Evolution ? Humanity has dreamed up a great many ideas over recent centuries that come under the general heading of 'Science'. We have had Laplace, Lyell, Darwin, and others. All these ideas are shown to be defective by the simple observation that the Solar System is neatly ordered in a manner that could not be natural. The main point to consider is the fact that the math disproves the 'Nebular Hypothesis', which is the foundational premise for much of modern astronomy. The Nebular Hypothesis is also foundational to the theory of evolution. The equation that defines the orbits of the Solar System, as described and determined in mathematical sections, is pure math, it is artificial, it is the product of intelligence. The equation did not come about by the operation of chance, nor by the operation of any natural law. The equation is known to be artificial, and the Solar System fits the equation. The inevitable implication is that the Solar System is also artificial, at least with regard to the distribution of the orbits of the planets. If the Equation is 'Created' then so must the Solar System also be Created. It must be clear that if the System was Created, then so must life be Created. It is imponderably stupid to suggest that a Creator would Create our Solar System, and then leave it to blind chance to bring about life, and then wait for billions of years for the further chance that intelligent life might evolve. The sequence of logic is straightforward and simple. The equation is Created, the System is Created, so is Earth, and so are we. Evolutionists must disprove the math on this site before they can begin to consider the validity of the Nebular Hypothesis and Evolution. Scientific dating and the Earth Sciences. All dating methods applied to the ages of the Earth and it's fossils are founded on the premise that the Solar System is entirely natural, and that it originated in accordance with the Nebular Hypothesis. The Nebular Hypothesis is wrong. If the Solar System actually originated in some other way, then all these dating methods become suspect. In short, the math on this site throws science and history into confusion. That is why it will never be accepted. That is why scientists refuse to examine it. However, humanity cannot ignore the matter for ever.

It will be many decades before historians can bring themselves to evaluate the mathematics on this site. Historians rarely, if ever, trouble to educate themselves on scientific matters. They prefer to operate on the premise that ancient peoples were uneducated, and there is therefore no need for historians to look for evidence of ancient scientific knowledge. However, there are rare occasions when archaeologists will acknowledge a limited scientific capacity amongst 'primitive' peoples. Archaeologists reluctantly admit that the builders of Stonehenge (UK) may have had some knowledge of eclipse prediction, which in turn allows for ancient astronomy and mathematics. However, archaeologists will never allow that the ground-plan of Stonehenge is an almost exact mathematical model of the entire Solar System. The format is unusual, it is roughly circular, and the monument itself is rather delapidated, yet despite all this, it is possible to demonstrate the evidences of a sophisticated astronomy in what remains. (see 'Babel ?' section) The designers of Stonehenge certainly knew about the Creation Equation and set out the ground plan of the monument to conform. There is evidence elsewhere of the same ancient awareness of the mathematics on this site. There is ample evidence in the Bible, The Heavens declare the GLORY of GOD; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. Psalm 19 vs. 1-2 NIV This stated observation takes on new meaning when we realise that it is literally TRUE, at least with regard to the Solar System. Historians will have none of this, of course, because it conflicts with other 'knowledge' such as the theory of Evolution, and the principles outlined by Lyell. These modern theories all sound very reasonable, and as theories there is no doubt that they make sense, but they are not necessarily true, and they are not supported by the mathematics on this site.

Return to Main Menu
INTRODUCTION	Math Menu	A Signal ?	Babel ?
Implications for Science	Top of this page	Religious Implications	The Universe