Therefore, while the whole can be measured as a circle, we cannot cut it into two and retain its circularity.

  But when a bar magnet is cut in two it does retain its North and South poles. So there is a thing in Nature that shows us that cutting something in half does not destroy its core integrity that identifies what it is. The North and South poles remain, no matter where a bar magnet is cut in two, so its ‘magnet-ness’ isn’t diminished one iota. And a magnet is defined by its magnetic field balanced between the two poles. So here is Nature showing us that the object that stores magnetism can be cut in half but its magnetism remains whole. Plus, a magnetic field shows curiously loop-like properties. In fact, James Clerk Maxwell, a devout Christian who died in 1879, formulated an equation that stated the field lines are always closed loops. Magnetic fields always have a beginning and an end. So you can cut something with loop-like, circular characteristics and still not diminish the loop-ness that defines it.  

  So, we can halve the dimensions that go into making the circle, pulling the curve around on itself in ever tighter degrees, making the circle appear smaller and smaller, but the circle itself is never halved. It is simply a smaller circle. But in order to be a circle and not merely a round solid object, the centre cannot be filled. Otherwise it would not be a circle. Therefore, to exist, everything must be circular, because it is the only shape that cannot be cut infinitely in two. There are no straight lines, only circles and the illusion of straight lines in our everyday experience. And these circles come together in numerous ways to form the variety of other shapes that we see. While magnetism might help us visualize what’s going on, magnetism itself disappears at very high temperatures, so magnetism is not a fundamental condition of existence when existence itself necessarily had very high temperatures at the big bang.

  We seem to be getting somewhere.

  However, the width of the line that may be drawn in a circle must itself be measured in at least two dimensions, it will have thickness and length; and to have thickness and length they must be measurable and, as we know, anything that is not a circle can be measured and cut in two, infinitely, and so the lines that go into making a circle are infinitely small, but the circles that they create are not, for no circle exists whose centre is filled, so there is a limit to the degree to which the line may be pulled back on itself, thereby retaining the essential circularity that is the basis of life.




  But how to create the circle? What of the direction of travel of the infinitely small line in first forming the circle? Point A must be chosen to represent the start of the line that goes round in a circle to point B, and in traveling any distance forwards to point B that distance can be measured and so the circle will never be complete, because each measurable distance can be halved infinitely and so it would take an infinite amount of time and space to create a line that first moves from A to B - how can one move from A to B if an infinite amount of space and time must be crossed even to begin the circle?

  For circles to exist they must therefore come fully formed, from what can only be described as point particles of infinity (01s). The circle at each point along its perimeter (circumference) has a particle without structure or, equivalently, a particle which is not made up from component parts. It is without dimension and yet it exists. This sounds so wrong it seems ludicrous even to write it down, and yet things that exist without dimension is the only logical conclusion to ‘point particles’ of infinity, which must exist to allow the daisy chain of point particles to come together in a string of ‘reality.’ Again, as a pilgrim on a journey, we’ve already covered much of the ground regarding infinity, but I’m trying to visualize just how that infinity (01) - how God - manages to bring things to life without running into Zeno’s paradox…












16 Spherical Science


  Spherical Science may be the answer. There is no such thing as spherical science, as such - spherical geometry, yes - but I’m going to coin the phrase spherical science because spheres may well give us the answers we need to these conundrums in all aspects of existence.

  Scientists know that spheres can often seem to have all their matter located in their middle. Their gravity and electromagnetic fields at the middle can equal the electrical charge and mass outside of the sphere. To concentrate mass and energy in the centre of a sphere suggests that only the centre of a sphere exists and yet we can measure the distance between the edge of the sphere and the centre.

  But as we ‘know,’ this measurement is a series of infinities strung together. Does this point to a certain number of point particles of infinity required to come together to make the smallest possible sphere? Is there a definite number of these required in the daisy chain to reach critical mass, as it were, and suddenly emerge as a ‘thing’ with dimension in time and space? The puzzling thing then would be an ability to count that number of point particles of infinity required to create a ‘thing’ at the centre of a sphere. If we can count then we can also measure and as we know, to measure is to walk into a wall of infinity. That’s the puzzle. Unless ‘number’ is concept and not thing, separate from quantitative number (+1, etc). We cannot divide a concept into infinity. The concept of ‘number’ applied to infinity does not restrict the infinity-ness of it. We can go from 0 to 1 in our minds without difficulty. There is nothing and then there is something, with no requirement for any step-increase in between; no 0.01, 0.02 etc and on up to 1 is needed for us to understand the concept of 0 and then 1, having something and not having something, or vice versa. This means ‘concept’ creates image, creates meaning. When God conceives of, thinks of, imagines a thing, then perhaps the ‘distance’ between his imagining the thing and its creation accounts for the ‘lag’ of mass and energy between the edge of the sphere and the middle of the sphere, with a specific number of point particles of infinity ‘pulsing’ through His mind representing the thought coming into creation and the mass and energy at the middle being the full realization of the thought.


Hold that thought…


  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth… from fully formed circles of matter and energy, underpinning everything. But in the beginning of what? Space and time? No. In the beginning of the story of God’s relationship with the world.

  There is a time before the universe, and there is a space before the universe. It is the old universe, the first universe of eternal return, with no beginning or end, for time must be a circle in a space of infinite circles. The real singularity, the beginning of all things prior to the point in space-time that scientists mark as the beginning of all things, is point A (God, as 01). And point A is also point B, both the beginning and the end of the event, with the endless circle of existence in between. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end... Is this what Jesus was referring to?

  Mathematically, it can only be this way. The only way that time and space can exist at all is if each and every discrete essence/packet of both is made of circles of matter and energy. Circles, whose lines of circumference and length must be limited by the smallest space possible at the centre of each circle, so as to retain its integrity… as a circle.

  Indeed, if we look again at our understanding of the word ‘in’ from ‘In the beginning...’ we might do better to look at the early Greek translation of the Bible, in which language ‘in’ as a suffix can mean ‘opposite from; not; without’ - so that now we might read, ‘Not In The beginning,’ or 'Opposite from the beginning’ (i.e. the end); or clearer still, 'Without beginning’ - all three of which translations place the beginning of the Creation as a place outside of time itself. We do not live in this ‘outside time’ place, but Creation itself was made in a place of ‘eternal return’ (to borrow a phrase from the philosopher, Giovanni Battista (Giambattista) Vico, whose philosophy informed James Joyce’s novel Finnegan’s Wake that begins at its end, so it’s a book without end), a place of eternal return from in which there was no beginning or end because there was no time. With NASA confirming the universe is bigger than its chronological boots, this is scientific confirmation of the possibility of the apparently impossible - to create something outside of time.






  Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) was famous for stating that there exists no perfect circle in Nature. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) leapt on Cusa’s work but concluded: “Only if a spherical surface or a globe is cut by a flat plane can a circle exist.”

  Certainly it seems clear that circles can face in all directions. This becomes clear theoretically and possible in reality when we consider the sphere itself.

  If we cut a sphere in half we cut down the middle of the circumference (the perimeter) of the sphere’s largest circle at its middle, but in so doing we cut a line in two, and this could be done infinitely, thereby shrinking the circumference of the sphere’s central circle to vanishing point, and then the circle would disappear, having no edge, no circumference. But as we know, circles cannot be reduced to nothing or they cease to be circles. So now picture the series of circles that go to make up a sphere:



  Since recorded time began for us as humans we have sought to understand the divine in the circle. Is this the answer:  the circle is the building block of the universe? All circles reside in spheres. The circle is also perfectly symmetrical and particle physics tells us that symmetry is a fundamental component of the universe at every point.

  But what of the space at the centre of each circle? If we can measure the circle’s diameter as a straight line, then that distance can be halved and halved again, making it infinitely small, shrinking the circle to a… yes, a dot, whose centre would disappear in an infinitude of matter and so cease to be a circle. So a circle exists as the fundamental platform of all things.

  Now the question is: but what can be said to exist at the centre of a circle if a space must exist at its centre for it to remain a circle?

  Dark Matter? Accounting for much of the universe that lies unobservable, but which scientists know exists? Is that what lies at the centre of every circle in the universe, within every sphere?  

  There is indeed five times more material in the universe than we can see (and 95% of the universe we do not understand, as I mentioned at the beginning) - Hey, there’s that number again: 5! Surely a coincidence - The distribution and temperature of hot gas in the universe is measured in relation to the squeeze of gravity within it. There is five times more material than can be observed, and it is all around us.

  Think about that. Five times more material surrounding us than scientists can observe. Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, name any scientist who would not be astounded by that revelation. Scientists remain astounded by it (!). The temptation is to say that existence is one fifth of reality as we know it and the remaining four fifths is heaven as we have yet to experience it. But let’s stick to the science. Four fifths of the universe is made of unobservable material and 95% of the universe is made of something that scientists call mysterious (dark energy/matter). And the compelling question here for me is: in what way can the centre of each circle be said to exist if the circle cannot be filled? How does God square the circle? The circle must wrap itself around something, mustn’t it? So, of what are the circles made that make up the universe? Is it Dark Matter? And the ‘lines’ that make up the circles are observable matter?

  Are all circles of which matter is made comprised of a 5:1 ratio? This then could mean the building blocks of the universe are comprised of five elements, one of which is the circumference of the circle, the line of our reality at which each point-particle of infinity meets the observable universe. The remaining four elements comprise the centre of the circle, whose constituents remain a mystery to scientists. Cosmology suggests space can hold a negative pressure; yes, a negative pressure - we are so far down the rabbit-hole! - that manifests itself as dark energy, apparently accelerating the expansion of the universe.

  5 is a special number here because it locks in rather uniquely an unbreakable integrity in mathematics known as an untouchable number. 5 is the only known odd whole number in the universe that is untouchable, i.e. that cannot be expressed as the sum of all the proper divisors of any positive number (including the untouchable number itself). For example, the number 4 is not untouchable as it can be made up of the sum of the proper divisors of 9, i.e. 1 & 3 (so 1+3=4). Only the number 5 is known to be the only odd number immune from this. The first in the infinite series are 2, 5, 52, 88, 96, 120, 124, 146... with 5 appearing as the only known odd number. It is ‘untouchable,’ mathematically speaking. The 5:1 ratio discovered by NASA’s telescopes is therefore no random ratio. It could have found a ratio of 2:1 or 52:1, or 88:1 etc, in this untouchable number series, or any other ratio; but it didn’t, it found a ratio of 5:1 and it points to the integrated whole that underpins our whole existence.

  For instance, we saw that there needed to be perception, log, recall, duplication and the Designer to underpin all reality. That’s five essentials. And the number 5 is found everywhere in Nature: fingers and toes in almost all amphibians, reptiles and mammals; the known classical senses of touch, taste, hearing, smell and sight. We could indeed fill a book with the significance of the number 5 in science and religion. Suffice it to say that the internet can furnish us with all we need to know on that specific tangent, from the golden ratio onwards. I won’t labour the point here. The aim here is to synthesize the available data, not simply regurgitate it.

  That said, I am most struck by the following two scientific facts about the number 5: it is the atomic number of Boron (present at the early universe), and it is the lightest atomic mass (protons + neutrons) for which no stable isotopes exist for any element... The significance of which coincidences could form the basis of another book, but there is no need to explore those avenues here.

  Anyway, I think we’ve all journeyed enough in this strange world of experiments, of mathematics and infinities. I feel sure you would rather we started looking at some more tangible specifics of science to make concrete the fact of God, if any more proof were needed, and then move on to tearing down the nonsense of Evolution.

  So let’s look at some more of the science, plain and simple, to see what other facts are hidden that might startle us in our quest for God in the visible and the known. The hard part’s done.












17 Straight Light




  When the universe began, charged particles scattered and blocked the light, creating a fog. Once these charged particles were removed the universe became transparent. Light was then free to travel at its fixed speed bent only by gravity, as proved by Einstein. His proof came in a solar eclipse that revealed stars behind the sun to be in a slightly different place before and after the eclipse, proving the sun’s mass is bending our view of them.

  So then how is it that the light from the stars, crossing through space, travels in a straight line from the star to our eye at night without any interference from the gravity of intervening objects between the star and our eye? The suggestion in cosmology is that light does take a slight detour around massive objects and then realigns itself with our point of view, travelling to us as if unhindered. It all depends on the shape of the universe, so the thinking goes. If the universe is round, or spherical, then due to the combined mass of the universe weighing it down and making the space-time ‘sheet’ bend into the middle, as it were (for the space-time ‘sheet’ think of a rubber sheet suspended between four poles and then a heavy ball being placed in its centre to represent mass at any point in space warping that space-time sheet), light would converge and blur the night sky, all lines crossing each other. Similarly, if the universe were like a mole hill, with too little mass in it so that it bulges ‘upwards,’ light would similarly bend and diverge, blurring our view. Therefore, since neither of these two things happens, the universe must be ‘flat.’ This is precisely why we have a ‘flat-universe’ theory.

  But if the universe is flat, how do we see ‘through’ all intervening galaxies to see the farthest star, with uninterrupted vision? There are billions of galaxies all stretching away from us in all directions and at the centre of those galaxies are black holes, gigantic gravity islands in the ocean of near-vacuum space. Light has to bob and weave past this vast collection of road-blocks and then fall on our eye as if nothing existed between them and our view.

  Does a flat universe really account for this?

  And how does this square with the balloon theory, with galaxies stretching off in all directions? If flat, we couldn’t see past the first row of stars, let alone on into the billions we see in all directions.

  So, is everybody comfortable with this flat universe theory after all? Doesn’t it sound suspiciously like the Flat Earth theory some while back? Well the reason that this flat universe scenario exists at all is that it underpins the theory by Guth of cosmic inflation, offered in 1981 - you remember Guth, he’s the man who thinks we all come from nothing - in which the fact of the uniformity of heat across the universe is explained by ‘rapid’ (faster than the speed of light, remember) expansion of the early universe in which all matter found its place in the universe before the ‘rapid’ inflation took place.

  To the ordinary layman, it might seem that everyone is trying to move cosmology away from the space-time continuum breakdown that makes time less reliable than we thought and which allows for the fact of God. Not just the theory, but the incontrovertible, verifiable fact of God (as we’ll see, if it’s not already plain enough). If cosmology were also to confirm that actually, after all, the universe is a sphere as it appears to be and we appear to be smack bang in its centre, then where would that leave us with the idea of light travelling in a straight line and not blurring? How does a sphere not blur light travelling towards us?

  Is it possible that in fact star light is not travelling towards us from billions of light-years away, but away from us, as it were? The universe appears to be expanding at an ever faster rate perhaps because that early light, out there in the deepest reaches of space, is the remnant of the speed of the big bang light, moving away from us. Perhaps we are seeing the light of the fast-expanding universe as it was before we were created, in which no matter existed between them and our yet-to-be-created earth. Perhaps the stars really were created in a central sphere, as it were, and as they all hurtled away from the centre in all directions they created a trail of light without interference, because there was no gravity-pull from objects. Then, after we emerged on earth, we see the trail of light existing as the afterglow, the trail of each star’s light as it travelled uninterrupted through the expanding universe, with that light seen as a back-draft towards us, even as it moves away from us in the faster-than-light-speed expansion of the universe.

  There would then be nothing between us and any other star we see because that star we see came from where we are now, and its trail outwards to where it is now had nothing in its way in its outward path because it was creating space-time as it went. Hence no dense object in the way for the light to reach us and bend it. Is that why light remains unbent as we see it? It is not travelling towards us from the star where it is now, but is the remnant light from its trajectory to its place in the heavens, from our spot in the universe? And since that moment of creating the star was in fact done at faster-than-light speed, given what we now know of the uniform temperature across the universe, there need be no ‘impure’ light, as it were.

  So the light coming back at us is a ‘trail’ of light, from the star-burst outwards to where it is now, not light being created billions of light years away, billions of years ago, but created here and ‘dragged’ or ‘shot’ to there in an instant of time-outside-time, however long ago that happened to be.

  This would then eliminate the need for a flat universe, restore the spherical universe with us at its centre and sustain the only necessary fact we truly know at this stage, that the speed of light was broken in the creation of the universe.

  In truth, this is the logical conclusion of the uninterrupted light from stars. It goes against the 1610 observation by Kepler who said the night sky is dark because we cannot see distant stars that are too far away for the light to reach us yet, hence only some stars are visible. It goes against it because this view supposes that all stars would have left tracer-light, as it were, so where is the tracer-light of those distant unseen stars? Well, I think that would be the answer right there. There are no distant stars that we cannot see, and by see I mean see to the limit of our ability as humans with whatever instruments we can devise, since stars are for us for all time. There are only those we can see because that’s how the universe was made, with only this many stars and no more - the ones we can see, the ones we can detect, the ones we need to help us make sense of who we are!

  The Bible states right at the start that these stars were created for our convenience. ‘Invisible’ stars are not seen not because they are far away, but because they were never created, because they were never needed when creating stars for our convenience, as stated in the Bible. The ones we can’t see with the naked eye, without telescopes, naturally form part of that landscape because they are needed to create that landscape. Our telescopes can ‘see’ into what appears to be 14 billion years ago.

  To get round the straight-starlight fact, Guth’s flat-universe theory has been leapt on, but for the last three decades no one has made the flat-universe theory fit with any degree of satisfaction. Whereas, what the universe actually shows us, clearly, wherever we look, and without exotic recourse to a flat-universe, is that we do indeed appear to be at the centre of the universe and we do indeed appear to be the very reason for all that we see. 

  But we’re a long way from needing to place us at the centre of the universe in our quest for God, as I’ve mentioned. It’s an interesting speculation only. What the ‘straight starlight’ fact of the heavens tells us without question is that yet again the laws of physics play havoc with those who doubt God. In actual fact, when we come to the text of the Creation in the Holy Bible, we’ll see that this extraordinary straight-light starlight is, against all simple physics, a creative decision that only a God could achieve. It really is written right there in the first few lines (we’ll come to it later). I very much doubt if any scientist has helpfully pointed this out to you. So if you’re looking for God-science symbiosis, you need look no further than the creative acts in Genesis itself.

  But before we discuss that extraordinary text - and it is more extraordinary than you might think, as we’ll see - we need to move on to the final extraordinary fact in cosmology that demands God exists. When you see this fact, even before we rip to shreds the nonsense that is the supposed Evolution of species from earlier species over millions of years, you will know that God exists, once and for all, clearly, decisively and beyond challenge.










18 The First Star  








  Above are the basic components of everything we all think of at the big bang moment. So we got the explosion and then what happened? Well, 17 seconds later quarks, gluons and other fundamental particles formed. One minute later quarks stuck together to form protons and neutrons. Within two minutes all cosmic chemistry was up and running, mixing protons and neutrons into atomic nuclei, according to their relative atomic numbers. Three minutes in and nuclear fusion of hydrogen then formed all other elements. That’s the standard idea. But guess what – it’s the model for a star forming.




The above elements are the first four elements of all stars that go on to form all other elements. They are the first ingredients for all stars and everything else. All the heavier elements were only later created in and around stars which were then distributed around space by exploding (in supernovae).






  Honestly? Yes, honestly. What, they didn’t teach you that in school? In big bang theory class? Skip over that, did they? But what does that mean, exactly, to not know how the first star switched on? Well:


The very first star would not

contain any heavy elements.


Just hydrogen.


This means:



It would not cool down quickly enough to


and switch on its fusion engine!


  Ask any, any scientist in the world how it’s possible and they will either smile and walk away, or hope you don’t know enough about the subject and try to ‘blind you with science.’ This is the inescapable fact of the millennium that will not be on the news at a station near you any time soon! You might hear, “Well, we don’t know yet, but we’ll figure it out.” But they won’t figure it out. There is nothing to figure out and they know that. It is beyond figuring out without… God. The fifth element (hey, wasn’t there a movie with that title once?). All other stars need the heavy elements created in the first star to exist, and since the first star could not give it to them, they either don’t exist, or there was no first star.

  Or. There. Was… God!

  That stars need other stars in order to form is one of the most explosive facts in physics that is simply not the subject of debate in schools. Yet every child should be encouraged to wrestle with that fact to see what conclusions they draw. Better yet, ask any NASA physicist to pop along to the school. The answer will be the same. It creates an impossible circle. And the conclusion of that couldn’t be any clearer: Because impossible by itself, therefore the external, conscious hand of God is required. It’s like waiting for a billion trillion years for an old car to turn its own handle at the front to get it to start. That is the exact analogy that no mathematics or chance or randomness can accomplish. Ever. You might be asking yet again, how come we never knew this? Surely, you would think, teachers and schools and governments and the news and programmes and media the world over would be discussing this unbelievably crucial fact of the universe that so clearly requires the external hand of God. But no, not a peep – just the odd quizzical look from some jaded scientist or other who would so dearly love to put all this together for you front and centre, to tell you in absolute terms that God exists because they can see it everywhere they look, and nothing but God can answer the myriad impossibilities in physics that they analyze every single day.

  But nope. No point. For as we saw at the beginning, no one scientist can make his case without being roundly destroyed in the media. Instead, there are merely gentle, quizzical looks and the odd shrug as if to say, isn’t the universe a mystery! But don’t worry, a few more years and we’ll crack the grand, unified theory of everything…

  Turns out the missing component in the analysis is God, by the way. In case you hadn’t noticed.

  But then they knew that.

  God is necessarily outside the ‘system’ to create the first star from scratch.

  Whenever you doubt God, think of that - incontrovertible, scientific and mathematical proof. Whenever anyone mocks you for your belief, give them this fact.

 You need a first star like you need a first cause. It remains the inescapable fact of mathematics and science that remains the embarrassment to end all embarrassments for Evolutionary biologists and scientists everywhere who have hitherto systematically assisted in the attempted murder of God! Or is that a little too strong? Maybe. But the stakes are high, we’re talking about your eternal soul so forgive me for wanting to characterize it like a court room drama, but some people appear to be guilty of a pretty serious attempted cover up of the known existence of God. Is that a more measured description? You see, all the information is freely available but who is willing to put the jigsaw together for people? No one, it seems, at the risk of being pilloried as a slack-brained believer. It’s incredible how strong pride is in us all. We’d so often rather risk death and possibly eternal damnation than admit to everyone we were wrong about God. We keep trying to shut Him out. Close the gates of the universe and say we know all this happened by itself so leave us alone. We’ll work it out, just give us time. Unfortunately, at every turn the ‘closed system’ solution doesn’t work. It continues to require an external hand to nudge it into existence, add the requisite mixture that cannot self-generate within the closed system. The fifth element is God, as necessary to the universe as oxygen is to us. Not even God can escape the mathematical certainty of His existence, but who He is and what He is made of is outside space and time as we know it.

  As we have shown and as we shall see, it is increasingly difficult to resist the conclusion that only God could stand outside Nature and build it from the quantum level upwards and then allow us to operate on a daily basis under Newtonian rules of physics - the reassuring kind of physics. This is the logic of science and mathematics as we know them today. No one on earth who values their professional reputation would dare put that squarely to the public, unless they were anonymous, so that its truth could stand out like a shining beacon unclouded by media attacks on the witness to this truth.

  The problem may seem insurmountable to some. How can you fully persuade people of the fact of God from the quantum level up when quantum physics simply disappears in larger physical systems in which we operate on a daily basis, as if our minds are really programmed to be reassured only by the Newtonian world of physics, and that’s all we need? Dig deeper and you start to realize that our subatomic-selves straddle two infinities of positive and negative reality and that’s just too remote for us to handle.

  Niels Bohr, famous physicist who died in 1962, named the jump from quantum to Newtonian worlds the ‘correspondence principle’ that recognized the necessary ‘disappearance’ of the quantum world for us to function.

  This is no doubt the reason why we find it so hard to think of the reality of God when we sit in front of the TV or drive to work, or bungee jump off a bridge. Everything seems so comfortably familiar and reassuringly regular and predictable. But just as it takes high-frequency light waves to shake an electron from its comfort zone, so we need to be shaken up by the high-frequency light of facts as astounding as those we find in the universe at the sub-atomic level, and in the larger physical systems like the formation of stars. 
















19 The Rule of Three 


  Before we turn to Evolution in the light of all that we now know, there are three more things we should consider. There are three ways for scientists to look at the universe. Here’s the first:

   1) In Stephen Hawking’s book, A Brief History of Time, he wondered about the possibility of knowing ‘the mind of God,’ and he and other scientists met the pope and other theologians and philosophers in 2008 to discuss God, but it appears he may not have God of the Christian faith in mind but rather a more general, natural god underpinning the beauty and architectural elegance of creation. It’s the same type of ‘Grand Architect of the Universe’ deity that’s so central to Freemasonry, and which is necessarily at odds with the God of the Christian faith - which is the reason why Catholics are forbidden to enter Freemasonry. Clearly this comment by Stephen Hawking is the closest any scientist who may or may not also believe in God of the Christian faith has come to saying it without saying it, that clearly God of the Christian faith exists; but that is a step too far for such scientists perhaps, they would rather nod to a more general creative force, the kind that, for Evolutionists perhaps, has no interest in our daily lives and concerns. There are examples of physicists and astronomers who definitely do believe in God of the Christian faith, of course, and they speak openly about it - there is no ambiguity in what they say. But if you don’t tell it like it is you breed the other view encapsulated in this statement by Sir Arthur Eddington, 1882-1944:

  2) “We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of star gone wrong”- the atheists’ creed. We’re an accident, bits of star gone wrong, but we’re here and we know right from wrong and we can choose to be good or bad on our own terms. No God needed.

  The third way is to mock the notion of God’s existence even while demonstrating bewilderment at the facts:

  3) “God runs electromagnetics by wave theory on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and the Devil runs them by quantum theory on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday,” Sir William Bragg 1862-1942.

  He could have been the most ardent believer in God, but this type of casual mockery in the face of bewilderment lends to the overall anti-God agenda.

  Well it seems that God is good for a laugh at least, but for those who refuse to believe, He is effectively a pariah in His own universe. Is this because He won’t make it easy for people to ‘know’ Him, to know for sure of His existence? Could be. We have each been asked to take the leap of faith and that’s a leap too far in these scientific and mathematical times for many, many people. They’ve grown tired of making that leap of faith in the face of so much ‘evidence’ that seems to point to His nonexistence. We’re worn out with the weight of our expectations in life constantly being met by disappointment, with prayers not being answered, as it were, and we’d simply rather not think anymore. We’d rather be left alone to get on with the business of life on our own, because what’s the real point in pretending to believe in something you can’t prove exists? It’s so childish. Right?

  Well no more doubts, proof has now been given to you - mathematical, scientific proof. And so here is the news, with no leap of faith required: God does exist, He did create you, He does love you, and you will not go to hell unless you want to - by which I think we should understand hell to mean the eternal absence of God, nothing more, nothing less, but which mathematically must mean the eternal presence of its opposite…

  We have a choice.









We exist, which means we came into existence by some path. Mathematics shows chance and randomness cannot exist prior to nonexistence, therefore there is no nonexistence - there is necessary existence. The necessary existence required five essential states to exist: Itself, plus the ability to observe, log, recall and duplicate. In addition, the universe was created faster than the speed of light, the first star could not have made itself, and light that is moving away from us in all directions travels in a straight line from the stars to your eye in defiance of physics as we know it, all three things placing us at the centre of the universe, with a first star created from nothing at a speed only God could engineer.



































































20 Darwin is Dead


  I like theories. For people who think, they are better than facts.  Facts exist as truth. Theories can both lead to truth and test the truth. That’s thinking. But we need evidence against which to test the truth. When Evolution says it is not a theory but is a fact that has all the evidence it needs, no more testing required, I start to wonder, who is still doing the thinking? It’s no longer a science but a religion? It has facts and it wishes to spread the word about those facts? No more theory about the facts? That’s evangelism, isn’t it? We don’t need to think about facts. They exist and are real. Like the Holy Bible. Call Evolution a fact and thought is no longer required. Call the Holy Bible a fact and thought is no longer required. Merely learn by rote what others have established before you. How dull. No more thinking for oneself. Sounds like a church sermon. You need to theorize about facts to establish conclusions. If the conclusions satisfy everybody who thinks, then it’s a fact. But all the thinking’s been done already by those who state Evolution is a fact, that the Holy Bible as written is the received word of God and is therefore fact, since God exists. So now, again, who’s doing the thinking? It has to be those who come to it anew. The next generation. Bold enough to challenge the facts. To test the truth. And that is science. And I like science. 

  But I prefer God. He is fact. A mathematical certainty as we’ve seen. So anything that theorizes about other facts that discount His certainty cannot be theories about facts, but theories about theories. However, anyone who accepts Him as fact and then wishes to test the truth is thinking, theorizing. I have established God as a fact in this book. By reason. You can follow that reasoning. Essentially, we exist, which means we came into existence by some path. Mathematics shows chance and randomness cannot exist prior to nonexistence, therefore there is no nonexistence - there is necessary existence. The necessary existence required five essential states to exist: Itself, plus the ability to observe, log, recall and duplicate. In addition, the universe was created faster-than the speed of light, the first star could not have made itself, and light that is moving away from us in all directions travels in a straight line from the stars to your eye in defiance of physics as we know it, all three things placing us at the centre of the universe, with a first star created from nothing at a speed only God could engineer. Three things that show your world view is not the way you think it is, the implications of which many are working hard to hide from you, for heaven knows what purpose.

  Along the way in this book, I theorize about the facts of Evolution. I accept before I begin my research that they are facts because scientists tell me so, but now I want to test them. To test the truth. In testing the truth of God, I find He exists. In testing the truth of Evolution, by reason and logic, I find it doesn’t. Why doesn’t it? Because its truth is split into two: one half somewhat true, the other half entirely false. I find that whenever I mention Evolution, I have to say, “the somewhat true part, not the entirely false part,” which makes the term Evolution false, since it contains a falsehood. And which is the somewhat true part and which is the false? In my theorizing about God, I find all parts true. In my theorizing about Evolution I find one part somewhat true: the powerful inferences drawn from observation of change over time within a species (we’ll see why only somewhat in a moment). The false part is the descent of any one species from another, where species is not ‘single variety of plant life’ but is in fact ‘canine’ for instance, or ‘plant life’ itself. And it’s a shame it was false, in a way, because I thought I was testing facts, testing the truth. Turns out I was testing a theory all along. I was theorizing about a theory that turns out to be false.

  I have read in so many places that Evolution is a fact. All the logic Evolutionists apply to the somewhat true part largely holds up (well, actually not even that is quite true, as we’ll see). All the logic Evolutionists apply to the false part fails (decisively). In an odd way, I wish it didn’t. I already know God exists, I’ve proved it using reason and logic and science, so Evolution does not make the slightest bit of difference, true or false. God is not dead even if Evolution is true (which it isn’t). But Evolution is dead if one half is false. And I’m afraid it is false, practically all of it as we’ll see.

  So why perpetuate a falsehood and ‘hide’ three of the most significant facts in science ‘in plain view’ by not demonstrating their implications, certainly alongside discussions of Evolution? Again, heaven alone knows why. Draw your own conclusions at this time in history.

 Briefly, I’ll acknowledge why the first part of Evolution is true: dog breeders have bred from the canine wolf to the canine poodle; flowers change appearance to attract bees to help pollinate; the human appendix lies dormant since we moved from vegetable eaters to meat eaters. So, we can each adapt within our own kind.

  The examples of Nature’s God-given brilliance at this type of change-over-time Evolution are too numerous to mention, but it is most certainly true. Conclusions drawn from observation are clear, the facts on which they are based are decisive, the evidence is beyond a thinker’s doubt. Bravo, Evolutionists! That truth is wonderful to behold. We can adapt within our own kind. But then we knew that long before Darwin. It does in fact underpin the Christian notion of redemption in which we are required to change internally. We always knew that changing ourselves was part of our nature. You think that doesn’t count? Of course it counts. Our mental and spiritual Evolution is a condition of entry to heaven. You think Darwin got there first? Internally, our bodies take care of our needs. Our brain is an internal organ and takes care of our needs. We tell our body to change, to Evolve our mental approach to life and we do just that. We Evolve internally. Just as an appendix lies dormant through lack of use, so our spiritual side will dwindle, perhaps to be reawakened by a book on God and Evolution, who knows, but yes Darwin was right, we do indeed adapt within our own kind. Evolutionists were right on that point.

  Well, don’t get too complacent. Don’t go skipping off down the street in a heady dance. The party is over, I’m afraid. The second part, that all species descended from all other species, and we are therefore related to, and emerged over millions of years from, the first organism is demonstrably false. As in, I will gladly demonstrate its logical falsehood in reason, science and observation. Be afraid, be very afraid...

  Okay, allow me that movie-style reference for dramatic effect. But I think so many of you who take Evolution at face value because scientists have said it’s true need to look at the facts for yourself to draw your own conclusions. You might want to do that before I get going so there’s no doubt that Evolutionists got their view in first. I’m happy for you to be thoroughly convinced of their argument before you come to mine. Because I’ve read their arguments, I’ve seen the ‘evidence’ - all of it. And you can tell I’m no intellectual slouch, right? So when I say that having seen what they’ve got, I’m actually staggered at the lack of intellectual and scientific rigour applied to the facts, which I just assumed were true when I started looking for myself. Like the ‘hidden’ science in plain view, I now see why the energy is mounting in schools to make this an established science from those scientists who established the ‘facts’ - because any further scrutiny of the facts before this is accomplished will potentially reduce the numbers of those who currently believe in God being converted to the religion of Evolution, just as we approach what appears to be a dramatic change in the world that they surely hope to seize upon to recruit you away from God.

  My tentative suspicion, that I hate to think of because I truly do not like to think the worst of my fellow human beings, is that they truly do believe in God, and have decided to reject Him. And they want you to do the same at a critical time in our human history. They want you to reject the truth of His very existence. This is what I mean by the attempted murder of God, as dramatic as that may sound, which is in effect the result if the rot is not stopped. Remember, you had no idea that the universe was built faster than the speed-of-light, or if you did then no one spelled out the logical consequences of that fact. Certainly not in relation to Evolution.

  At the end of this half of the book, Evolution as a fact or even a theory will be dead and I confidently predict you’ll be a bit cross, to say the least, that these things were not made known to you beforehand. And I say that in the manner of a challenge because in books of Evolution they’ll openly admit to needing to seduce you into their way of thinking, by slow degrees, whereas I want every sinew in your body to be on high alert against what I am about to reveal to you. I want you to be so not ready to believe what I am about to say that when you read it, all your instincts will be driving you away from my conclusion just as all your intellect will be forced to pull the other way, unable to resist the fact of God and the necessary falsehood of the second part of Evolution (and the most important bit of the first part). In short, the chatter of the Evolutionistas has come to an end: Darwin is dead.




  Well, when I say Darwin is dead, you now know I mean that the first part of Evolution is true (except the important part of it), the second part false - where the first part is Nature within species adapting to its environment. I say “except the important part of it” because, as we’ll see, it does so in a deliberate, not a random, unconscious way. In actual fact, then, no part of Evolution is strictly true, since it posits total unawareness by Nature at every turn, yet flowers and insects will tell us a different story as we’ll soon see.

  To be perfectly honest, regardless of the erroneous conclusions in Evolution, we do owe such a debt of gratitude to Darwin and all who went before him or who have come along after him, championing his case, painstakingly documenting all the wonders of creation. Scientists themselves are the eighth wonder of the world. I make no bones about it. In this sphere they have been especially industrious in documenting every facet of every species, which has surely been the labour of all labours. But while they are experts at documenting and measuring, their conclusions are not always quite so dazzling. The logical inferences are often appalling in Evolution. What things are and how they work, at that scientists in general are spectacular. What it all implies, however, regarding cause and effect, is too often embarrassingly wrong-headed in this scientific sphere of Evolution at least. In all aspects, really, of this colossus of a theory that has bedeviled us for over a century, I’m afraid the entire case unravels rather spectacularly with careful thought.

  So here goes…


















21 Time Travel


  The first trick of the Evolutionist is to take you on a journey back in time, moving from now and tracing backwards through history. Seems like a small thing, but actually it’s because they have reams of dubious facts to show you to underpin their creed and then at the end of it all, when you’re nice and softened up, they might throw in a line at the very end to say, of course, we’re not sure yet how it all began, but you can see it’s working now, right? But like anything, you need to figure out how things start to see how they got to be where they are now.

  But they don’t want you to look at the start. There’s nothing there to support their facts. So don’t go there. In actual fact, you will read just about anywhere that Evolution is only a fact after life got started. The standard model, no doubt repeated by people with vested interests, or those who simply haven’t thought things through for themselves, is to steer people away from the beginning. They simply say, don’t confuse the coming-into-existence of life itself with Evolution. The processes there do not matter and are not related.

  They really think that by saying this that they’re right to exclude first life from the processes of all life as if the two are not related. Who on earth do they think they are that they believe they can make that separation without any evidence that the two are not linked? And why would they want to do so? Well here’s why: because the logic of first and early life simply does not support their version of all ongoing life. They refuse to let you put the two together because actual chemical life itself, from the start, from which all things must necessarily follow, blows apart absolutely everything they hold to be true. Borrow as they might from Chaos theorists, whose sensitivity to initial conditions idea (the ‘butterfly effect’) Evolutionists believe lends weight to unpredictably complex systems (e.g. the human brain) arising spontaneously and without design from the simplest of systems (e.g. first bacterial life), still their case falls apart at the very start of all life.

  You don’t think so? Well, in the interests of logical deduction and inference and science, I’m afraid we have to boldly go (to split my infinitive as I’m wont to do) where no Evolutionist wants us to go: the beginning. And I’m trusting you have read up on Evolution at this point because what follows is what you’ll recognize only too well in their creed. It’s long (from the next page to the next chapter), so I’ll try to make it fun. Imagine you’re in a classroom in one of the Southern states of North America, and your teacher is Blanche DuBois, or someone a bit like the beautiful Jodie Foster in the film Maverick (with Mel Gibson) - with apologies to those who haven’t seen it; or maybe think Scarlett O'Hara from Gone with The Wind. As to the questions that arise, well imagine they’re coming from the class of children and she has to fend them off...












"The Evolutionists’ Creed for

Early Life on Earth:


  In the beginning there came into existence something we call life, in an atmosphere unsuitable for life as we know it today. It had specific form and shape and dimension and was encased in a self-assembled unit of chemical compounds, which would generate spontaneously. It came into existence quite by chance, who knows how or why, only that we are necessary precisely because we are here - you must accept this nonsensical logic or you cannot call yourself a believer in Evolution.

  Once you can get past this intellectual stumbling block, which is not necessary to consider further as it simply clouds the issue, we can show you that the rest of life emerged by random mutations in the genetic structure of life. Life advanced by blind degrees, with no forward planning. No planning at all. And in approximately 13.7 billion years the universe went from zero to harnessing power that would launch us into outer-space. With no planning, no purpose, except to cling onto the life it now found it had.

  In the process, the very first thing that lived gave away what life it had to something else that was the same as it, almost. The impetus to split was random and purposeless. It split itself in two and passed on its old self to its new self. Why it had any notion of duplication at all, nobody knows. How it knew at each successive, blind stage of its Evolution that it would need to be thinking (but not thinking) in twos, nobody knows. Two was its lucky number, I guess. Could have been four. Could have thought its first split would be four, or sixteen. Except there’s no thinking going on at all. It just happened that way.

  So two it was. Which was fortunate for us because had it not thought in twos first time, there would be no us. No duplication mechanism, then no us. Now, just before it split, its chemistry changed slightly, and spontaneously. It split in two, shortly before it died, managing to pass on to the next generation the information it had that described what it was. That information described what it was and how it functioned at each discrete step, with each step not knowing what it was trying to be in its self-assembly.

  The impetus to duplicate itself and the mechanism of transferring this information onto the next generation was self-assembled. Whatever it was that first came into existence assembled itself - did I tell you that already? Self-assembled - from whatever chemistry the earth made available to it by chance, and without any sense of design or forward planning. It did not know what it was or what it was meant to do, nor did it know that it would one day die, but it had the fortuitous skill of coming self-assembled, able to duplicate itself and pass its life-information on to a brand new generation, which would repeat the process and so keep the duplicating mechanism alive, carrying whatever it was that made it want to duplicate, for no purpose except to be.

  This second thing was slightly different from the thing it was before because of the chemical change just before duplication, but the instructions as to how it should replicate were identical before and after. The difficulties experienced by the first thing in struggling to self-assemble would change its chemistry, a chemistry that would remember this struggle and which would be new information for the new generation to make a better job of it. This was not planned. It was useful information that the new, second generation chemical-organism would put to good use in its short life, without knowing why except to be.

  This improving-chemical mechanism was also self-assembled by the first thing that lived. It self-built its way to establishing unconscious notions like ‘improvement’ and ‘doing things better than before.’ Somehow, in its very first go it was writing itself to remember how to learn from its mistakes, without knowing what a mistake was; though since it was already alive and building itself, the concept of mistake necessarily would not have occurred since to make a mistake would be to ruin the very delicate chain of events necessary to create itself at each unconscious stage. And all this so far without forward planning. Pretty neat, right?

  Now, had the first thing not come self-assembled to duplicate, it would have died, and then there would be no ‘us.’ So good job, little first thing. Yeay! That was lucky. First you self-assemble life without knowing why or for what and you luckily incorporate into that the equipment to duplicate, without which you would die.

  It would make sense to think that the thing that figured out how to self-assemble also figured out it would die and so need to pack its duplication trunk for the journey! But no, tempting as that might be, if you want to be an Evolutionist, planning and forward thinking are forbidden. No forward thinking or design involved. It managed to self-assemble duplication after it first began to self-assemble. So it kind of picked up on that necessity along the road, without forward thinking and knowing why. Let me repeat that: it developed a mechanism for duplication after it set out on the road to self-assembly, since it could not look forward to know that it was going to die without duplication, and even as it was building this ability to duplicate, which would save its genetic life, it had no idea that this was the consequence of building self-replication. All totally fortuitous.

  It was a system that only knew how to make use of random changes along the way, with a kind of hindsight, but no foresight, so that it would have to die first to know it needed to duplicate and yet could not die or it would never have the chance to duplicate, so it could never have hindsight after death to learn, and yet it came up with duplication, rather handily, since without it, it would die. Who says Evolutionists don’t believe in miracles! We surely do. Our god is Chance and Randomness.

  Okay, I know, we don’t think logically, we think sideways like all good scientists. Stick with us, though, we’re right about this stuff, really. Okay. So, as it finds itself to be alive without being aware of that fact, moving forward by blind degrees, it could not possibly have had the wherewithal to pack its photosynthesis trunk, could it? No, that would be too good to be true so it’s not allowed. It has to work out that need by self-assembly. Yet, while it is assembling the thing it needs, it has no idea why it’s assembling it. Could be energy wasted in the assembly, who knows. It certainly doesn’t. There’s no design and no plan. It doesn’t know why it’s doing anything and nor does anything else in the universe!

  So then, the very first thing that lived had a life span that it could not know about. It would live and pretty soon it would die. When it first came into existence it could not grow, since to grow it needed energy, though it required energy to come into existence (shh, I know, but don’t think about that, it’s not our creed), and it did not know how to process energy. The time clock is ticking on this little thing to get its self-assembly kit moving, so before it perishes from lack of energy it has to work out, without thinking, and still moving (or not quite moving) by blind degrees, how to continue to live when it didn’t have any ‘keep living’ pills in its little kit.

  It could not move, since this required energy and it hadn’t worked out how to process energy yet. And even if it could, this energy could not come from any living thing on earth, since it was the first living thing. And even if there were other things at the same time, as implausible as that may be, they too would have to start in isolation in this same self-assembly way so they’re no good to each other in any case. We therefore need only one to demonstrate our creed.

  So in the space of its early lifetime, and without any actual energy source to continue its self-assembly kit, it overcame the laws of physics and moved without any energy source and self-assembled an energy pack, still with no energy source: with no forward planning or thinking or previous design built into it, it created a mechanism that enabled it to look up to the sun, detect its heat, convert protons of light to energy and away it went. In the space of its own early lifetime it managed to harness the power of photosynthesis! before any other living thing existed. How great is that! Truly magical!  Like some chemical wizardry, or something. Amazing.

  Some of you might be moved to tears by this kind of serendipity, this happy accident, as it were. Well, we’re glad you joined the club of Evolution. Make yourself at home.

  What’s that? What’s that you say? How did it photosynthesize light? Why can’t you just be happy in the club and stop asking awkward questions? That’s not our creed. Maybe it didn’t photosynthesize light to begin with, maybe it lived off the atmosphere. It had atmosphere burgers for breakfast, who knows. Yeah, that ought to do it. It got energy from the existing atmosphere. How it managed to build the equipment to do this as a life form, we do not yet know. Let’s assume it just did, okay? I know it needs energy to create a mechanism to process the energy but let’s not confuse the issue. It’s not important to address the logic.

  And then of course, with its energy already intact it... learned how to photosynthesize light. Okay? Satisfied?

   No, it did not need to photosynthesize light if it already had an energy supply from the atmosphere, but let’s assume that it did. Yes, another fortuitous shift, I know. And yes, of course to photosynthesize light it needed... to grow a pigment.

  Alright, alright, so I’m stretching the limit of credibility here but stick with this, we’re the winners in this debate, truly. Evolutionists rule! I mean, it’s just a pigment, right? How hard could that be?

  What are they? Well, they are chemical compounds which reflect only certain wavelengths of visible light. Our little trooper needs to knock up a chemical compound out of itself in its little self-assembly kit without thinking why or what the end use is, since it cannot think ahead. But reflecting light by itself would be useless for the self-assembly unit of life, it would need to absorb certain wavelengths too. Pigments reflect and absorb certain wavelengths of light. Reflect and absorb. Two jobs for the little thing to work out. Which one first? How does it know what absorb or reflect is? Time is ticking... You’ll be dead, little thing, if you don’t get this right and soon.

  Oh, no, we’ve given it atmosphere burgers. No more ticking clock. Does it need to do this photosynthesis stuff now it’s so successful at munching the atmosphere? Didn’t someone just ask that question, could we pay attention, please? The answer is no, I guess not. It could have lived for billions of years in this happy state. Eating the atmosphere. Duplicating. Eating the atmosphere. Duplicating. And let’s say it did... What’s that you say? If it has an unlimited supply of atmosphere that it uses then as it duplicates at an exponential rate as all bacteria do then why wasn’t the world and the universe swamped in bacteria in the first week? I didn’t say it was bacteria. Let’s call it proto-bacteria.

  Admittedly, if it were bacteria at this point, exponential rates of duplication, 2,4,8,16, and so on, do pretty quickly add up to filling the whole universe, despite their microscopic size, this is true, and the only fossil we have ever seen of a bacteria from many millions of years ago is a single, isolated, lonely little fossilized bacteria, I agree, yet you would expect to see billions in close proximity in a fossil, not just a few scattered across the world. I agree with you, child.   

  Unless of course, in the whole size of the earth, these fossil hunters found a microscopic fossil, the first that ever lived - wouldn’t that be something? In all that space, we find the first microscopic fossil! Weren’t we lucky! Talk about a needle in a haystack, when the haystack is the size of the whole world! Gosh, it seems microscopic chances and microscopic changes and microscopic evidence go hand in hand in Evolution (or would that be three hands needed?)... Of course, then that would have been ‘it’ for the rest of them if this was the only one found, fossilized in isolation, so clearly it wasn’t the first but anyway, I’m now a little flustered by your impertinent questions. Let me try to compose myself and move on.

 Ahem! Okay. Let’s get back to it. When it decides - no it can’t decide, there needs to be a random chemical change to drive the thing in a new direction, by chance - well then when any of this atmosphere-eating thing’s offspring find themselves at random tackling pigment construction, what other problems might there be? And remember, these random mutations that send it off in this new direction can only happen once, to one of the offspring. To happen twice would be impossible? No, we say implausible. Nothing’s impossible, class, you should know that. So, whenever one or several get around to the process, what do they have to figure out? Well, pigments react with only a narrow range of the light spectrum. To produce more of the sun’s energy several kinds of pigments, each of a different color, would be required. But at this stage the self-assembled pigment-maker needed only to have figured out how to absorb one part of the light spectrum to get some additional energy, but get that wrong first time and it might be killed! Ultraviolet light could damage it beyond repair! But it can’t do any figuring out because it can’t plan ahead, it simply has to react, so what to do? It must choose, blindly, without actually choosing, and not knowing the consequences because that would be thinking ahead. Evolution has no foresight, only hindsight. It reacts to lucky accident.

  Okay, well, ultraviolet light could damage it beyond repair, so it was lucky, yet again, that it stumbled on a safe part of the spectrum of light, first time. As it happens, red light (630–680 nanometres) is best suited to what’s called ‘heterocyst’ production in pigment cells. You know, cells, membranes, it’s cooking up all that jazz. What’s that? There are three types of pigment? Yes, there are, and this thing chose the right one. First time. Any questions? No? Good. We’re done.

  I’m sorry, at the back there? The choices? Look, this is a creed, okay, not a lecture hall…

  Okay, well, there are carotenoids, phycobilins, and chlorophylls. Carotenoids have two six-carbon rings connected by a chain of carbon atoms. They don’t dissolve in water and need to be stuck to membranes. Have we constructed a membrane yet? Anybody? Well that’s the heterocyst work going on right there. Anyway, carotenoids don’t transfer sunlight energy directly to the photosynthetic pathway, but have to send their absorbed energy to chlorophyll. That means carotenoids Evolved after chlorophyll.

  I know, it’s illogical that a pigment would be made after chlorophyll to hand its energy on to chlorophyll, when chlorophyll must have been made before it and was successful in life before it, since the life form was alive and had no idea it was going to die pretty soon. And to make matters worse, modern forms of this successful life, which we’ll come to, actually have carotenoids in them! So they really did put the cart before the horse! I know, spooky. Unless the thing using chlorophyll thought ahead that it might need to create a backward step offshoot to create something new in life, but that would be thinking ahead so it’s not allowed, but anyway, moving on.

  But wait, what? A chemical aberration that throws a life organism in a retrograde step? A creates B that needs to go back through A to make C? But no forward planning is allowed? All random mutations? Well maybe B had sex with A by chance and that’s how they created C?

  No, you see these are self-replicating organisms, class. They are non-sexual. No sex capabilities at this stage in life. They split in two and that’s their procreative limit. No need for sex. Besides which, we’re creating a pigment not a new life form. And in any case, as an Evolutionist you don’t need to dwell on the problems our creed throws up, you must accept the creed, like religious folk accept the Holy Bible. So let’s move on.

  What all this means is that carotenoids are no good - even though they’re now part of these little critters in the 21st century - and our little self-assembly kit may well have had to go down that route to find out it was no good at first, without knowing why or where to go next.

  So what’s next, phycobilins, okay. These are water-soluble pigments. Is our little life form in water? We believe so. Certainly has to be to photosynthesize because it needs an electron to do it and that’s where the water source comes in.

  And the other candidate? Chlorophylls, pigments with a porphyrin ring - a molecule around which electrons are free to migrate. Free moving electrons means it can gain or lose electrons, so making it easier to provide energy-boosted electrons to other molecules. This is how chlorophyll absorbs sunlight. So our little self-assembly kit needs to construct a porphyrin ring! Okay. That’s got to be easy, right? So, this is what the self-assembly kit made.

  But wait? Again, wait? Who’s taking this class? Yes, admittedly there’s chlorophyll ‘a,’ ‘b’ and ‘c’. ‘A’ passes its souped-up electrons to molecules which manufacture sugars. That’s right, I forgot, the sugars. Got to manufacture sugars down this route. Eek, what a gym-kit this thing brought with it, right?

  But all DNA and RNA, known as the building blocks of life, rely on simple sugars (specifically monosaccharides) to encode. But the encoder needs these sugars to encode! So then the encoder did not make the sugars. They were there already. A chemical compound, a sugar! waiting for a life form to find it... No, the life form needs the sugars to be a life form, that won’t work. It needs to encode to be a life form and it needs the sugars to encode. Maybe sugars were the first form of life! Carbohydrates rock! Right class? - Yes, I have lost weight, thank you for noticing - So that would work, right? Except, sugar is not life, it’s a basic chemical compound of life that is itself life-less, and anyway it dissolves in water, and life started in water.

  Or, maybe life didn’t start in water after all.  But then where do we get the electron needed for the pigment to photosynthesize, except from water? Good question. Nobody said Evolution was easy.

  Look, all plants, algae, and cyanobacteria that use photosynthesis contain chlorophyll ‘a,’ we Evolutionists know that much. So let’s forget ‘b’ and ‘c.’ Right. Let’s just assume this thing got lucky, as it really needed to. Alright. It got lucky. It has now manufactured, self-assembled chlorophyll ‘a,’ using the sugar it needed in its encoding box to make the sugar it needed to move on. Illogical, yes, but it got there, okay? The ‘stuff of life.’ Let’s not quibble.

  What, all by itself? With no designer, no help, nor even any design modifications from itself? No thinking ahead, retooling, rejigging the chemistry to get it just right because that would be thinking ahead and designing and planning, so it just got there first time? Couldn’t learn from its mistakes in the process because it wasn’t aware there was a process at any stage of it becoming the first thing that lived? No discrete part of the self-assembly knew what it was doing at any point and the overarching thing that set these discrete processes on their way had itself no idea what it was doing, with no designer?

  Yeesssssssssss! Correct. That. Is. The Creed.

  Really? A self-assembly unit built itself from scratch without planning, and from pure random chemistry built a pigment? Yes. You see, while it can’t look ahead and plan, it can look back and see what it has done at random and then decide if that’s a useful change for life to continue with it. Well, it can’t decide, as such. It has no consciousness. It doesn’t think. It just reacts. Survival and reproductive success is the bedrock of Evolution. Successful chemistry concoctions are recorded by the species to pass on to its offspring. We say ‘the gene pool’ gets the new successful chemistry written into it. What determines success is survival. If it works, use it again.

  But then, how does each chemical change on the way to building the very first pigment answer the ‘success’ rule? It has no notion of success yet in its halfway house to a pigment.

  What does ‘it works’ mean for something that is being constructed with no foresight and no ‘success’ chemistry yet written onto it?

  This is the first living thing that has not yet split in two. It is self-assembling its way to continued life. It is already alive, but it needs to know how to duplicate that life and stay alive. It needs sugars to form the duplicating mechanism but is not itself sugar. And it creates sugars in creating a pigment, but needs sugars to start that process, and if it’s in water it can’t (electron handy but sugars dissolve) and if it’s out of water it can’t (sugars handy but no electron). But still. One single molecule of life. Sitting there, figuring it out, without foresight or looking ahead. Building itself up from scratch. Evolution is the successful passing on of genes that optimize survival. The process of building a pigment is not instantaneous - Am I sweating? Of course I’m sweating, it’s hot!

  So, to continue, class, it is a process of chemical changes, each needing to ‘survive’ to pass those successes on to other chemistries. But survival is the record of success, because it has worked. Each chemical change on the way to a pigment is a success because it has worked. The thing has changed but is still alive. So that whatever it was that it did, it will keep that chemical - because it still works, it’s still alive; and besides, there’s no way back, the chemical chain link can’t be undone, it’s a one way street. So the first thing that lived self-assembled a memory bank without knowing why it was doing it and the memory bank allowed it to store chemical information, chemical signatures it had encountered at random, in a form that was retrievable and reusable at a later stage, even though ‘later stage’ is not part of its vocabulary as it can’t look forward it can only react, and that memory-bank chemistry said “if your chemistry changes, store change and add to it,” or “when chemistry changes, store change and add to it.” If or When. Suspiciously like forethought. Strike that, class. “Chemistry change=store.” Better. Write that down.

  For what? (The class is now getting decidedly frustrated at this apparent nonsense).

  You store something for a purpose, but it has no purpose?

  (Miss DuBois is looking a little less confident but she holds her own:)

  Yes, blind degrees, remember. This is random storage to no purpose. So it stores a chemistry change and waits for the next change. It stores it because it can, and that’s success. Success = it has worked, a chemical changed and I am not yet dead.

  (The class takes over from here on in, irate:)

  Well, a few more of those chemical changes and we’re away, right? But for the first thing, that has not yet duplicated or figured out how to duplicate, it needs to store many, many random chemical changes that have no forward planning and each chemical change that it stores has to be the right chemical change in the next step towards building a pigment, first time, and before it duplicates. If it lives off the atmosphere before photosynthesis then likewise it needs to store these many random chemical changes that have no forward planning and each chemical change that it stores has to be the right chemical change in the next step towards building a duplication process. (Miss DuBois interjects, feebly: "Correct," before they go on:) In all of science and chemistry, with all that we know of chemical formulations and what bonds with what to make what, we can’t recreate this simple little thing and yet it did by itself? Are we dumb or what! (Silence. Miss DuBois prefers to ignore the heated interruption and resumes:)

  Happy class? Good. Okay. Lesson time - In this creed, you must beware against those who say things like, “half a pigment is useless.” You can now say with all due confidence that it simply built chemical formula upon chemical formula without knowing why and it simply got there in the end, by chance. That’s all you need to know. Do you accept this creed?

  Do you accept this creed?


  Look, class, it’s perfectly simple: chemical processes simply continue through chemical logic with no prior design. Chemistry just is and it changes inexorably, inevitably towards, well, in this instance, a pigment. Happy now?

  (Apparently not. Another question comes at her:)

  What is cyanobacteria?

  Oh, my gosh, your questions, they just keep coming! But actually I was coming to this. Cyanobacteria are aquatic and photosynthetic - they live in the water and can manufacture their own food. They are the oldest known fossils, more than 3.5 billion years old (we know this from carbon-dating of rocks, which is a fact, despite carbon-14 being found in coal seams 50 feet beneath the surface, impenetrable by the surface carbon-14 that is always there at the top, but you must learn to say any carbon-14 found in fossils doesn’t count because… that’s just not fair, we just have to be right, we have to be, we’re scientists, so any counter facts are just dismissed, okay, got that? Say the conditions weren’t right or something. Yes the conditions are always right when we do the work, but anyone, even a scientist, whose facts disagree with our findings, is just not right. You have to live with this professional dilemma - it’s our creed).

  Anyway, this means our little self-assembly kit became cyanobacteria, and it’s still around today, in its exact same form - but with carotenoids.

  The atmosphere was different billions of years ago, so in actual fact it didn’t live on the atmosphere back then, it did photosynthesize, since it hasn’t changed (much), but the atmosphere has changed - that’s an inference from observed data, which is science by the way, and also how we work in Evolution. The fact that it lives today as it did all those billions of years ago, also means that the popular phrase I used at the beginning of the creed was false: The “atmosphere was unsuitable for life as we know it today” clearly does not include the thing that made us all, cyanobacteria, since it lived both then and now.

  It also means that the second thing it split into at the start became something else in order for us to exist.

  But the thing it was originally died? It’s one thing, it splits into two things, then it’s one thing, then it splits into two things? Then back to one again?

  Okay, class, you’re asking, how did the thing that could only split into two create an offshoot that developed into something else if cyanobacteria are still around today in the same form they were at the start? Well, the miracle of the origin of Evolutionary change over time, as someone helpfully pointed out earlier regarding exponential growth, is that just as the first thing self-assembled itself and introduced to itself the notion of dividing into two, and also self-assembled without any energy source how to convert light to energy by photosynthesis - which photosynthesis option we must infer from the fact that the atmosphere is different now and they are still the same, so the atmosphere was not its driving energy source - so it also duplicated.

  And that something else duplicated again, and that something else duplicated again and again, rapidly, creating hundreds, then thousands, then millions and then billions of these little self-assembly units, by exponential growth.

  The duplication process is up and running, living for a few million years no doubt, happy in its process. Now there are billions of these self-assembly kits. Only one of them needs to have a chemical change in a new direction and it starts to duplicate.  So there’s your answer. Random chemical change sent one of its offspring along a new species route.

  Moving on: the oxygen atmosphere that we enjoy now was created by cyanobacteria during the Archaean and Proterozoic Eras…

  Hang on a minute…

  You know, I’ve just realized something, class…

  The oxygen atmosphere was created by cyanobacteria, but they haven’t changed from when the early atmosphere was not so oxygen rich. Their chemistry hasn’t changed, but they change the atmospheric chemistry. This means it is, in scientific terms, a catalyst. An enzyme. Enzymes change things but don’t themselves change. Sorry. Yes. It is the characteristic role of a protein. I got a little lost in my notes. I meant to say that…

  So now cyanobacteria needed proteins to form. Proteins are formed from amino acids. Amino acids are ruled by genetic codes. There are only twenty amino acids that create proteins, chosen from a much larger range of possible amino acids. Our early self-assembly kit would have needed to experience by chance these twenty amino acids in the right sequence to create a protein, and also have the necessary DNA coding to know how to deal with them. Without the code, there is no sequence. Without the sequence, the code lies dormant. And this is all before it has built its little pigment.

  The code tells the chemistry what to do. But the code is the chemistry. The chemical code must be written prior to the chemical interaction - the future chemical interaction necessary to make catalyzing proteins actually needed to be known in advance of the interaction to take advantage of the interaction, should the right combination of amino acids come along in the right sequence. You can’t slowly make your way to the code that is needed to make the interactions that are needed to make life develop, even if life happens to chance upon the earth to begin with. The code must be pre-written into something that already houses amino acids in the right sequence to effect the necessary catalyst for ongoing life. And this before that life even begins to work out for itself how to duplicate. Life, in other words, stands in logical opposition to Evolution.

  But... Our creed is to say that early life got there by chance and not design, and what came after was also by chance, with effective chemistry combinations living on in the next generation, and ineffective ones being discarded. Any questions?

  Stunned silence for once, good. I knew you’d be impressed.

  Cyanobacteria, by the way, are the origin of plants. Did we cover that already? The chloroplast used by plants to make food is a cyanobacterium living in the plant’s cells. In the late Proterozoic/early Cambrian, cyanobacteria moved in with already existing eukaryote cells, making food for the eukaryote host in return for a home. This is called endosymbiosis, and is also the origin of the eukaryotic mitochondrion. In other words, eukaryotes are separate organisms which have cells with a nucleus where genetic material is carried in chromosomes. It would have the same problems evolving, if it didn’t in fact come from cyanobacteria or if cyanobacteria didn’t come from it, but anyway, they split off if they were ever one and then recombined to set up home in trees, formed by cyanobacteria.

  But already you can see the problem with that last statement, right class? For Evolutionists, I mean. These cyanobacteria convert nitrogen into an organic form, such as nitrate or ammonia. It is this nitrogen that plants need and must obtain from the soil. So let’s trace that back: cyanobacteria convert nitrogen to oxygen; trees convert nitrogen to oxygen; trees come from cyanobacteria; trees need soil; soil is made from rocks, water, air, and humus; humus is decomposed organic matter. The only organic matter around to begin with is ...cyanobacteria. So cyanobacteria is credited with creating trees, but endosymbiosis posits that cyanobacteria needed a home in the trees, which is, according to Evolutionary biologists already occupied by eukaryote cells which grant cyanobacteria living space in return for making chloroplast for eukaryotes to eat. So then eukaryote cells cannot exist without the cyanobacteria existing to begin with, but how did eukaryote cells emerge to take advantage of the food source? Endosymbiosis states they need each other to remain alive, but if all things Evolved from one thing then one of these came first. For eukaryotes to Evolve from cyanobacteria, Evolution states that any new species needs a long period of isolation following random genetic shift, but eukaryotes rely on cyanobacteria to live so could never form in isolation from them. The logical conclusion is that life not only emerged at random from nothing as an expression of mathematical implausibility, it did it twice, separately, as an expression of mathematical impossibility. And it necessarily did it twice in close proximity since eukaryotes feed off the chloroplast from cyanobacteria. Now, obviously this runs against all Evolutionists’ thinking so we keep this one quiet, class. And remember, we don’t use the word impossible, only implausible. Is everyone okay with that? Yes, class, since B needs A to live, in order to emerge from A it must first live in isolation from A, and as this is not possible for eukaryotes according to endosymbiosis then eukaryotes emerged spontaneously as separate living entities, they did not Evolve from cyanobacteria. Therefore Evolution is false. But you must not dwell on this to believe the creed…

 And on top of this, with all space and the endless food source of the sun available to cyanobacteria and eukaryotes duplicating at an exponential rate, in less than a week they would fill the earth and the whole universe with nothing to stop them. Cyanobacteria live and have fulfilled their function by self-replicating on into infinity in a very short space of time. Even if only the earth were to fill up with cyanobacteria, the top layer not caring about the dead layers underneath it as it rose and rose, piling higher and higher into the atmosphere, there’s nothing to stop it, not even itself. Oh, wait a minute. It needs an electron to continue, which we said was the sea. Yes, we did. But did you know that the sea was, in science, ‘rained down’ from the sky in even the earliest earth and that rain continued as the sea continued to grow? So now, you tell me: what’s to stop the cyanobacteria from growing in one single week exponentially to the limit of the earth!?

  Actually, this is all next week’s homework. 

  And that, class, is the beginnings of Evolution. We’ll call the first thing that started to self-assemble, Proto-Kit. The luckiest thing ever to have lived.

  Life’s lucky, isn’t it? So many breaks, so soon. So much randomness and chance working in its favour. We’re truly lucky to be alive!   

  And so a random, chance-bound universe unleashed the greatest things in the history of the universe. Behold:


Vendian Animals:

The First Animals.

Self-assembled around 650 million years ago.

Using self-assembled photosynthetic pigments.

All self-assembled from what I would call Proto-Kit:

The first, the prototype, self-assembly unit of life.


  Here endeth the early Creed of the Evolutionist. Please pass this round the class for your individual attention, I do so like it when the class is nice and quiet like that. Are you struck dumb by the sheer magnificence of Evolution’s basic creed? No? What do you mean too much randomness and chance and basic impossibility? Nonsense, weren’t you paying attention? This is life! Spontaneous life! Improbable, yes, but not impossible, clearly, since we are here. Life! Working super-fast to stay alive, to adapt or die. What’s that? You thought Evolutionary changes were slooooow! Over millions of years. Why that’s just the later stuff, my sweet child, when we look at things from the other end, then we need time to slow down to support our arguments. It’s called science! Didn’t your father teach you anything? Shame on your mother’s ignorance for not letting you know the facts..."





22 The Whole



...Okay, say goodbye to Miss DuBois, or whatever we’ve decided to call our Southern belle. And forgive the tone. I couldn’t resist poking a little fun at the logic of it all. Evolutionists are hell-bent on casting Creationists as morons, scientific numpties, yet the very logic of their programme is underpinned by that, albeit playful creed above. Playful, but factually (scientifically) accurate; even that last bit about exponential growth rates, which I’ll come to in a moment. One thing we should watch for, though, is the use of phrases like ‘chemical wizardry’ in the Evolutionists’ creed. We see it all the time as the stock phrase for not understanding the start of all life. It’s quite a telling phrase from a camp whose project appears to have the attempted murder of God in its sights. My dictionary definition says ‘pertaining to sorcery or magic.’ Their project’s first-cause or prime-mover is, then, magic and sorcery? They won’t name God, or give God His due, but they’ll happily allow for magic and sorcery? Chemical wizardry?

  Maybe it’s an innocent throwaway remark or maybe it’s a veiled attack on a God they know exists, Who, they calculate, if He is proven to exist after all, is now a chemical wizard, a sorcerer, a magician. Well, their project looks sadder and sadder every day, that’s all I can say.

  In addition, what we learn from the Evolutionist Creed is that life builds from the ground up, by slow, blind degrees. For example, the human embryo, it thinks, hands on discrete information to the next cell without knowing what it’s up to before it gets there. Things look designed because they end up looking so complicated, but the miniscule step-by-step, handing on of discrete packets of information to no certain end is their philosophy of life. This is how Evolution works and how the human embryo works in the Evolutionists’ creed. They think ‘chemo-affinity’ answers all questions, in which the nervous system wires itself up by seeking out end organs with which it has a particular affinity and there’s nothing more to it than that. The human form emerges without any overall plan.  

  It’s a pernicious view, I think; when so easily we can view the embryo as not building step-by step, but unpacking step by step. This whole building from the ground up scenario, building discrete step by discrete step, neatly and rather nastily, I think, lends itself to randomness and pointlessness. 'Unpacking’ however, would see the embryo unraveling, as it were, like a fully formed series of chemical letters rolled up and then rolled out, already determined, and merely unpacking the thing it has already created. Unpacking in segments.

  The first thing we notice about almost all species is their symmetry, with duplicated external features on either side of their bodies. Including a line down the centre of the human skull, for instance. Conception involves two entities fusing and then each subsequent cell dividing. So we go from two people to one cell that splices both parents’ genes that then start to divide, to go back to two, then four, etc. so that the fully grown, ‘unpacked’ humans are joined and packed up again in the one embryo. Who they are is already written into the new embryo that simply unpacks the already written new person, and that’s how it’s always been. We are already there at the moment of conception. We are already written. We simply have to take the journey from two humans back to one and then out again. The Evolutionists’ view would have you believe that you are nothing at the moment of conception except potential to be written by blind, chemo-affinity degrees.

  But, viewed simply as something neatly packed up, yet already complete, and the human picture changes. Now it is a small, full human being (in compact chemistry form, with pre-written codes for unpacking, just as a computer reduces large information to compressed zip folders for easy transport and then unpacks the large information at a later date, it’s exactly the same principle), requiring only nourishment from the womb to unpack the already written person. The fertilized egg is the whole human, reduced to its complete genetic material, material that now simply needs to know where to go. It splits in two, becomes left and right, say. Splits again and it’s left and right + top and bottom. So all of the genetic material is being segmented into their constituent parts of the symmetry we eventually find written all over our body.

  Now all other splits are either going to place the genetic material in the left or right, top or bottom segment. It is simply unpacking what the chemistry knows is already there; with all cells containing the same genes, so with each cell division each gene is pre-programmed to switch on different genes from the parent cell. That’s how we get asymmetric cell division. It’s all pre-coded, pre-set, pre-written. Just like all life on earth from the start. But the Church of Evolution sees you as blind chemistry only, sufficiently indifferent to embryonic life to rake it from the womb. It’s a pretty nasty creed, when all’s said and done.

  What is most depressing is that they readily concede that they do not understand the whole picture of how life is put together, and nor does any scientist, otherwise they would have created life from nothing themselves by now, you can be sure of that; yet in conceding they have no knowledge of exactly how it’s done, they presume to rule out God. Is that not the very height of arrogance? We do not know how, but in no way is it God. Yes, that’s science. Rule out a possibility just because you don’t understand it. Anyone who considers Evolution to be plausible and who does not also consider God to be plausible is just not thinking. But when Evolution is shown to be implausible, as it is being shown to be wildly implausible to the point of impossibility in this book, then what? What are you left with if not God?

  But our pupil in Miss DuBois’ class who speaks up for too much randomness and chance nails it, really. They really do. Let’s look at the following facts about life: glucose is what’s known as a monomer, formed by several monomer molecules chemically bonding by glycosidic bonds to form a polymer.  Polymer examples are starch or cellulose, which comprise over three quarters of the weight of all plants. Amino acids are also monomers and polymerize to form proteins, without which no life is possible. Nucleotides, monomers found in the cell nucleus, polymerize to form nucleic acids, the progenitors of all life found in DNA and RNA. Note the sequence: DNA, the thing that writes life and how to put it together, needs a cell nucleus to be created - which cannot be written by DNA because it’s about to create DNA - followed by the exact sequence of chemical reactions in order to begin writing the thing that writes all life as we know it!

  Experiments can show that amino acids can come together quite naturally, so no problem there. But the exact sequence to allow the beginning of the writing of the instructions for life and for the instructions for the writing for life to be in place, already written so as to be ready to react in exactly the right way to those amino acids is your basic end-game for Evolutionists, or anyone in the abiogenesis (spontaneous chemical Evolution) field that posit self-generating life. If you believe in chance and randomness and Evolution because some very smart people tell you it’s right, simply put this to them. It’s science. It’s a reasonable challenge. But they will have no answer.

  You can take 6-katrillion-bajillion years of emerging chemicals prior to photosynthetic life and you still wouldn’t stumble, accidentally, upon the sequences required both in the chemistry configuration required to trigger life and also the sequences required in the chemistry to respond in exactly the right way to those life-triggering chemistries. The simple analogy is, you have a train ticket and a timetable before trains and tracks are invented and the train ticket and timetable actually spontaneously create trains and train tracks without any train design or advance engineering, and the destination and time on the ticket have numbers written under them that match the combined numbers of all the winning lottery tickets ever drawn in the world wherein only that special sequence of numbers can ‘ignite’ the engine of life, and the destination on the ticket is a place that won’t be built for 4.6 billion years but the train will eventually wend its way there in time for you to arrive on the morning commute to work - and none of it was planned.

  So you can see right there, you would need to be beyond lucky, you would need a miracle to stumble on the complexity of life no matter how many billions of years luck and chance and randomness had to do it in. In other words, life has the calculating hand of design written all over it, and any Evolutionist, or abiogenesis-ist, who denies this is simply underwriting an anti-God agenda, whether they know it or not.

  Ask an Evolutionist whether he believes in Jesus turning water into wine and he’ll say that’s impossible. Miracles just don’t happen, they’ll say. Oh, really, then the beyond-comprehension luck of random, spontaneous life is not a miracle? And when I say beyond-comprehension luck I don’t mean that I don’t understand the notion of luck and chance. I mean I fully understand it and there is no chance. None. And to go chasing it is music to the ears of those who have God in their rifle-sights.

  Now, I don’t want Evolutionists to be stupid. I want my scientists to be smart. Applying drop-dead logic that hammers my own into submission but this is not in evidence at the crucial stage, the start of it all. Sadly for other very brilliant scientists, the rest of the Evolutionist’s logic is similarly found wanting. Evolutionists are starting to bring other scientific endeavors into disrepute by injecting a kind of diseased logic into the arena of science. Creationism is pretty harmless by comparison since it is merely a religion of ‘facts’ taught by rote, which you believe or don’t believe, which you can challenge if you like by science and rigorous logic, but it’s not professing to be a science, it’s a religion, whereas science is supposed to be a pillar of unassailable logic and reason, and Evolution just isn’t in that ballpark. No wonder Creationists don’t want it in their science class! It, and not Creationism, threatens to send science back to the dark ages by undermining our confidence in the scientific endeavour.

  In order to make Evolution any way something you might buy into, it is necessary to look away from the brutal illogicality of their creed at the start of it all. And they desperately want you to do that. To look away. Before we do, though - and we will look away to indulge them - I need to run through the logic of that one special case at the beginning of all life. Bacteria and its rate of growth, as previously mentioned.

  E. coli bacteria reproduce every 20 minutes under ideal conditions. At this rate, after 36 hours the descendants of a single bacterium would cover the entire surface of the earth up to your knees, in the next hour it would be on the rooftops, and within a few days it would weigh as much as the visible universe and would be expanding outward at the speed of light!


8 by 1st hour

64 by 2nd hour

512 by 3rd hour

4096 by 4th hour

32768 by 5th hour

262144 by 6th hour

2,097,152 by 7th hour

167,777,216 by 8th hour


  You can see how this works. They are duplicating, so each number multiplies by itself in each generation. Terrifying exponential growth, on into the bajillion-quadrillion-zillion-zillions etc., pretty darn quickly. The ideal conditions are that nothing gets in the way of the food supply for the next generation. Limitless sunlight or atmosphere, whichever way you want to look at it. You’ll recall that these things do not think, in Evolutionary terms. There is no check on them whatsoever because they eat the sun or the air. Name your snack. As they pile on top of each other, basking in the glory of limitless self-reproductive skills and energy supplies, nothing on earth could stop them expanding on into infinity in under a week. Sounds incredible, but it’s true.

  And remember, in order to stop this, a random genetic mutation must occur to take the species off in a new direction and for Evolution to be right. Evolution’s whole project rests on the idea of billions of years of geological time, and countless millions of years since these things first appeared. They hold that the slight variations that drive one species to another are just about plausible, given the enormous geological time-scale confirmed, they think, by radioactive-decay of elements. In this week, the first week of Evolution, when life has just about got a foothold and has learned to replicate and harness the energy sources around it and with nothing to stop this sudden wonderful explosion of life, they must necessarily engineer something - by blind random degrees, not knowing why they would be doing it - a mechanism to halt this exponential growth.

  There is absolutely nothing in the Evolution Bible that says this would be a necessary ‘instinct,’ or a natural condition of life. They know that their improbability stick has already been stretched to infinity and beyond in their ridiculous account of life, and this sudden needless chemical change taking place in under one week is not something life would be able to foresee as necessary, since foresight is impossible in Evolution. And yet, the mechanism to stop such exponential growth is there in week one. I would be generous and give it a million years but then we’d all be dead. It has to be there from the start. Absolutely no logical way out of it. None. And it’s been there ever since otherwise none of us would exist.

  Not so incidentally, you’ll notice there’s no random change in that direction - why a growth-brake that existed from the start has no random change in the opposite direction, since the consequences of not having one could not possibly be known to the bacteria that already have the exponential-growth-brakes working from the start. No reason why it wouldn’t happen. After all, millions upon millions of years of time have supposedly gone by in which this random change could have occurred - bacteria not having any consciousness, or foresight, since Nature doesn’t think! It just... does.

  So where’s Evolution’s team of mathematicians and scientists now clamouring for a recount, a plausible explanation as to why no random genetic mutation has occurred that allows even one species of bacteria to let go of the brakes on exponential growth into infinity - a brake that was there from the start with no accountable need for a new, non-conscious, non-designed, random-change-life-form?

  So step away from the nonsensical reasoning and try to relax about God. There’s no big deal. He exists. The facts are piling up in His favour. It may challenge everything you’ve ever heard of or read, but so what? Think of those poor people who found out the earth wasn’t flat! You think that didn’t test their heart and head? Reconditioning your view against all your upbringing is, well, earth-shattering, I don’t doubt it. But there really is no big deal. You do exist. You didn’t make yourself. There are only two options: God or no God. Yes or no. It couldn’t be easier. The necessary brakes were applied to exponential growth by design, as they definitely needed to be or we’d all be dead.

  Evolution says change over millions of years. This thing has a week or we don’t make it. You do the mathematics. No conscious being on earth could, without reference to God, rationally account for such a confluence of random chances all operating in favour of life emerging and not swallowing us all up just as soon as it had begun.

  Your brain should literally explode now if it tries to dodge the logical reality of the origin of your own existence - so I don’t recommend you try. Except, I want you to keep thinking because too many have hoped you would stop thinking for yourself, pummeling you with TV and exhausting work so you don’t have the energy to fight this, but I’m here to fight for you, I really am. I think you’re being sold a dud on Evolution and you need to know why it’s a dud. If you think I’m not smart, if you think I thought like blazes about this and find no way out but God because I’m not smart enough to see what you see, then maybe there’s still some work to do. Maybe you want me to go through all the evidence and knock it all down, bit by bit, and I will. It’s real. There’s no danger that I have not marshalled a cogent, rational reason why you, me, we all need to ditch Evolution now (the one that does not relate to dog-breeding, but to species developing into other species all with a common Evolutionary ancestor).

  But the fact is, you’re in a real situation here. You’re reading this somewhere, on a train, on a bus, in bed, wherever, but you’re now faced with the greatest question of your life that matters for you in the greatest way possible, reaching into who you are and what the heck you’re doing here on this little speck of a planet in the vast universe, going right to the heart of your identity and your origin: Who and what the heck are you?

  All the cool-headed, calm, rational books you’ve read on the subject from both angles and still you don’t know what to think. Well this book is different. This book demands you make a choice. And if intellectual pride forces you to resist that because I’ve said that then you can bet you’ll be questioning and aching for an answer all the rest of your days.

  To accept Evolution in the face of its unapologetic logic-less-ness is simply your pride messing with your head.










23 Multi-Faith World


  So if, by now, you’re swayed towards God, but still have questions, then surely the burning question is, is any one religion right, or are they all wrong? Yes God, but no, not a single religion has the correct God. If that’s true, then where does the notion of God come from? Our need for comfort in a cold universe? But we’ve just gone through the choices, God or Evolution. Thems the choices! If not Evolution, then God. Necessarily. So no need to ask where the notion of God comes from. It’s clearly from God. Ipso facto - by the very fact of God we have a notion of God.    

  Is it possible God made us and did not care whether we knew about Him?

  If a God makes us all and wants no relationship with us, why would He make us capable of love and respect and with a sense of family and care and not Himself have any of those notions? If a God values those things enough to give those notions to us, then it follows that He values them for Himself. In valuing those notions for Himself He would care for us and want to communicate with us to let us know who and what we are and how He hopes we’ll behave, even while we are free to do as we please. He would not abandon us to the void and wild speculation.

  Therefore, one of the books of religion that speaks of God communicating with us is bound to be right. For how else would He communicate the same thing to all of us, generation after generation? And those books came from an oral tradition of relating the word of God to man, which man then wrote down to capture those words for all time for all of us.

  For me, mathematics alone points me inexorably towards the Christian God, specifically the Catholic Church’s central belief of the three-in-one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the view that holds the Virgin Birth, the transubstantiation of the body of Christ in the Eucharist (bread and wine actually become body and blood of Christ) and the miracles of Jesus to be true. But that last part, my easy willingness to buy into those miracles, is my own sense of the splendour of the relationship between God and man that, after creating a universe at faster-than-light speed, confirms miracle-making is clearly child’s play.

  For those who doubt the miracles that underpin Catholicism, take a look at NASA’s website and the fact of this faster-than-the-speed-of-light ability in the creation of the universe. I sure didn’t put that information up there. If science can show you miracles, you think God can’t?

  And for those who might be tempted to comfort themselves that NASA’s findings may be explained away by number-crunching errors, they’ve been crunching the same numbers for decades and coming back with the same results, so start doubting the science and the scientific project is no better than the Creationist belief, in which one person’s narrative of the origins of the universe is no better nor any worse than anyone else’s - it’s then all a question of faith, and down that route of questionable science the Evolutionist for one does not want you to go, nor any scientist. So we can be confident of the data.

  What remains, then, is to learn to square that with your unshakeable confidence in your random, no-God universe, if that’s your philosophy. Those who try will look for any semblance of cogency in an alternative explanation, desperate to run from God. But time is short. The current science is not in your favour but in God’s favour. For me, Catholicism answers all uncertainties and places God firmly at the helm of the universe.

  As to other faiths, I really can’t and wouldn’t presume to speak for them. Maybe their own scientific studies and mathematics can equally account for their faith. My faith tells me they would necessarily be mistaken, and theirs would necessarily tell them that I’m mistaken. But I have a rational account of God from science and mathematics and that tells me all I need to know.

  It would take tremendous courage for anyone of any other faith to abandon their creed and replace it with someone else’s, and even more courage for those of no faith to realize faith in God for themselves without family backing or any history of faith in the family. That I do not doubt. But on the other hand, it only takes a moment to take that decision and begin the long journey.

  And if anyone were to point out the crimes committed by the Catholic Church over the centuries and continuing today in their internationally confirmed, legally undisputed reign of deceit and abuse of power over children in their care in Ireland recently, for one, I would simply point out that man is not God. Wherever man is, he is always man, pope or no pope. Priest or no priest. And some people cannot contain their terrible nature even behind the cloak of divinity and pastoral care.

  In matters of doctrine, the pope is regarded as infallible, since it is not he but God who speaks through him. But in all other matters he is human and fallible. To blame a faith for the disgraceful failings of some of its followers is to fall into the trap of doubt in God because of the things we do while in His service. I despise the acts of the cruel and cowardly. But I know that the pure faith is there in constant opposition to it.

  The practitioners of that faith are its followers only, who are all fallible. The Church is the faith, because it enshrines the ideal human being. And the Church is the words of the faith, given to us by God in the Holy Bible, and Jesus in the New testament (the Logos, the divine Word) further assisted by the pope who acts as God’s mouthpiece on earth; because after the Bible was written and handed to us all, still we grow as human beings and decide to do things as human beings that are the very exercise of our free will. And with each new decision we take as a family of people we create new conditions for life and living that go beyond the possible experience of those who came before us.

  Science itself demands that we remain in constant touch with God. We are free, never forget that. The Holy Bible, in the Old Testament, was updated once in the New Testament and it is being constantly updated by the head of the Catholic church - otherwise God would be intervening every so often with yet another New Testament, because we still hadn’t got it right in His eyes. And the principle of ongoing dialogue is established by having the Ten Commandments that were too widely ignored and then updated by that New Testament. If we can accept that the Bible for the Jewish population was updated in the New Testament, we can accept that the behaviour of man changes our relationship with God on an ongoing basis, such that He continues to need to help us, to intervene and help us.

  And that’s where Catholicism comes in. Not a fixed Biblical doctrine, because we are not fixed human beings. But an ongoing dialogue. And that is, for me, the master faith, in which a God can renew his relationship with us over and over again as we gain confidence and wisdom regarding our place in the universe. The challenges we face as humans demand we constantly question our right to behave as we do, since this is not our planet, but our children’s planet and their children’s planet and we hand on legacies of selfishness or self-restraint or both but as we move forward we need guidance from those who think we’re more than our random chemistry.

  The fatuous dogma of the God-free or God-lite world, in which a benign Sunday prayer is all we expect or want from our spiritual leaders, is a recipe for utter catastrophe when we face a global threat that places us at six minutes to midnight in the Malthusian world of population explosion and limited resources running alongside a nuclear weapons race and a rampant Industrial Revolution for a billion Chinese people, and five billion others of us trying to keep up with their exponential rates of economic growth.

  Laws do not stop this. Money drives this. Money will not be stopped. So we have in a crisis two choices: to think we are alone in the universe and that science will save us and damn the consequences for us and all our children and our children’s children if it doesn’t. Or think this God we have is real, and our earth is His earth, and maybe if we stop getting eaten up by the Evolutionist project, and allow ourselves to see the clear-sighted project that was His creation to begin with, then we might stop taking it for granted as we so clearly do. The earth was a pretty smart deal for us. We’re blowing the deal. The deal was written in the Ten Commandments. It was written in the New Testament. It is laid down by the Bishop of Rome, the pope, whom Jesus said would be His spokesperson on earth in all spiritual matters. But choose your faith and still no God in any language would want His creation and the people He created to treat the world and each other in the way that we do.

  Is the endless parade of human misery and suffering for our ‘information’ between weather reports the last word in being human now? Is that it? Nobody can control it so we give up? Do we listen to Evolutionists and their no-God philosophy and give up on humanity because there’s no real purpose to anything anyway? Not only are Evolutionists not scientifically right - sorry, but they’re not, although they tried hard, and maybe the opposition was good for believers to sharpen their intellectual sword and toughen their spiritual mettle - they also offer nothing but arbitrary purpose, which may appear intellectually brave to those without a sense of God, but to those who do have a sense of God and also an understanding of the science they appear willfully ignorant of the harmful moral relativism they underpin, in which my idea of fun and a good time on earth may conflict with your idea of a good time on earth but if I’m stronger and I’ve got more money - or was born into wealth and power and can change laws to suit me - then tough, we’re in a jungle. It’s a bankrupt vision. And the Evolutionist’s Credit Crunch has come, with no bail out.




24 Dumb Luck


  Anyhoo. Getting this juggernaut back on the road. Let’s see what Evolutionists have got in their little armoury to seduce us into thinking they’re right. Let’s set aside Proto-Kit, the logic-free or logic-lite first-life case (no, logic-free - there’s nothing lite about it), and go through the details, from the here-and-now to the past. Trust me, none of it holds water. But we need to see and dissect.

  One of the great facts of life is that we are here thinking, planning, designing, interfering with our own DNA structures, thinking ahead. As Evolutionists would have us believe, we are all descended from the simplest life form that could not then and could never think ahead, or plan ahead. All through its millions of years of Evolution it could not plan or think ahead. Yet, without even realizing what it was doing at any stage of Evolutionary development, it began to create something that could think ahead.

  Now, one would think that this thinking ahead process would itself take millions of years. But if it happened at all, it would have to have been a random mutation, a freak accident of Nature, in one go - because what already-living creature with any number of generations behind it could develop in its own lifetime a thinking-ahead-ness quality to pass on to the next generation without the genetic toolkit to establish that process? So freak accident it is.


  No? You think it Evolved?

  Well, let’s see.

  Within consciousness is self-awareness, observation of the outside world, mental mapping of what one has to do to get food. And I just want to consider hunger itself a moment, because there’s some humour in this necessary random genetic shift in this direction. Somehow, in an abundant world of endless sunshine and photosynthetic life, some bright spark of a bacterium developed a totally redundant notion called competing for food - as if it were ever needed in this super abundant world, but anyway, random mutation towards hunger and scarce resources it is, like that was a genetic mutation that helped the gene pool! Do you see how nonsensical the argument for Evolution is from the get-go? Anyway, when Evolutionists talk about survival of the fittest genes, this would incorporate at the beginning stage an ability for the first creatures to compete with other creatures for food, and sex if we’ve moved beyond self-replicating organisms (and we’ll come to that Evolutionary fallacy in a moment). This involves sizing up the competition to begin with. But sizing up for what? The first both non-thinking creatures in competition with each other rely on the Proto-Kit for food and the Proto-Kit has no foresight or planning ahead in it. They look at each other dumbly. What does it mean to be looking at each other? We’re in competition, but how do we know that?

  Hunger primes us to rush for the food at the same time. I get there first. To push me out of the way is to consciously know that my having got there first is not the end of the story. You still have a chance if you can push me out of the way. That’s reflection and forethought. If instinct alone, instinct is written into the genes. Does the chance shove of a competitor get written on to my genes as a chance shove? Great, then I use a chance shove the next time? No. We don’t change our genes in our life-time. That maneuver works and gets passed on to the next generation as it helped to get food.

  So now in the next generation, I shove someone out of the way to get food because it worked for my ancestor and I don’t even know why I’m doing it but it works and suddenly I’m eating. Good. And that’s it. Chance shoves get written onto genes and are passed on as good moves when competing for food. At what stage do these genes suddenly say, have a seat; think about what just happened; remember it. Could you have done that better with more weight behind it? At what stage does a reflective, strategizing mind come about since there is no code for forethought and planning, nor any necessity if a shove works every time? And if it doesn’t work, that proto-human (at whatever stage of Evolution) has to go away hungry. He has to get lucky or die and if he dies unsuccessful then the code naturally doesn’t get passed on, because the maneuver failed and Evolution doesn’t write failure into its codes, for what use are they when you’re dead from starvation?

  And even if I had children before I died, they’d inherit my useless technique and so would starve and my genes would die out, unless they got lucky and survived and then their genes survived and encoded the successful shoving gene. They would also have the parent’s useless gene, though, that didn’t shove right. So now Nature can balance the two, build up a databank of possible strategies in the gene pool, weighing up all the variables for future reference, but you see, that’s the problem. There’s no future reference for Evolution. It’s all non-strategy-making material. So good and bad choices as a balance of variables is useless. Therefore, even if failure were written onto genes so as to make it possible to compare notes for the next generation, there is in fact no comparing notes, since that is to think ahead. To strategize. To think!

  And yet! Strategy clearly underpins every single maneuver we see in the rich world of life. From stalking prey to pack hunting and flowers mimicking bees. No gentle gradient of genetic mutation or DNA-recoding of incremental benefit over millions of years is going to get you there. It’s purely wishful thinking to think it is. But Evolution is wishful thinking. And that’s the tragedy. Because so much intelligence is going to waste in its defence. Our thinking, strategizing ability is therefore yet another ludicrously random, chance leap of chemistry into the unknown. A freak accident. Haven’t these guys had enough improbabilities working in their favour by now? At what point do rational, thinking humans step back and admit, okay, we have had rather more than our fair quota of chance and randomness in this scientific fact-based Evolution enterprise. How is it that nobody has really nailed us intellectually yet? I can’t believe we’re getting away with this stuff.

  I really think that’s what must now be going through their minds. Only now that they’ve got such prestigious intellects behind it all it’s too late to pull out, for fear of intellectual ridicule. Unless of course they knew all along and simply like the difficulties they imagine they’ve placed in the way of those who believe in God. Well, so far, no difficulties. Though I will say this for them, they put up a good fight. But now it’s time for them to concede defeat.

  Okay, so the conscious mind exists and the likelihood of it being created at random by chance chemical changes is not only vanishingly small, it is only intellectual pride that would prop it up as a possibility.

  Similarly the random chemical change that sends self-replicating organisms off onto the path of sexual reproduction. They’re doing absolutely fine for millions of years, these self-replicators, and slowly they randomly diverge, and one offshoot of the bacterial species begins to unravel its successful self-replicating mechanism that Nature has said was functioning perfectly well, and by slow degrees it begins to Evolve a proto-womb in one part of itself and a proto-penis in another part of itself.

  At each stage of its Evolution it has to hand these non-functioning proto-sex organs to the next generation of itself while its self-replicating mechanism is still in operation, the two operating in tandem as they need to be since to move towards a proto-penis and proto-womb the thing still has to live and function as it always did, while its cooking up this slow Evolutionary change that does not assist the self-replicating kit one iota and has no immediate advantage at any stage, except that whatever chemical changes are taking place at random are not killing it off so the chemical change gets written on to the next generation precisely because the chemical change has occurred and it’s not yet dead. Chemical change and no death equals success, remember.

  There comes a point where proto-penis and proto-womb are in this one, self-replicating organism and they need to come together to form a single thing that can do both: something that can self-replicate and ‘have sex with itself.’ All well and good. It’s still on its own, this random mutation-species, newly emerging, having both options available to it: use the proto-penis-womb concoction it has, or use the old method of self-replication without sex organs.

  Finally, to ditch its old method and become this new species, Evolution states it must be isolated from its former self. A separate species is defined by creatures that cannot exchange genes sexually. So in order for the new species to form, this new thing must isolate its former self from its currently emerging self, which are both locked in the same body. Otherwise the genes keep getting re-washed in the old gene pool and the genetic mutation cannot take hold. And it needs to be isolated from its former self for a sufficient length of time such that when it re-encounters its old species, it cannot mate with it any more.

  Try to think through this impossibility while I break for a cup of eternity…

  That’s right. Again, the logic of Evolution is found wanting. But we’re going to assume it’s possible to isolate yourself from yourself in your own body, just to work through this process to some kind of meaningful conclusion.

  At some point, then, the species has to embark exclusively on the proto-womb-penis route and do this over a sufficient number of generations to ‘move away’ from its old self (there can be no real isolation from its old self, since it was a self-replicating organism able to breed from itself). Having moved sufficiently far away from itself by not using the old self-replicating mechanism but only exclusively the internal proto-sex organs, it will at some stage create a single species that cannot self-replicate as before, but instead uses the internal proto-womb-penis route. But the mechanism is still internal. One side of itself impregnates the other side of itself and a new thing emerges that can do the same. This is the logical consequence of Evolutionary logic. This thing is, to all intents and purposes, a self-replicating mechanism, but now it uses a proto-penis and a proto-womb.

  Now let’s say that it has created five million of these new species, all primed and ready to self-replicate in this new way, with the self-impregnation of the womb technique. At some stage of its Evolution, it needs to get the proto-penis physically-detached from the proto-womb. And it needs to do this just after impregnation. So now, the Evolution-cycle is to impregnate then break away. And we have a proto-womb on its own, growing a new thing inside it that has a proto-penis-womb to start doing the same. The proto-penis-womb thing that grows, needs to be born and to live; which is fine, since it’s still a sun-eating thing, it can feed itself. So there it is: a new thing that can impregnate itself and then break away from its penis side. It can do this for millions of generations, no problem, and there are millions of these things around doing the same thing.

  But now it needs to make another random chemical mutation and ditch the proto-penis before it impregnates itself. The proto-penis is off on its own now, with no self-replication and no womb to impregnate. This is a new species, the breakaway species. The sun-eating proto-penis-without-self-replication-or-womb thing. In order for this new species to take root in Evolution, it must isolate itself from the old gene pool to establish a hold as a new species. In order to isolate itself from the new species, it cannot breed with the old. In order to continue to live it must self-replicate or impregnate its womb with its proto-penis, but it can now neither self-replicate nor access a womb to do this to establish itself as a breakaway species. So, the male side of any species cannot break away from the female side of the species and sustain itself as a new species. It never gets away as a new species. That’s why we always have both a male and female side of a species. They are two sides of the same coin, as it were. But in order for the male side of the species to work in isolation from the female species, it can never break away from it. The female side is the proto-womb. It needs the male side to self-impregnate. At no stage is it able to let a proto-penis break away before it gets impregnated. It must detach, to start separating male from female, but it cannot do this. So then male and female are always within each organism at conception, and only later is the sex decided. This we know to be true from our own birth cycle. The decision to be male or female is made after conception.

   But still, at any point, this prototype thing never needs to look outside itself to create a new thing. So now yet another new chemical change is required that allows it to be male or female. If female, it needs a male; if male, it needs a female to reform. The males cannot escape in isolation since they need to be in the vicinity to impregnate the females. So each organism can create male or female. But each male it produces cannot produce male or female. Only females can do that.

  So a new species that starts to move away from self-replication to using a womb and a penis needs to reach a point in its Evolution where the next thing it produces is not a female, it is a male without reproductive ability. And that male without reproductive ability is, along the Evolution cycle, still going to try to mate with itself maybe, but finds it can’t; but the instinct to mate with itself is still there, so it widens its search and finds one of its tribe that has a womb but can also still use its own proto-penis.

  Now, instead of the proto-womb-penis-that-can-create-male-and-female using its own ability to do the job, it extends the impregnation ability to the breakaway male of its species that can no longer recreate itself. The female necessarily always has the ability to do it for itself at this point.

  But its random chemistry tells it to look outside itself. And the proto-male of the species has new chemistry that tells it to widen its search to re-impregnate itself and stumbles on one of the female versions and assumes it’s itself and does by blind chemistry what it has always done: impregnate itself. Except, it’s not itself; it’s the


female of the species.

  So now the female of the species has created something that can do it for her, or she can do it itself. At some point she has to give up doing it for herself and rely totally on the male to do it for her.

  And now to the point of all this. When life is about sustaining life by incremental genetic advantage in the Evolutionist creed, there is no measurable advantage to something moving away from limitless sunshine or atmosphere and self-replication. There is only risk and disadvantage, because the day her species can no longer do it for themselves is the day they become fully male and female. And on that day the female risks not finding a male, and vice versa.

  Nature has gone down an alley that is riskier than it was when it could self-replicate or impregnate itself. There is less guarantee of survival and yet it continues on this path. It also continues on its path away from sun burgers or atmosphere burgers.


It is all increasing risk to no advantage at replicating the gene pool.


  Even if we can get past the impossibility of isolation from oneself - the necessary condition for evolution, remember – and even if we can ignore the ludicrously impossible series of random chemical changes to no certain end that must from the start be moving in exactly the right direction in exactly the right sequence for the non-self-reproduction species to emerge, there is still the ever increasing risk to no advantage in moving away from self-replication and abundant sunshine.

  Food and genetic reproduction: the key drivers in life, moving inexorably away from abundance and ease towards scarcity and risk. Evolution talks about genetic advantages and survival of the gene pool; but there are fewer and fewer opportunities and genetic advantages available as it moves away from sunlight-food or atmosphere-food, from self-replication to risky splitting into male and female. Surely there must be some genetic advantage at each stage towards this new species that cannot self-replicate and cannot eat the sun? Have a think. I give you one billion years to think of the answer. And I’ll save you the time: there is not one. Not a single advantage. All risk, and no greater reward.

  Indeed, when Evolutionists look at varieties of flowers (not species,  as they keep subtly trying to suggest, but varieties within the plant species, remember) they say that it is crucial that plants do not fertilize themselves otherwise there would be little point in bothering with sexual reproduction in the first place.


  Either way, it doesn’t matter. Both ways work. Nature knows no difference. And yet, there are still hermaphroditic plants - e.g. primroses - that go to great lengths to stop the male side of itself from fertilizing the female side of itself. Hermaphroditic plants still exist. Millions of years later.

  Why bother to try to stop the hermaphroditic side if they’re still hermaphroditic and still survive? If Nature is not conscious, why is it bothering to try to stop this process? Well just as you try to send a dog back down the path of a pure breed, so you weaken its genetic structure. Gene shuffling by mixing with others in your species strengthens the gene pool. A flower is no different. It is strengthened by mixing with others within its species. Yet we’re millions of years down the track of Evolution (apparently) and still the hermaphroditic flower exists! Just as strong a variety of flower as any other by the mere fact of its continued existence.

  The logical conclusion is that a Creator delights in varieties of species and finds no reproductive advantage for the self-replicating species over the sexual-reproductive species, but there is no ‘society’ in self-replication. There’s no great impetus to mix if you can self-replicate and self-feed.

  Without society there’s no great point to life. We need each other to give each other a sense of value. So the hermaphroditic flower tells us that life is possible without society, but it is not desirable. The hermaphroditic plant desires ‘society’ - desires to communicate with others in its species. It is weaker as a species when it doesn’t, even though it can still survive. That is choice, not necessity in action. Nature is not blind, or random. It is made with God’s blessing. It has the touch of God in it.

  So there is no advantage for life in Nature in changing from self-replicating to sexual-reproducing organism in order to replicate its genes. Indeed there is less advantage since there is risk and competition. No, there is phenomenal risk compared to its earlier self-sufficient stage. And the hermaphroditic flower that is yet another variation on the theme of the plant species guides us neatly to this conclusion: we are made with purpose in mind. First, "to go forth" into society, and then to "multiply."

  Still on the subject of flowers, though, nectar is regarded by Evolutionists as purely an inducement to the insect world to come to the flower, pick up pollen as a by-product of that action and fertilize other flowers as the insect goes to the next flower of the same variety…

  …So the flower that first separated from the self-replicating organism (remember, cyanobacteria made plant-life and so, eventually, flowers, which must have been hermaphroditic to begin with) randomly found itself no longer able to self-replicate, and then needed to pollinate? After which realization it only then started to manufacture sugars to attract insects? Or did it keep its self-replicating/hermaphroditic side and start to manufacture sugars in anticipation of the day it would ditch the hermaphroditic side? If it can’t plan ahead then it’s random mutation. But what advantage is pollen to a self-replicating flower?

  And if you find yourself suddenly at random able to produce pollen and you can’t think ahead as Evolutionists insist Nature can’t, since there’s no forward design planning, you need another random mutation to start developing sugars and the place in the flower to place those sugars. And these random mutations have to be advantageous at every discrete, self-assembly stage in Evolution.

  Again, guys - did this branch of science suddenly have a lobotomy? Has all deductive reasoning gone out the window, just because some people find the possibility of God an ancient superstition? What a trap has been set! It’s unbelievable that apparently intelligent people are buying into this junk-horama.

  This is to say nothing of the fact that plants must first be able to detect motion around them, must first have ‘eyes’ to see the species flying around them, and then randomly deduce - without being conscious at all - that these things would somehow be able to transport their pollen, luckily creating a substance that happens to attach itself neatly to insects without the insect being aware of or bothered by it so that it happily returns for the nectar.

  Have you any idea how many random changes in that direction are necessary without any discrete step in the process providing any immediate advantage when the flower can already self-replicate? But still, there’s no design in Nature, no forethought or planning involved, no deliberate, conscious calibration of these changes. It’s all random mutation and lucky accident. That’s right, you just keep listening to programmes on aliens and Nature programmes on Evolution and news that numbs your sense of outrage and shock, and go back to sleep. That’s exactly what they want you to do.

  I mention aliens because you do of course realize that they do not exist. If you think Close Encounters of the Third Kind was validation of their existence, think again. Why do you think it was called the Devil’s Tower, on which they were supposed to meet up with us? That’s Spielberg subtly nodding to you that to buy into this stuff is to buy into a rather Devilish programme. For any comedy fans out there who loved the late, great Bill Hicks and were taken by his alien-conspiracy views, you’ve got to know that God did not also make aliens when He Created us. You may be tempted to think that God Himself and all His angels are aliens. To the extent that His realm is alien to us, absolutely. To the extent that flying saucers are needed to get around by God’s angels with faster-than-light-speed technology at His disposal, absolutely not. We are made in His image, but we are not the replication of His substance, which clearly has no need of ships of any kind to transport His emissaries. The only realm in which ‘aliens’ can exist is the realm of the ‘future’ revisiting the past, in which case they are not ‘aliens,’ but our future selves returning for whatever purpose that may serve. The time-shifts of Nature are theoretically possible, and for this reason alone it is theoretically possible that our future selves exist and return to visit us. But that does not make ‘aliens’ a reality. It makes humans and time-shifts a reality - theoretically speaking. I err on the side of being underwhelmed by the debate in either direction because if they exist they are merely our future selves which adds nothing to the debate of God and Evolution. Although as a personal anecdote, I do recall being in the company of 20 teenage schoolchildren and several adults, two of whom were Catholic priests, playing soccer/football on a floodlit pitch at about 8pm in the Autumn of 1981, in the west of England, when a white circular disc about 20 feet wide appeared above the nearby treetops, some 150 feet high, and everybody stopped playing. There was no sound, and it appeared from nowhere. For three or four minutes we all stared at it. One of the priests, an amateur photographer, ran to get his camera. I was so excited by it that after about five minutes I plucked up the courage to run towards it. I got about 50 feet from the tree it still hovered above, at which point the photographer-priest returned and called me back to the pitch. As I turned to run back and he began to ready his camera, the light disappeared. It went as soundlessly as it came, like a gigantic light switching on and off 150 feet in the air. We were near an RAF base and called to see if there had been any testing. Whether there had been or not, they denied any activity and the incident remains unexplained to this day. So I sympathize with those who may have had interesting accounts to relate to their friends, but for me there were three possibilities: sophisticated prank; military testing; or, well, the theoretically possible visit from our future selves for purposes unknown. But so what? Again, the debate of God and Evolution remains unaffected either way.

  Sticking with flowers for a little while longer, for Evolution to be right, flowers would have to ‘create’ pollen from within their own DNA from scratch by blind degrees. A DNA storehouse of potential re-engineering tools is not allowed. Evolution must come upon each chemistry step at random, calculating the special advantage each chemistry change gives to its replicating momentum. Evolution does not allow for a species to look at the world around it and decide what it needs to do to make things better for itself before going to the tool shed of its DNA and engineering something to fit the purpose. Each step is blind chance. And each step cannot go backwards to start again. It is forward momentum only. The chemical sequencing must also be exactly right at each stage, by chance, for the necessary change to slot into the world around it - for pollen to be instantly pick-up-able by insects, for the flower to know in advance that the substance it was creating was just the right substance to attract (or repel) anything. All of which wishful thinking is patently ridiculous.

  However, I did start out by saying that within-species Evolution is a fact, so where does that come in with flowers? When Darwin saw long tubular nectaries 30 centimeters long and predicted there must be an insect with an equally long nose, we can deduce that such a deduction would pay off! Evolutionists like to say that this means Evolution is therefore a predictive science, to lend it gravitas. But is it logical to think a flower would look at one specific species and mimic its nose length, thereby cutting off all other nectar-transporters? Or did the flower deliberately grow too big for anything and then waited for Evolution to let the insect catch up? And why then would such an insect recalibrate its nose for this one variety of flower and make it more difficult to access the more common variety of flower? Why in such a competitive arena would the flower deliberately narrow its pollen carriers, and the insect narrow its field of nectar sources? Why does the flower go to such lengths to mimic just one insect or the insect to accommodate the one flower, when a wider, catch-all shape of flower and a shorter nose would find greater symbiosis between more varieties of insects and flowers, and thereby increase the odds of fertilization for the flower and nectar-collection for the insect?

  We might be tempted therefore to deduce that the flower was that shape to begin with and a species was created to suit; or vice versa. Otherwise the perfect calibration between the two is left to random chemical chance within Nature that cannot think ahead, only react in retrospect - according, that is, to Evolution. However, it does make some sense that an insect might Evolve a longer nose to get at the longer flower because a longer nose does not necessarily inhibit nectar take-up in all other more accessible flowers, but then the flower itself will be reliant solely on wind and the knocks by insects and animals to disseminate its pollen.

  So it also makes some sense that if Nature can let the insect Evolve, it can also let the flower Evolve a longer tube to suit the insect. The dance of the particular flower and the particular insect, both moving in concert towards ever-Evolving length does have some merit as each may be building a sense of their exclusivity and ‘diving’ together ever further down an exclusive Evolutionary path - a bit like lovers. Consciously shutting out the world of competition because they enjoy their special union more and more. The flower ‘looking forward’ more and more to the insect’s visit and the insect ‘looking forward’ more and more to visiting the flower, each building for themselves a kind of symbiotic cocoon that lets only they and their kind maximize the pleasure of the dance.

  It is for this reason that I view Evolution within a species as fact. But where the logic of Evolution breaks down decidedly even within this within-species form of Evolution is that it allows no intelligence and forethought in design. It states that these changes within flower and insect are the result of unconscious choices made by the insects, who select a flower that happens to have a bit of a longish tube here but it’s only incidental, and when it collects the nectar and drops the pollen in another flower that second flower has the genes of the one with the longer flower dropped into it and so its own nectary starts to grow a little longer, and the more this goes on the longer it grows.

  All very well for the flower in this scenario, growing at random by the unconscious choices of insects changing its genetic configuration by chance. But what of the insect? Who’s re-pollinating its nose, as it were?  The flower can’t do it. The insect has to start digging inside its own DNA box to recalibrate its nose according to the lengthening flower tube.

  So, the flower cannot recalibrate its genetic make-up, but instead has to wait for the insect to do this for it, yet the insect can recalibrate its genetic makeup, however unconsciously. That’s the Evolutionists approach. The flower is the static clay that is moulded by the choices of the insect. The insect is the active participant, re-moulding itself to match the thing it randomly moulded. Both from Nature, but only one side can recalibrate itself.

  And did the flower that looks like a female bee to attract the male bee get randomly shaped by the unconscious pollen swapping of its ancestors? No, it did not. It did perceive the world around it and shaped itself to the thing it most wanted to attract. Indeed the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently conducted studies that concluded that flowers evolve in a predictable fashion to match the mouthparts of pollinating birds and insects.

  So the re-calibration skills of insects and flowers are therefore fact, but it is a ‘conscious’ apparatus in operation. It could not be otherwise, given the flower’s ability to mimic a bee in shape and colour. And if conscious, then Nature is conscious, through and through. And if conscious through and through, then Evolution’s raison d’être, its very justification for existing as theory or fact, vanishes. The design, the thought behind these symbiotic relationships is clear and is confirmed again by the corpse flower, for instance, that has a scent adapted to attract beetles and the like, who like carrion. So they produce a scent that stinks. And these things like that. But in order to do this, to mimic, it must be able to smell and then re-code its chemistry to mimic that smell. It must think ahead. Plan. Design.

  All these species are doing is altering their functionality to better repopulate themselves. And they’re doing it willfully, ‘thoughtfully,’ as conditioned by the rules consciously laid down at the start of it all. God has blessed Nature to let it dress itself in order to facilitate the process of procreation.

  But we’ll press on.

  Let’s get to the big stuff. Over the next few chapters we’ll examine the fossil evidence.

















25 Fossil Fools


  Somewhat surprisingly, you might think, Evolutionists say they don’t need the fossil evidence to prove they’re right and still they say they have tons of evidence which must surely strengthen their case. Neat trick. We don’t need this evidence to prove our case so the fact that we have it only adds weight to our case. Yeah, we’ll all fall for that psychological sweetener. Well, actually, as we’ve seen, without the fossil evidence the case is blindingly stupid from Proto-Kit onwards. I really think they need to be less cavalier with their fossil evidence. They need every bit of help they can get.

  So let’s step back a little in the fossil trail to stamp on it once and for all. Cyanobacteria grow exponentially, as do all bacteria, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc., so... where are all the fossils? If one can be found, as more than one has been found (about half a dozen or more, actually), where are the rest? There would be trillions upon trillions of bacteria fossils found if even one had been found - certainly in close proximity to those that have been found. And what are the odds of even that one isolated one being found, by itself, on planet earth’s vast expanse? Now there’s a mystery!

  But anyway, to find one or two is utterly, unconscionably ludicrous in the Evolutionist’s creed. There would be countless billions of them. So how do we account for this paucity? The fossil evidence in this area looks as though one or two things were made and then there’s a pause. And this stop-start pattern is in evidence through the increasingly complex fossil record. Not even Evolution can properly account for the lack of a thoroughly smooth transition of fossils and the gaps that appear, with the abrupt halts and restarts. Even to Evolutionists it seems inexplicable. Evidence, then no evidence; evidence, then no evidence. The chain-link is broken time and again, but why? Setting aside the obvious need to have all things connected through the Evolution cycle to build upon the last phase of Evolution, these gaps are truly mysterious. Even for Evolutionists. So what’s really going on?

  Well, let’s get right to it, shall we?

  "He saw what he had done and it was good."

  What God? Surely not God. Stop-starting His way through Creation?

  In my best Inspector Clouseau voice: the mystery is sol-ved!

  If you’re God and create life using faster-than-light speed ‘technology’ and then freeze it in its tracks, you freeze all Creation and take stock as God is said to have done:

  "He saw what he had done and it was good.”

  That’s a take-stock moment written into the Bible, right there. And it’s written over and over again. Take a look.

  So then that one bacterium, microbe, whatever, that had been found, isolated and alone against all we know of bacterial growth rates, is assessed by God. For what else is a moment that says, "He saw what he had done and it was good" but a moment of assessment of a work in progress? This is clearly a work that resumes in various stages. And that work being stopped, examined and resumed in various stages as a work in progress is the clear explanation of the layered fossil record. The stop-start progress of His Creation recorded in the geology - before geology is a science; before Evolutionary biology is a science. The exact record of a creative process being formulated before our very eyes in the fossil record.

  Oh, happy day!

  Of course, we have Darwin and subsequent Evolution theories to thank for pointing this out. Where Evolution got it right is in the step-change development from simple to more complex. But not over vast geological time. There they got that wildly wrong. Not unsurprisingly, perhaps. But if you believe in God, you make the evidence work for God. If you don’t believe in God, you make the evidence work for Evolution. Except, the catastrophic evidence against Evolution and in favour of God is time itself! God, operating outside of any notion of time that is readily available to our current understanding of physics, using His NASA-proven, faster-than-light speed ‘technology.’ We need to read the account of the Bible literally - not as metaphor, but literally, as hard as that may be to reconcile in your mind - and put it together with the NASA science. The facts are laid out in the Holy Bible, as astonishing as that may seem, but when you read it literally, you can see that God assesses a work in progress. He is ‘creating’ a work of art, allowing Himself the luxury of not knowing exactly where it is going, to feel as we feel when we create art, or why else have a line in the Bible repeated over and over that says He stopped to take-stock of what He’d accomplished?

  You may question that if He’s God, He would know beforehand and at every moment what He’d accomplished, surely? He’s omnipotent and omniscient, so how could He not know, without having to take stock? But you see, to be all knowing and all powerful is to allow for experiencing the delight of not knowing how the project is faring at every moment, until you stand back and take stock - like an artist stepping back from the canvass, or the writer editing his work. "He saw what he had done and it was good." It’s the most revealing line in the Holy Bible, for me. It shows me God was not kidding when He said He created us in His image because that is exactly how we operate in the act of our own creations ("In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him"). We have an idea, we run with it, we chip away, we whittle down, we assess, take stock. Just confirm God has the ability to stop and start time as He pleases, to play with time as He sees fit in His act of Creation, and it all starts to fit.

 NASA gave us the missing piece of the puzzle and gave faith a scientific footing. The fossil record is the record of Creation, from start to finish, from simple to complex. Not Evolution at random over vast geological time, but the Evolution of God’s mind in the act of Creation. The fossil record is the nascent artistry of our creator, God. It becomes simple when we have the one scientific fact at our disposal - malleable time.































26 Evolution’s Keys


  So now let’s look at the key tenets of Evolution and address them in turn, in the light of our new knowledge above. Their key ‘facts’ are:

1) Anatomical homologies (e.g. the tetrapod forelimb) - the logic being, we have similar design across species, therefore we grew from earlier designs. Not a very compelling logic but an inference that logic allows for.

2) Biochemical homologies (e.g. protein and DNA) - again the logic being, we have similar design across species therefore we grew from earlier designs. Not a very compelling logic but an inference that logic allows for.

  In points one and two above, these fit just as well into a creator-God model that uses variation on a theme, so they simply do not count against God. Any family tree analysis based on DNA similarity whether using statistics or proteins or anything bodily is going to show pairings between creations, like human and monkey, because that’s the essence of design: similarities in design require similar component parts. DNA will bond better between monkeys and humans than between humans and fish, say, because we have more similar component parts in the design. There is some decidedly odd logic that says because similar therefore a direct descendant of.  Deductive reason allows for it, but that does not therefore make it true. Evolutionists will say things like, if feathers are good enough for birds, why not also for bats? They both fly. Well, this is precisely the point: because there is another interesting way to create something. It’s not all about function, which is the reductive rubbish that Evolutionists come out with. Variation on a theme means exactly that: considered differences to express the wonders of His creation. It is in fact precisely because bats have no feathers that we might equally conclude that Evolution is false, for how could random genetic mutation miss a beat that is known to aid flight and still at random pop up with a serviceable alternative? If all feathered things had feathered ancestors and no mammal shares that ancestor, as Evolutionists maintain, then flight Evolved for two sets of creature, not just one, and came up with two separate ways at random to engage with the possibility of flight. No, no, I think we’ve seen enough of their random-get-out-of-jail-free card.

  So, instead, just think in terms of the four types of clay that exist in the world - I know, there’s that number again, but it’s true, there are four types. If you were to set out to create a sculpture from clay you would be using one or all of the four main groups of clays: kaolinite, montmorillonite-smectite, illite and chlorite. Chlorites are not always considered a clay, sometimes being classified as a separate group within the phyllosilicates, but that’s a debatable issue that need not concern us here. However, there are approximately thirty different types of pure clays in these categories, but most natural clays are mixtures of these different types, along with other minerals.

  Now, let’s say you create figurines of every species of living creature on earth from a mixture of all these clays, from the most simple to the most complex. Some have more and some less of these clay components. One of the tenets of Evolutionary biology is to state that as a fact we have all Evolved, grown independently out of earlier versions of a gene pool and the case for this is that since all living things exhibit traces of these genes, we necessarily grew out of them. But as a creator of the figurines, if one of the figurines came alive and you left the room and there was no evidence of a potter’s wheel or a trowel or whatever else might be used to fashion the clay creature, the clay creature would, if intelligent enough, state quite plausibly that he is related to all other species in the room because they share a common clay source. To say related would present no problem for a believer in God and his creation/s because He would necessarily use a source material to create those creations. Since God has created the universe to obey certain physical laws, each clay figurine/ real human/ real animal would of necessity require similar materials to work in the physical environment created by God. The materials of the figurines would share a common bond and the figurine might reasonably conclude – since the creator has left the room with no trace of his fashioning tools - that the species had Evolved from the less complex of the figurines and that all figurines were related because their ‘gene pool’ was so similar; especially if the figurine found earlier discarded versions that were half finished or works in progress or ‘dinosaurs’ that were found perfectly preserved beneath a dried mass of clay! He might think he Evolved from those less complex creatures, and from those buried in the clay - Evolved by random degrees over billions of years...

  That the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities, underpins one of the cornerstones of Evolution, but it sits equally well with a creator God whose artistic ‘voice’ as it were would lead to His creating very similar organisms and animals with variations on a theme to express creativity - this might sound alien to your upbringing if you don’t know the Bible, but this creative process is on the page, it’s right there in black and white as the Bible begins, as we’ll see. If the source materials of Creation are similar for God, it follows that they would have similar clay components/gene pools and it follows that in creating living things many of the characteristics of living things ought to have similarities to function alongside each other on earth, which obeys certain physical laws. It also follows that, while each figurine shares a gene pool/clay pool, because a creator/God is responsible for their creation then necessarily they did not Evolve out of earlier versions of each other, but rather were made individually for the delight of both God/creator and the clay figurine/human to ‘enjoy.’

  Vestigial traits with no clear purpose resembling functional ancestral traits, which is another cornerstone of Evolution, can similarly be explained by the clay analogy in which the creator/God fashions the objects with clay that exhibits certain characteristics under certain conditions that allow it to adapt slightly to its environment and discard bits of the clay it no longer needs if the figurine chooses to leave that original environment. For example, our skin turns darker in the sunlight, a direct and immediate physical change according to the environment we find ourselves in. The body changes. Perfectly fair and logical to imbue the figurine/human itself with the ability to adapt to its environment. That’s only fair, and underpins free will and the right to roam the earth.

  Similarly, that part of the human body at the base of the spine that people say looks as though it might have been a tail at one time in the past, the coccyx: imagine that the clays that go into making all species are mixed up, but it’s all clay, then imagine that some of that clay will necessarily be identifiable in all other species, so the ‘vestigial’ tail becomes just the way genes/clay have been programmed/moulded to shut off in growth at that point in certain animals that are all made of roughly the same substance - clay/genes. The clay/genes for humans is similar to the clay/genes for monkeys, but the design is to ‘cut-short’ the bit of clay in humans at the base of the spine that in monkeys would otherwise be left to be moulded into a tail.

  We do all have limbs and eyes and fingers and toes - we are going to look related. But an armadillo has oddly hand-like fore-limbs, too, and oddly leg-like hind-limbs. This is because the clay/genes used to fashion all creatures is from a single source - the 4 clays mixed up/genes, with some clays/genes more prominent in one figurine/creature than in another figurine/creature. We’re not from other things, we’re simply made of roughly the same clay/genes. And incidentally, the coccyx is not some redundant vestigial bone but a crucial weight-bearing, muscle-and-ligament-harnessing feature of the skeleton without which we would not be able to sit down, for one thing.

  So, evidence that Evolutionists think supports their case - brain size from skulls, the gait of a skeleton, spinal cords pointing downwards in bipeds and more backwards in quadrupeds, molecular evidence of common ancestry with chimpanzees, for instance - is evidence that sits equally well with common materials necessary for all species in the design process. And the design from simple to complex is clearly a necessary process for a God who steps back every once in a while to assess the progress of what He’s making. And we’ll see how that all comes together in a moment.

  Finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups similar to a family tree is not evidence of Evolution but a classroom classification system that says the big figurines with one hump go together and the little clay figurines with no spines go together, and so on, which is just pointing out similarities and giving the similarities a serious-sounding name, often with an ancient Greek origin as if to cement its credentials as a scientific ‘fact.’ Most of Evolutionary biologists’ thinking is so transparently under-thought and over-hyped that it is difficult to see anything but a willful disregard for common sense in play, as if the atheists have flocked to the subject and only present things as the things appear to agree with their undeveloped grasp of ‘truth.’

  No, like circular point-particles of infinity that come fully formed, so the design process comes fully formed, by deliberate step-changes in the course of Creation and not by random degrees. We will never see fossilized evidence of every meticulous change of a species not because there is no ‘missing link’ - which was always a red herring that was destined to support the Evolutionist case rather than the Creationist case and so they happily ran with that - but because as in any design process, the ‘leap’ from one stage to the next is just as it is in humans: it’s part of the imagination. We think through the next step-change and then model that new thought process. The ‘missing links’ are the steps taken in the imagination of God from simple to complex.

  When He said he made us in His image, He wasn’t kidding. That’s exactly how we work. How could the creative, imaginative, step-by-step process in Genesis so accurately reflect the exact stop-start, step-jump fossil evidence if it wasn’t true? No writer thousands of years ago could have known how the fossil evidence was going to stack up to look like a process of Evolution with gaps that also exactly matched the step-change method we employ in the creative process. From every conceivable direction, the proof of God is overwhelming.

  That number 4, though, it makes you wonder, doesn’t it? It’s like a little leitmotif in Creation, don’t you think? Four gases at the big bang moment (hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium). Four fundamental forces in Nature (gravity, electricity, magnetism, the nuclear forces, both strong and weak). Four bases to DNA (adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine). Four clays. And my particular favorite which we haven’t discussed but is worth further reading if you’re interested: physicist Wolfgang Pauli’s 1925 experiments that showed that four quantum numbers are needed to describe any particle: three spatial co-ordinates and the ‘spin’ (akin to Newton’s angular momentum)... so the list is growing.

  Am I tempted to add the four points of the cross of Jesus? Well, it’s a thought. And as a little sidebar, if you like your numerology and think 33 vertebrae was good, and that Jesus dying at 33 had even more numerological significance, let me tell you about pyridine. It’s an organic compound. Nothing special in itself, perhaps. Used in agriculture and pharmaceuticals. It is a nucleophile, in that it ‘loves’ the nucleus of another substance and easily ‘donates’ its electrons to other substances and so bonds well with them. The measure of its ability to do its work is measured in ‘donor numbers.’ Without going further into the details, I simply note with interest that the donor number recorded for this substance is 33 - and it has a fish-like odour! With the fish long being held as a Christian symbol. You may well ask, why are there these apparently random correspondences in Nature? A pattern where there ought not to be one, perhaps. Are there clues in things all around us that help us solve the riddle of Creation, of who we are and why we are? Or do we look for patterns to find meaning, and find meaning where there really is none? I think in the case of pyridine, the coincidence is just that, a coincidence; it’s a bit like saying 2010 is the year this book was first published and 20 plus 10 is 30 and the two and the one (plus two zeros) make three, so that’s 33, adding special significance to the importance of this book at this time in history...

  The other correspondences, I’m not so sure about. But what I am sure about is that points 1 and 2 above - anatomical and biochemical correspondences across species - are easy to see in the variation on a theme approach.

  3) Species lose the ability to fly or to see, therefore Evolution is true. We have bad backs because we stood upright too early in Evolution, therefore Evolution is true. This is what we’re up against. Dopey logic. Well, we’ve already agreed that species themselves do adapt and change to some degree. If you don’t use the gifts God gave you, you’ll lose them. Your limbs will become weaker, your back weaker, very quickly, muscles will waste away - if not exercised. If you hide in caves generation after generation because you’re scared of predators, your eyesight is going to alter and eventually your body may switch off that functionality. Use it or lose it. Life atrophies in indolence and fear, no question. But it’s not evidence of Evolution, it’s evidence of physics and biology in action as a natural consequence of the way we’re designed. Nature is designed in myriad ways to be resourceful with what God has given it or risk losing that skill altogether. Seems a fair trade to me.

  We know that’s true from our own bodies, why wouldn’t it be true for all creation? That’s not Evolution, that’s physics and biology for all of us. Honestly, some of the things the theory of Evolution comes out with are just tiresomely inane. The God-deniers think their books are necessary because they view Creationists as perversely at odds with the ‘facts’ of science. Well, for the same reason this book is necessary because it is so clear that Evolution is at odds with science and reason and logic and good old-fashioned common sense.

  So now let’s turn to the granddaddy of evidence for Evolutionists. This is much, much more interesting in this debate because what it seems to do for Evolutionists in undermining God’s Creation is the very same process that in actual fact proves God’s Creation, with a little help from NASA. So let’s take a look at:

  The fossil record...
















27   Fishy Evidence


  ...Before we get to the nub of it all, I want to give an example of how Evolutionists think in this area: there is a fossil record that says such and such a species died a few million years ago and Evolution would have propelled any such early species through the Evolutionary wash and likely as not have changed something about it, given the time that has passed.

  The Coelacanth fish was one such fossil discovery that was shown to be 200 million years old. You can bet that over that time scale, Evolutionists would use their predictive ‘skill’ to extrapolate from that and say that such a creature would definitely have changed somewhat had it ever survived. 200 million years? No way would it remain the same. Then, in the 1930s, a live one was caught in the sea. It was exactly as the fossil record showed it would look like, without a single change. Similarly, following DNA advances, Amborella trichopoda, a sprawling shrub or small tree unique to New Caledonia, was found to be the DNA base-line for all flowering plants. And it is still here, in existence today! In irritating defiance of Evolution’s creed. And there are many such puzzling examples of things that should not be here, appearing as they would have done millions of years ago, and yet they are here. So here’s how they got around this difficulty: they called these, and anything like them that would ever pull such a fast one on them again and embarrass them like that, ‘living fossils.’

  Living fossils! I would laugh if all this wasn’t quite so serious at this time in history. No, the truth is that the Coelacanth fish is a creature that survived the creative mix at the beginning of all Creation, as we’ll see, just as Amborella trichopoda survived. But the fossil record itself has a striking pattern that needs careful explanation. It goes from simple to complex, therefore one follows from the other - solid logical inference that happens to be true and is the very record of God’s creative process as outlined above. We’re going to keep this one on hold just a little while longer until we look at the other stuff in the Evolutionist’s cookie jar. Coming back to the fossil record is, counter-intuitively perhaps, the answer to our prayers.

  We looked at points 1), 2), and 3) above, three of the key tenets of Evolution, and addressed them in turn, so we’ll make the fossil evidence key tenet number 5) when we come to it. Meanwhile, their fourth key ‘fact’ is:

4) Biogeographical distribution of plants and animals - the logic being as follows: similar species groups are found in certain isolated areas only. Evolution states there have to be periods of species isolation to allow for any mutation to take hold. Without this isolation, the continued re-washing of the genetic mutation through the same gene pool would render the mutation ineffective. Only mutation followed by isolation and then much time passing would provide for species differentiation, such that they could not then breed with each other any longer because their gene pool is too different. Hence, Evolution finds species that are similar in isolated places and deduces that their isolation in one area and the varieties of that species (such as all marsupials in Australia) answers the theory that isolation is needed for random mutations to take hold. Again, not a very compelling logic but an inference that logic allows for.

  Not compelling because, as we’ve seen, self-replicating organisms moving to separate male and female of the species is a genetic mutation that needs to be established after species isolation. There is no species isolation from itself in its self-replicating world. Besides, in general, any child will tell you all species stick closely together for safety and for any advantage this gives them in hunting for food. Why all penguins in the Antarctic and not the Arctic? Because safety in numbers. They stick together. Why only lemurs in Madagascar? Because safety in numbers. They stick together. Yes, but why only lemurs in Madagascar? This is the emphasis that Evolutionists would give. Why only? Like isolation has some special significance. Well, why only Aborigines in the Australian outback, or Chinese in China, or Eskimos/Inuits in the Arctic Circle? Because we have been created in a variety of colours, shapes and sizes, that’s why. We find comfort in sticking with those we know, who share similar beliefs, looks, and mannerisms, that’s why. But, Evolutionists cry, are we supposed to believe that when the animals came off the ark they all traipsed off around the world, marsupials to Australia, Penguins to the Arctic, lemurs to Madagascar? Well I’m not entirely sure how such apparently intelligent folk can ask such a simple question without knowing at least one apparently simple answer: because Noah’s ark did not carry all of creation.

  What! I hear you scream.

  Surely if you need to read the Bible literally then you need to accept the Flood and Noah’s story as true, right?

  Well, you can read it literally in the sight of God’s ability to do what He wants with time and species creation and still the Bible stacks up, and we’ll come to why. But there is a literal translation of the Biblical text that allows for the possibility of it not being metaphor, but also not being true as we understood it to be. 

  Let’s take a look...










28 Creation Records


  ...God threatens repeatedly to wipe the earth clean; to destroy “all living substance.” But remember, He’s speaking to Noah and telling him that his ancestors have been so wicked that they must be destroyed and all creation along with it. But a bird is sent off from the ark to find land and comes back with an olive leaf!

  Do you see those two words? Let me write them again:

  Olive leaf.

  The significance of the olive leaf cannot be overstated when reading something literally. It’s textually possible to deduce that God is telling Noah what he hopes Noah will communicate to the descendants of Adam. Be good or else. He starts by saying He’ll destroy everything. But He doesn’t follow through. He then says well, no, we’ll keep some animals back and then He says He’ll destroy “every living substance.” But then a bird comes back with an olive leaf.

  It is literally true that every living substance was not destroyed, so what’s going on here? God says He will, but he doesn’t. He says He must, but He can’t. He’s outraged to the point of total annihilation of all He’s created but still He softens, relents; compromises on His initial project to rid the universe of all He’d worked on.

  It seems just as true that God was telling Noah what He thought Noah and his offspring needed to hear to help them mend their ways and at the same time not destroy “all living substance” outside of Noah’s immediate world. Life across the globe, all people and animals that existed, carried on as normal, as the still existing olive leaf hints at.

  The olive is therefore the symbol of ever-present hope that we will not be destroyed, despite all threats to the contrary. God absolutely loved His creation and did not destroy “all living substance” as He threatened to do. The olive leaf proves that.

  So again, what is going on here? Why have we insisted on a flood that wipes out the entire world? This is what Evolutionists have leapt on and mocked Creationists over, stating it would be impossible for a post-flood world to lay down all creation in the right order from simple to complex as seen in the geological record, and then in the aftermath of this disaster have all animals neatly located in isolation from each other across the entire world.

  Well, there is an answer for Evolutionists without the need for a mini, local flood, but before we tackle that, let’s follow the logic of a mini, local flood, designed for the benefit of Noah and his offspring and not the whole of creation up to this point.

  What is clear is that Noah’s people were singled out for special treatment, and it’s vital we understand this. Evolution is dead and that’s clear and God so clearly created the world, flood or no flood. But we need to take this little tour through Genesis to understand why there is so much difficulty for both camps - for the Evolutionists to buy into the Bible and for Creationists to logically account for their case.

  The Bible is ambiguous on many points following the very clear first days of Creation, so if the Creation is shown to be true as it clearly is, and we’ll go through it in a moment, then any subsequent questions we may have are merely that, questions. None of them undermine the initial six days of Creation paragraphs. The subsequent textual challenges can tie people up in knots trying to explain their way out of them, but the initial project of Creation stands rock solid. And since they do, when God says the earth was destroyed and repopulated, then we can safely assume that’s what happened, however He managed to do it. But there need be no such complication if the local flood idea is shown to work.

  The Creation by God is established as fact, the rest is conversation. But, let’s just establish the clarity of the six days of Creation and then tease out possible difficulties we all face when we read the text. There is room for the Flood being read as a real event, but a localized event, for the benefit of Noah and his descendants, though it takes some careful reading of the language we have. My source is the King James Bible, for ease of reference. Again, right or wrong in this reading, none of the six days of Creation details are undermined one iota.

  The first thing to remember is that the Jews are God’s chosen people, like it or not. But they weren’t necessarily the only people. The tribes of Israel are not necessarily the ancestors of all humanity. Adam and Eve are the original parents of the tribes of Israel, not necessarily of all the races of the earth: "This is the book of the generations of Adam," the Bible tells us in Genesis. But there are two 'Adams’ referred to in Genesis. There’s the one created in the Garden of Eden, and there’s the 'Adam’ that is referred to as all male and female humans outside of Eden. You may think that this is not in the Bible but when you follow the text, this reading is hard to ignore, as we’ll see, and it explains a great deal for us that we may have been struggling with in the past.

  All humans, inside or outside Eden, were the majestic end of a creative process that was duplicated across the world. It was the same for all animals and plants, each species given its own home and ‘tribe,’ just as each human family was awarded its own place on earth within its own tribe.

  The Jews were God’s chosen people, however. Chosen because He made Adam in the Garden of Eden in a unique way. Otherwise the Bible would not need to say “chosen” people. All people would be His chosen people if they were all from Adam in the Garden of Eden, so “chosen” would not be necessary as a descriptive term. It’s a redundant term if there’s only one line of people from Adam in the Garden of Eden onwards. "Chosen" means choice, between at least two alternatives. It makes no sense to say the people you create are ‘the chosen’ people. No, it is in fact a literal reading of the text to say that ‘chosen’ is separate; distinct from the rest of humankind. Chosen because created in a special way. God chose the descendants of Adam in the Garden of Eden to speak to us all.

  And Jesus is a descendant of Adam in the Garden of Eden. When Catholics believe in the transubstantiation of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, with bread and wine actually becoming the body and blood of Christ, those who don’t understand this mock it with reference to vampirism and cannibalism (yeah, very funny Eddie Izzard), as if somehow their mockery underpins a truth, when all it does is show they have a shallow understanding of the meaning. It isn’t physical flesh and blood in the way we understand these two things - it isn’t red and it doesn’t flow, nor does it have nerve endings that chemo-affinity describes as operating between skin and the nervous system - but it is the physical flesh and blood of the substance of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which is a wholly different substance.

  That physical flesh and blood is physical truth and light. Jesus said He was the way, the truth and the light/(life) and Catholics ingest that truth and light/(life) that is the body of Christ. In a way, it is a kind of photosynthesis, drawing spiritual sustenance from that light that is also the true way. Does that mean that photons are the result of this transubstantiation? No, indeed not, and this is the wonder of the transubstantiation. The true nature of light is not yet known. What we see in waves and particles does not complete the picture for us. There is more to light than we know, as any physicist will tell you, and it is the stuff of life now, and of the life hereafter. It is spiritual insight in more ways than one.

  Now, in the description of the chosen people’s Adam in the Garden of Eden being a separate Adam from the 'Adam’ of the Gentiles, it may be that those who are not of this ‘chosen’ tribe actively access the quality inscribed in the ‘chosen’ Adam through this process of transubstantiation. It’s a theological point of interest only, however, complicated for skeptics by Joseph being cited as the descendant of David and yet Joseph wasn’t the biological father of Jesus; though being the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is akin to the breath of God, easily links the two lineages. But again, this is theology, not science and scripture. The more important point is the possibility at least of there being two Adams, one for the Jews, and one for the Gentiles.

 As we move tentatively in this direction, teasing out truth and light so to speak, I have no doubt that all this might not sit well with many people; but I’m not Jewish and I accept that God favoured Adam in the Garden of Eden and his direct descendants. You might think that’s not fair, but remember, we are created in His image. Much of what we recognize in ourselves is also part of God. We all have our favourites of many things. The concept is not unknown to us. Doesn’t mean He loves any one of us any less. You can like things more and still love all things the same. You may like your mother more than your father, or vice versa, or your brother more than your sister or vice versa, but you can still love them all equally. And they can love you just as well as they love each other.

  When I was five, my mother vanished from my young life for good. She chose a different world. It felt like a rejection, but I did not stop loving her. When we reject God, He does not stop loving us. It is that kind of love He has for us all. So there is no difficulty for me in not being Jewish and still knowing I am loved by God just as much as any of the descendants of Adam in the Garden of Eden.

  So the first thing to say with this kind of love in mind is that the answer to number 4) above, to species and plant differentiation appearing in distinct groups in isolated areas across the globe, is that God created all things of a kind together, with their own ‘family’ of familiar traits. Isn’t that what we would do? Would you create a reptile and shove it in the penguin enclosure? If you cared for the things you created you would surely separate them out and give them distinct areas to call their home. Think like an artist! And also like a parent. The answers then become clear.

  And now let’s look at the biblical evidence for this ‘two Adams’ theory, and the mini-flood for the benefit of Noah and his descendants.

  First, we’ll establish the Biblical Creation in accordance with geological evidence laid down in strata around the world and then progress from there.

  Note the chronology of Creation in line with the essentials of life as we know it through biology and physics (all italics in the Biblical quotes are my italics):


1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…"

  …In = without beginning; outside of time, in the old Greek translation of ‘in’ as in infinite, without limits, where the Greek itself translates the Hebrew text.


2) "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters…"

…Water, essential for life. There are many, many remarkable properties of water, so remarkable that it continues to give up its extraordinary secrets after decades of intense study. But here I’d like to note the following: hydrogen bonding in water is the fundamental condition for life itself to emerge. But it relies on special pressure and temperature conditions to function in this way. Clues are given for instance in tree-lines ending in mountain ranges wherever the temperature reaches 220 Kelvin, the point at which hydrogen bonding undergoes phase transition from fluid to more rigid and water is no longer capable of supporting life. You will note the special significance when we observe that a body of freshwater must be around 4 degrees Celsius before any freezing can occur (its maximum density point) and that water can exist in two states at once (!), both high and low density at once, discovered at around -46 degrees Celsius, its minimum density point (4+6=10! Another interesting coincidence?). Plus, water has the ability to form four hydrogen bonds, with a network shape of a pyramid with a triangular base, affording optimum ‘elasticity’ in response to temperature and pressure changes and offering the widest scope for other molecules to bond with it. In the universe, there must also be a space of at least five water molecules wide for water to ‘move.’ Below five water molecules and life itself comes to a standstill!


3) "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light…"

  …The true nature of light is not yet known, as I mentioned, but we know that light is required to activate life - think photosynthesis: light liberates electrons. Light quanta transfers its entire energy to a single electron, and you’ll recall from Blanche DuBois’ class how important the electron was for the pigment to marshal photosynthesis. Although we’re not talking about just the visible part of the spectrum of light but the whole spectrum of light - though visible light itself is sensitive to atomic structure.

  This means light is ‘pre-written’ to jump-start life - remember, it is an electromagnetic particle-wave, and physics tells us that electric impulse directs molecular motion.

  Light is the ‘governator,’ to borrow a popular frame of reference. It’s the Arnold Schwarzenegger of the sub-atomic world!

  The fact that it is sensitive to atomic structure means that the quality of elements in the universe has a pre-written symbiotic relationship with light.

  Light can be bent by gravity, so gravity (the elusive graviton) can ‘communicate’ with massless light. Light is electromagnetic radiation and, towards the ultraviolet end, light hitting metal can produce electricity (the photoelectric effect) - frequency of light-wave ‘oscillations’ changes substance.

  Light ‘talks’ to metal and gravity, gravity ‘talks’ to metal and light. Light already ‘knows’ what to do with substance. It doesn’t Evolve its way to that relationship.

  Light, water, chemistry - too many instantly symbiotic variables coalescing at once to allow for chance and randomness.

  Scientists know this, but the jigsaw will not be completed for you without tremendous risk to their careers and their place in history. You will recall the fate of the Catholic priest, Lemaitre, relegated to a footnote in history for showing us that a single moment of Creation was right, as the Bible had taught us thousands of years ago.


4) "And God saw the light, that it was good…"

   …Pause in creation, time to reflect.


5) "…and God divided the light from the darkness… "

  …Continued action following pause.


6) "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so…"

  …Our tectonic plates show one continent to begin with – Pangaea - and remember the Bible was written before anyone knew about the other continents, or what the map of the earth would look like for hundreds of years.


7) "...gathering together of the waters called he Seas…"

  …So one sea, one land in accordance with the tectonic plates and map of the earth.


8) "...and God saw that it was good…"

  …Further pause for reflection.


9) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth: grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself…"

  This accords with the early layering of life in the geological record. Note particularly the ‘seed is in itself’ idea that we see from early cyanobacteria, dividing from the seed within itself and furnishing the earth with atmosphere and the first trees with life, which likewise grow the seeds of itself from within itself - this is the non-scientific description of the exact process we find in the fossil record…


10) "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind…"

…Note that ‘kind’ is established, separating one ‘species’ from another.


11) "...and God saw that it was good..."

  …Further pause for reflection exactly replicated in the next tier in the geological record.

  And then we get the most incredible bit of corroboration:


12) "And the evening and the morning were the third day..." - (following which line we get:) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years…"

  …So the notion of God’s first day is not the same as our notion of a day, since our notion of a day is ‘built’ after the third day, so when there is discussion of days, there are two types of time in operation, God’s and ours. Confirmed by NASA data showing time operating at faster than the speed of light even while it creates a universe that appears to operate within the speed of light limit. 


 13) "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night…"

  …So our sun and moon are built after the earth.


14) "…he made the stars also…"

  …In this order we see all Creation from the earth flying outwards, exactly in accordance with all stars moving away from us as we look, even to this day.


 15) "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth…"

   …This is why the light travels straight to our eye without ‘interference’ - an interference one would expect in physics with the light crossing and blending; but no, the light is set for us - it is fixed, which is an extraordinary corroboration since no scientist can account for the fact of light travelling straight to our eye without interference, except by theories about a possible ‘flat’ universe, which may or may not be true but the light travelling straight to our eye is true and needs a complex and not wholly satisfactory explanation in physics to even begin to allow for it, and here it is in the Bible!


16) "...and God saw that it was good…"

  …Which is further pause for reflection. Yet another moment of stoppage time on the geological clock, hence the layers we see.


 17) "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day..." (of God’s time, not our time, note the distinction above).


 18) "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life…"

  …Just as we find in our geological record, life emerges from the water  - before man. Don’t forget that. Life is created before man, just as the geological record shows. The Bible could so easily have got the order of Creation wrong in terms of the geological record but it didn’t. The Bible-writers couldn’t know that things came from water first, and nor was there any need for the Bible to raise other life above our own, by mentioning them first. Had it been some fictionalized account it might well have made the mistake of placing man’s creation before the other creatures, to further solidify the later notion of dominion God gives us over them; but no, the Word of God gets the order right in accordance with the geological record. Think about the statistical improbability of all this. But continuing on:


19) "...and fowl that may fly above the earth..."

  …This should give you a tingling sensation now, since fowl/birds are in Evolutionary terms direct descendants of the dinosaur, with nothing in between according to Evolutionists. Again, exactly in accordance with geological records we have ‘dinosaurs/birds.’ And note that this says “that fowl may fly,” not that they are doing so at this very time, necessarily, but that the order of creation is that He needed to know how birds/dinosaurs flew/emerged and what that would mean in terms of the further acts of creation to follow. This is art in the making. A God truly enjoying the sensation of the unknown in the act of creation. We are indeed created in His image and likeness.

  Moving on again:


20) "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind…"

  …Dinosaurs included, since they are in this same ‘kind,’ this same category of creation, according to Evolution.


21) "…and God saw that it was good…"

  …Yet another moment of pause...

  Point 21) marks the end of the fossil history of the process of creation of everything before man. At which point, knowing the recipe as it were, for continued and favoured life - to exclude rather large and beastly dinosaurs no doubt, as they were used in the process but did not make the ‘final cut’ as it were - then, and only then did He confirm them as living things in this following way:


 22) "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth…"

  …The blessing of life was conferred upon them, but only after a process of development to see what combinations of things worked best. Like a true artist. And note, the sun is created after grass and trees etc., but the requirement of light for these in the creative process is satisfied in the first lines of Genesis, “Let there be light,” the unknown source of which adds to the mystery of light, which scientists continue to grapple with. But things are still not operating wholly according to our time-scale, since God’s time/days are not yet finished. We have days six and seven to go yet in His time.


 23) "And the evening and the morning were the fifth day."

  …This is God’s time still, not ours. Then work resumes:


 24) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind..."

  …So here now are all the things we see in our recent geological history just before man emerges to spread across the earth - right across the earth, which is still one place, Pangaea, as per the above account.


25) "...and God saw that it was good..."

  …Yet another moment of reflection. Step-change creation in motion.

  Remember that in this account we have both God-time and earth-time running, one after the other. He creates, things stop; He resumes and creates, then things stop. With the speed that is beyond the speed of light and the speed within the limit of the speed of light that we’re familiar with, operating in the creative mix.