Supernature, Creation, and the Divine/ Is there another Creation theory? The Bible is God's excellent guide to life, it is not a science book. However, The concept of intelligence and magnificent order, can be validated by the results of scientific investigation.  What is the meaning of Creation? The question of origins has a direct bearing on our behavior, our destiny, our concept of God, and our philosophy of life. It is one of the most profound matters an individual must face. However, should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth and beliefs based on argument, the former should take precedence over the latter. Here, the term 'Creation' means: Creation Spirit, energy of the Creation spirit, universal consciousness- all of which are concepts that mean one and the same thing. Creation is the most tremendous mass of pure spirit energy existing in our universe, inconceivable in its knowledge, wisdom, truth, love. Creation is the originator of all Creations, which means that it created all the worlds and everything pertaining thereto,

To do full justice to the facts about the written word of God we are compelled to hold two truths at the same time, as we do in the case of Jesus, the incarnate word. The Bible is both divinely inspired and fully human. The fact that God speaks directly and uniquely through the Bible does not, however, reduce the biblical writers to typewriters. Each book gives clear evidence of its human history. The writers and editors were plainly not automatic writing machines.

The Bible is a record book that contains a history of God's relationship with mankind, but it is man's record. God may have helped to keep this record correct in its essential details. But like everything that humans touch, the Bible has flaws. If people would allow it, God could continue to give us corrections and interpretation to help us keep this record accurate. There are those who claim that the Bible is perfect and infallible. Some even claim that the Bible contains within its covers the answer to every question, making all other books unnecessary. The people who make these claims put the Bible into the place of God, giving the Bible attributes that belong only to God, such as perfection. In effect they worship the Bible. This worship can become a kind of idolatry.


This means that we should not place more emphasis on the Bible as being the "inerrant word" than we do in God being the inerrant one. Some people seem to believe that if they find a single error or contradiction among the over sixty books within the Bible, ( books written in different ages, in ancient languages, by hand ) then none of it is true. Further, they make no distinction between objective and subjective truths. One is truly holy, and that is God. If we put anything before him it is idolatry - even the Bible! It's a matter of priority. When God is not at the top of our priorities, then whatever is at the top is our god, even if it is the Bible.

These same people obviously have not read the two different genealogies of Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and yet expect you to believe that the genealogy found in Genesis is a completely reliable timeline; Ignoring the fact that the Bible itself says not to argue about foolish questions and genealogies!

If we believe that the God of creation is the God of redemption, and that the God of redemption is the God of creation, then we are committed to a positive theory of harmonization between science and evangelicalism. Therefore, in place of resentment or suspicion or vilification toward science and scientists, we need to have a spirit of respect and gratitude. In place of a narrow, hyperdogmatic attitude toward science, we should be careful, reserved, and open-minded.

That being said; The `theory of evolution' is not able to make predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a formula which can be used only to classify models and to show the relationships which such a classification might imply . . Webster's New World Dictionary defines a model as "a generalized, hypothetical description, often based on an analogy, used in analyzing or explaining something."

This is true for any theory; Theories are not facts...

There are many alternatives to fundamentalist creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

Scientific creationism is concerned with genetics, biology, paleontology, physics, anthropology, and other sciences, not theology. Conversely, "Biblical Creation" relies on a strictly literal interpretation of the Biblical account of Genesis (usually this is in English and not the original Hebrew).

Evolutionists assign dates to matter, and an approximate date on the creation of the universe, but they do not mention what initially created that matter, or where it came from. Similarly, the scientific creation model does not address such issues. As in the evolution model, of which many individuals believe God guided the process, one could conceivably believe an atheistic approach to creation where kinds were created fully functional and developed spontaneously and instantaneously out of nothing with no help from any deity. The fact is, theistic beliefs are irrelevant to the purely scientific study of creation. Essentially there are only two models of origins, creation and evolution; WHY?

Each model is a complete world view, a philosophy of life and meaning, of origin and destiny. Neither can easily be confirmed or falsified by the scientific method, since neither can be tested or observed experimentally, and therefore they must both be accepted on faith. Nevertheless, each is also a scientific model, since each seeks to explain within its framework all of the real data of science and history. Evolutionism is at least as religious as creationism, these are two fully comparable systems.

The scientist who set up the currently used classification system was a creationist. Carolus Linnaeus intended the species to be the same as a created kind. Species is the Latin word for kind.

Hence, the dog, the wolf, and the coyote are classified as separate species because of their external physical characteristics. However, they can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Therefore, they should all be placed in the same species and the same kind. Some feel that it may be possible to alter the system of taxonomy used by biologists and paleontologists to group species into kinds. As yet, no one has done this in a systematic fashion. Others feel that the current setup is so entrenched that it would be almost impossible to change all of the classified organisms based on genetics

It is important to define terms, especially on this issue. The belief that God used evolution to make man is properly called "theistic evolution", not creation. Evolution purports to explain the origin of things by natural processes, creation by preternatural processes; and it is semantic confusion to try to equate the two. Theistic evolution says there is a God behind the natural processes which cause evolution; atheistic evolution says there is not. Both forms of evolution assume the same framework of evolutionary history and the same evolutionary mechanisms, so there is no scientific way to discriminate between the two, as there is between creationism and evolutionism. Theistic evolution must be judged on the basis of theological criteria, not scientific. The creation and evolution models, on the other hand, CAN be compared and evaluated on strictly scientific criteria. Creationists maintain that evolution is a poor scientific model of origins, strictly on the basis of scientific criteria.

The theory of evolution describes an earth that is billions of years old; Many creation scientists interpret the Genesis account of creation as requiring an earth that is only about 6,000 years of age; some stretch this to 10,000 years. It is impossible to prove that the earth was in existence billions of years ago; no human was alive at that time to observe. All we have are indicators that the world is of a great age.

There is one good indicator that our galaxy is very old: The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in our galaxy. The galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. This would indicate that our galaxy is much older than 10 millennia.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a method of measuring the length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays stream into the atmosphere from all directions in outer space and break neutrons free when they collide with air molecules. When these neutrons hit rocks on the ground, they react with a tiny number of mineral atoms which create radioactive isotopes. At sea level, a few hundred modified atoms are created each year in a gram of quartz which is near the surface of the ground. New measuring techniques can detect very small numbers of these atoms and thus estimate the number of years that the rocks have been exposed. Scientists have found ages of about 830,000 years for extinct volcanoes in Nevada.

The coral reef at Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean has been measured to have a thickness of up to 1380 meters. Even the most optimistic coral growth rates would require that the atoll be over 130,000 years of age.

It takes thousands of years of below freezing temperatures to build a 100 foot layer of permafrost. But large areas in the north are permanently frozen to depths of almost one mile! This took many tens of millennia to accomplish.

If we assumed that all of the minerals which are carried by rivers into the oceans remains trapped in the oceans, then it would take 260 million years for the concentration of sodium to reach its present level. If plankton, fish or other plants adsorb sodium, then it would take much longer.

Measurements by sensors attached to satellites shows that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year. (A nanogram is one thousandth of a million of a gram.) This rate would require 4.5 million years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is approximately the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon. This agrees rather well with radioactive dating of moon rocks.

The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of evolution". The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to include all people who believe in creation.

Creation science, as it is promoted today, is based on a literal acceptance of the book of Genesis. It specifies a young earth - an earth and universe which were created 6 to 10 thousand years ago. In essence, the debate between "creationists" and "evolutionists" is whether the earth is less or more than 10,000 years old. To a Christian who believes in the inerrancy (absolute freedom of error) of the Bible, and who interprets the book of Genesis literally, there is no debate. Creation occurred as described, in 6 days circa 4000 BCE. To believe otherwise would mean that the Bible contains errors. (Remember that this is based on objective truth..ie,-Science... as verses subjective truth..ie,-Metaphor) This theory is fragile, since a single finding that proves that the earth existed over 10,000 years ago will demolish it. The two weakest points of ICR-style creationism are (1) its commitment to a young (i.e., less than 10,000-year-old) earth and (2) its reliance on "flood geology," which attributes all fossils to a single catastrophe, the Noachian deluge. These two weak points will ultimately lead to the downfall of "scientific creationism" and its replacement in evangelical and fundamentalist Christian circles by old-earth creationism, progressive creationism, and, to some extent, theistic evolution.

These Biblical passages can be interpreted in many ways:

Many Evangelical and all Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant (without error) and that its writings are literally true. Most regard the "day" in the first two chapters of Genesis as referring to a 24 hour interval.

Many mainline Christians interpret Biblical passages as God's revelations to the people of the day which were adequate for their understanding, but which are not to be taken as scientific descriptions.

Many liberal Christians and others look upon these creation passages as being beautiful myths which were attempts by a pre-scientific society to understand their environment.

The term evolution simply means change. Every time a baby is born it has half of its genetic structure comes from each parent, thus the baby is a new and unique entity – and evolution takes another small step. That is not a theory, it is a fact, However..

The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge. Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation. With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past. The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas.

The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without

A design paradigm that can nurture the sort of formal and teleological thinking that will enable biologists to discover the laws of development has eluded them; The reason for this elusion is the shackles of Darwinism. The long term; gradual accumulation of information necessary in the molecule to man theory of Darwinism is unlike any process we know of, or can observe. The story of the fossils agrees with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks you will not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appear. Between every species there is a complete absence of intermediate fossils.

What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.

First; Natural selection is not fully sufficient to explain evolutionary change for two major reasons, many other causes are powerful, particularly at levels of biological organization both above and below the traditional Darwinian focus on organisms and their struggles for reproductive success. At the lowest level of substitution in individual base pairs of DNA, change is often effectively neutral and therefore random. At higher levels, involving entire species or faunas, punctuated equilibrium can produce evolutionary trends by selection of species based on their rates of origin and extirpation, whereas mass extinctions wipe out substantial parts of biotas for reasons unrelated to adaptive struggles of constituent species in "normal" times between such events. 

Life's pathway certainly includes many features predictable from laws of nature, but these aspects are too broad and general to provide the "rightness" that we seek for validating evolution's particular results - roses, mushrooms, people and so forth. Organisms adapt to, and are constrained by, physical principles. It is, for example, scarcely surprising, given laws of gravity, that the largest vertebrates in the sea (whales) exceed the heaviest animals on land (elephants today, dinosaurs in the past), which, in turn, are far bulkier than the largest vertebrate that ever flew (extinct pterosaurs of the Mesozoic era). 

At the basis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution lie two basic assumptions: That changes in morphologies are induced by random mutations on the genome; and, that these changes in the morphology of plant or animal make the life form either more or less successful in the competition to survive. It is by the aspect of nature's selection that evolutionists claim to remove the theory of evolution from that of a random process. The selection is in no way random. It is a function of the environment. The randomness however remains as the basic driving force that produces the varied morphologies behind the selection. Can random mutations produce the evolution of life? That is the question addressed herein. Because evolution is primarily a study of the history of life, statistical analyses of evolution are plagued by having to assume the many conditions that were extant during those long gone eras. Rates of mutations, the contents of the "original DNA, " the environmental conditions, all effect the rate and direction of the changes in morphology and are all unknowns. One must never ask what the likelihood is that a specific set of mutations will occur to produce a specific animal. This would imply a direction to evolution and basic to all Darwinian theories of evolution is the assumption that evolution has no direction. The induced changes, and hence the new morphologies, are totally random, regardless of the challenges presented by the environment. With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At the Cambrian explosion of animal life, 530 million years ago, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) appeared suddenly in the fossil record. Only 30 to 34 survived. The rest perished. Since then no new phyla have evolved. It is no wonder that Scientific American asked whether the mechanism of evolution has changed in a way that prohibits all other body phyla. It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed. It is our understanding of how evolution functions that must change, change to fit the data presented by the fossil record. To use the word of Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, it appears that the flow of life is "channeled" along these 34 basic directions. Let's look at this channeling and decide whether or not it can be the result of random processes. Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies we have, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 proteins. It is estimated that there are some 30 million species of animal life on Earth. If the genomes of all animals produced 50,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the species (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 million x 50,000) 1.5 trillion (1.5 x10 to power of 12) proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower). Now let's consider the likelihood of these viable combinations of proteins forming by chance, recalling that, as the events following the Cambrian explosion taught us, not all combinations of proteins are viable. Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20 to the power of 300 (that is 20 multiplied by itself 300 times) or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10 to the power of 390 ( Ten multiplied by itself 390 times or more simply said a one with 390 zeroes after it!!!!!) . Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10 to the power of 390 proteins, the 1.5 x (10 to power of 12) proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times. But this impossibility of randomness producing order is not different from the attempt to produce Shakespeare or any meaningful string of letters more than a few words in length by a random letter generator. Gibberish is always the result. This is simply because the number of meaningless letter combinations vastly exceeds the number of meaningful combinations. With life it was and is lethal gibberish. Nature, molecular biology and the Cambrian explosion of animal life have given us the opportunity to study rigorously the potential for randomness as a source of development in evolution. If the fossil record is an accurate description of the flow of life, then the34 basic body plans that burst into being at the Cambrian, 530 million years ago, comprise all of animal life till today. The tree of life which envisioned a gradual progression of phyla from simple forms such as sponges, on to more complex life such as worms and then on to shelled creatures such as mollusks has been replaced by the bush of life in which sponges and worms and mollusks and all the other of the 34 phyla appeared simultaneously. Each of these bush lines then developed (evolved) a myriad of variations, but the variations always remained within the basic body plan. Among the structures that appeared in the Cambrian were limbs, claws, eyes with optically perfect lenses, intestines. These exploded into being with no underlying hint in the fossil record that they were coming. Below them in the rock strata (i.e., older than them) are fossils of one-celled bacteria, algae, protozoans, and clumps known as the essentially structureless Ediacaran fossils of uncertain identity. How such complexities could form suddenly by random processes is an unanswered question. It is no wonder that Darwin himself, at seven locations in The Origin of Species, urged the reader to ignore the fossil record if he or she wanted to believe his theory. Abrupt morphological changes are contrary to Darwin's oft repeated statement that nature does not make jumps. Darwin based his theory on animal husbandry rather than fossils. If in a few generations of selective breeding a farmer could produce a robust sheep from a skinny one, then, Darwin reasoned, in a few million or billion generations a sponge might evolve into an ape. The fossil record did not then nor does it now support this theory. The abrupt appearance in the fossil record of new species is so common that the journal Science, the bastion of pure scientific thinking, featured the title, "Did Darwin get it all right?" And answered the question: no. The appearance of wings is a classic example. There is no hint in the fossil record that wings are about to come into existence. And they do, fully formed. We may have to change our concept of evolution to accommodate a reality that the development of life has within it something exotic at work, some process totally unexpected that produces these sudden developments. The change in paradigm would be similar to the era in physics when classical logical Newtonian physics was modified by the totally illogical (illogical by human standards of logic) phenomena observed in quantum physics, including the quantized, stepwise changes in the emission of radiation by a body even as the temperature of the body increases smoothly.

  With the advent of molecular biology's ability to discern the structure of proteins and genes, statistical comparison of the similarity of these structures among animals has become possible. The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same in all mammals. That is not surprising. The fossil record implies a common branch for all mammals. But what is surprising, even astounding, is the similarity of the mammal gene the gene that controls the development of eyes in mollusks and the visual systems in worms. The same can be said for the gene that controls the expression of limbs in insects and in humans. In fact so similar is this gene, that pieces of the mammalian gene, when spliced into a fruit fly cell, will cause a fruit fly eye to appear at the site of the 'splice' . This would make sense if life's development were described as a tree. But the bush of life means that just above the level of one-celled life, insects and mammals and worms and mollusks separated. The eye gene has 130 sites. That means there are 20 to the power of 130 possible combinations of amino acids along those 130 sites. Somehow nature has selected the same combination of amino acids for all visual systems in all animals. That fidelity could not have happened by chance. It must have been pre-programmed in lower forms of life. But those lower forms of life, one-celled, did not have eyes. These data have confounded the classic theory of random, independent evolution producing these convergent structures. So totally unsuspected by classical theories of evolution is this similarity that the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the Untied States, Science, reported: "The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] ... The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined." The significance of this statement must not be lost. We are being asked to reexamine the idea that evolution is a free agent. The convergence, the similarity of these genes, is so great that it could not, it did not, happen by chance random reactions. The British Natural History Museum in London has an entire wing devoted to the evolution of species. And what evolution do they demonstrate? Pink daisies evolving into blue daisies; small dogs evolving into big dogs; a few species of cichlid fish evolving in a mere few thousand years into a dozen species of cichlid fish. Very impressive. Until you realize that the daisies remained daisies, the dogs remained dogs and the cichlid fish remained cichlid. It is called micro-evolution. This magnificent museum, with all its resources, could not produce a single example of one phylum evolving into another. It is the mechanisms of macro-evolution, the change of one phylum or class of animal into another that has been called into question by these data. The reality of this explosion of life was discovered long before it was revealed. In 1909, Charles D. Walcott, while searching for fossils in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, came upon a strata of shale near the Burgess Pass, rich in that for which he had been seeking., fossils from the era known as the Cambrian. Over the following four years Walcott collected between 60,000 and 80,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale. These fossils contained representatives from every phylum except one of the phyla that exist today. Walcott recorded his findings meticulously in his notebooks. No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion. These fossils could have changed the entire concept of evolution from a tree of life to a bush of life. And they did, but not in 1909. Walcott knew he had discovered something very important. That is why he collected the vast number of samples. But he could not believe that evolution could have occurred in such a burst of life forms, "simultaneously" to use the words of Scientific American. This was totally against the theory of Darwin in which he and his colleagues were steeped. And so Walcott reburied the fossils, all 60,000 of them, this time in the drawers of his laboratory. Walcott was the director of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. It was not until 1985 that they were rediscovered (in the draws of the Smithsonian). Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported. It is a classic example of cognitive dissonance, but an example for which we have all paid a severe price. At this point we must ask the question, what has produced the wonders of life that surround us? The answer may be implied by those very surroundings. In that case the medium would be the message!

In 1999 the age of the cosmos was determined by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Key Project Team to be about 12 billion years old (plus or minus 10%), with a maximum age of 18 billion years, depending on a number of variables.

The Big Bang and its associated theories try to explain or describe the moment of change from nothingness and no time to the existence of the universe filled with space and marked by time. Many physicists contend that, before the universe as we now know it existed, there was no space or time. They then go on to describe the creation as an explosion, or flash, hence the name Big Bang. The big bang is a process of expansion in our universe that is still active today.

According to the Big Bang theory; The universe flashed into existence from a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperatures. As a dense, hot globule of gas, containing nothing but hydrogen and a small amount of helium, it began expanding rapidly outward. There were no stars or planets. The first stars probably began to condense out of the primordial hydrogen when the universe was about 100 million years old and continued to form as the universe aged.

However; Clear deduction and logical thinking cannot support a simplistic theory based on Classical/Newtonian physics, and applied to Modern/Relativity, Quantum physics. The Red Shift and the expanding universe is proof of a dynamic space/time, and a light horizon located 15/18 billion light years distant.. nothing more! The Big Bang theory cannot explain why the primordial globule would be 'hot', neither can it explain the existence of the randomness now seen in galactic spacing, nor the existence of gravity. It chooses to ignore the fact that repeated measurements show that the cosmos is in fact balance right at 'critical density'; where it is delicately balanced between expanding forever or collapsing.

The units of the Hubble constant are “kilometers per second, per Megaparsec.” A Megaparsec (Mpc) is 3.26 million light-years. For each Megaparsec of distance, the velocity of a distant object appears to increase by some value. The constant initially calculated by Hubble was around 500 km/s/Mpc, but this figure has been radically revised during past decades.

For the past 70 years, right up to the launch of the Hubble Telescope, the range of measured values for the expansion of the universe was from 50 to 100 km/s/Mpc. The Key Project team's measurement now gives the precise value of Hubble's constant at 70 km/s/Mpc, with an uncertainty of ten percent. This means that a given galaxy appears to be moving 160,000 mph faster for every 3.3 million light-years away from Earth.

The team used the Hubble Telescope to observe 18 galaxies out to 65 million light-years. They discovered almost 800 Cepheid variable stars, a special class of pulsating stars used for accurate distant measurement. Although Cepheids are rare, they provide a very reliable “standard candle” for estimating intergalactic distances. The team used the stars to calibrate many different methods for measuring distance. Combining Hubble's constant measurement with estimates for the density of the universe, the team determined that the universe is approximately 12 billion years old—similar to the oldest stars.

The universe's age is calculated using the expansion rate from precise distance measurements, and the calculated age is refined based on whether the universe appears to be accelerating or decelerating, given the amount of matter observed in space. A rapid expansion rate indicates that the universe did not require as much time to reach its present size, and so it is younger than if it were expanding more slowly.

The researchers emphasize that the age estimate holds true if the universe is below so-called “critical density,” where it is delicately balanced between expanding forever or collapsing. Or, the universe is pervaded by a mysterious force pushing the galaxies farther apart, in which case the Hubble measurements point to an even older universe.

Astronomers also theorize that 99% of the matter in the universe is invisible, or dark matter, composed of some kind of matter that they cannot yet detect.

This is another example of how 'theorized' theories are made to fit the facts; By coming up with convenient estimates to clear up any nagging paradox; like the fact that in previous estimates the universe appeared to be younger than its oldest stars.

One example of information that is contrary to the "Big Bang" theory is the nature of the cosmic background radiation, which cosmologists interpret as the afterglow of the heat of the big bang itself. Astronomers have made high precision measurements of this radiation, finding that it arrives at Earth with the same intensity from all directions, to the extraordinary accuracy of about 1/1000 of a percent. Tracing the history of this radiation backwards in time, cosmologists conclude that the temperature and the density of matter in the universe must have been uniform to this accuracy when the cosmic background radiation was released, about 300,000 years after the big bang. This extreme uniformity of the early universe cannot be explained. Calculations show that there would not have been nearly enough time for this uniformity to come about, so one is forced to assume, without explanation, that the universe was uniform from its very beginning.

Another example of information that is contrary to the "Big Bang" theory is that the universe appears very nearly flat, existing right on the knife edge between being open and closed. In the standard big-bang model, the only way to explain these observations is to have the universe start out with a uniform temperature and at the critical density.

Further, among all the possible universes that could possibly exist, only a special few have the right conditions that could give rise to life. The cosmic coincidences are not some fundamental aspect of the way the laws of physics operate, but rather a prerequisite for the development of life.

Space is host to the most inhospitable environments imaginable. Nonetheless, there are subtle properties of the universe that allow the delicate process of life to exist. Indeed, it appears as if the cosmos has been “fine tuned” to permit life.

According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event. In a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle," some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion. Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop. Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all. Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'." According to the latest scientific thinking, the matter of the universe originated in a huge explosion of energy called "The Big Bang." At first, the universe was only hydrogen and helium, which congealed into stars. Subsequently, all the other elements were manufactured inside the stars. The four most abundant elements in the universe are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon. When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon. Hoyle sums up his findings as follows: A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely. Universal Acceptance Of Fine Tuning Besides the BBC video, the scientific establishment's most prestigious journals, and its most famous physicists and cosmologists, have all gone on record as recognizing the objective truth of the fine-tuning. The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt: The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present. In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable." "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty." Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125). Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis and the Big Bang" and "The Science of Life" was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples: 1) Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues: One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decima]l places. This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000, but instead: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form. 2) Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile: The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side. 3) Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.) Penrose continues, Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment. Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same. It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler: To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"

So obviously there is a problem with the current dogma of reductionism science and the observed phenomena ..

Today’s Western Christian is taught a world-view of matter and spirit based on an antiquated perception of natural philosophy. In this view, Space, Time, and Motion, are seen as being distinct phenomena. These classifications are useful for purposes of reasoning, however, these things are in reality not separate, rather, a trinity. This union of Space, Time, and Motion, is verified conclusively by Einstein’s Relativity. Relativity has also shown through the famous E=mc2 theorem that matter and energy are not distinct realities, rather two aspects of one. Also, Quantum physics has revealed that at the subatomic level, matter / energy have both particle and wave characteristics. This phenomena is described as ‘complementary’ because two distinct physical characteristic coexist. Further, through what is known as the 'uncertainty principle' it has been discovered that reality itself behaves in a ghostlike fashion and allows for the possibility of dynamic sudden change; allowing for the possibility of miracles!

We live in a world that prides itself on its ability to describe and understand the unknown and plan for the future through the use of reason. We readily accept explanations that seem reasonable and discard reports of events that don't appear reasonable.

This unwillingness to accept the "unreasonable" is based, in part, on a description of reality that started to emerge in the sixteenth and seventeenth century with the works of Newton, Kepler, Liebnitz and others. The experimental methodology and mathematics employed to more precisely describe events radically changed humanity's perception from the Ptolemaic model of the universe and our place in it that had come to dominate Western thought. These developments were reinforced by the success such a paradigm had in describing easily perceived events. Even today, it's a common conception that the "real world" operates on a Newtonian paradigm... a world of near-clockwork regularity and predictability when all of the variables affecting it have been uncovered.

Much has been uncovered about the nature of physical reality using modern scientific methods, a methodology that has been developed during the last three hundred years to order and explain the physical world in which we find ourselves. In addition, mathematics - the language that researchers use to describe and theorize about their findings - has also made significant advances during this time period.

In the 1930's, in one of the seminal intellectual events of this century, a brilliant Austrian mathematician, Kurt Godel, unequivocally demonstrated that mathematics cannot discern the truth, it can only deal with the underlying nature of proof. Put briefly, Godel found that for every consistent formalization of arithmetic, there exist arithmetic truths that are not provable within that formal system. Any system of mathematical reasoning must be based upon assumptions which are ultimately unprovable. Thus, the leap from proof to truth needs to be based ultimately on belief, it can never be satisfactorily demonstrated.

While Godel was publishing his findings on the nature of proof, another mathematician, John von Neumann, was putting the finishing touches on a concise mathematical formulation of the physicists description of physical reality which had been developed earlier in the century. This theory, called quantum mechanics, held that events at the atomic level can best be described as a complementary state of waves and matter. Depending on which phenomena the observer of an event wished to measure, the event under examination could be described either as a wave (such as a radio wave) or as a sub-atomic particle (such as an electron). It only depended on an independent observer to collapse all the possible outcomes (described mathematically as the wave function) to create the measurement of the event that was finally observed.

After formalizing this physical theory, von Neumann took the theory one step further and demonstrated that, since the universe itself consists of an enormous number of collapsed wave functions, it must itself be a quantum mechanical system requiring an independent observer to collapse its wave function.

Despite its strange and "unreasonable" characteristics, quantum mechanics has been successfully tested in a variety of ways during the last sixty years. Moreover, in experiments completed in the late '70's and '80's, researchers determined that the act of observing one element of a quantum system instantaneously determines the outcome of other elements of the system regardless of how far apart the other element of the system is located. Thus, aside from the complementarity inherent in the atomic nature of reality, another of the fundamental attributes of physical reality confirmed by these experiments appears to be its non-local nature. While there are several possible descriptions of the universe that attempt to capture all the implications of these experimental outcomes, only two of them seem to stand up to rigorous evaluation and therefore warrant acceptance or "belief"; Either their actually exists a conscious, independent outside observer separate from the universe itself or there must be an infinite number of universes, created by the consciousness of each observer. Put another way, it is that the one undivided indivisible consciousness  is able to be all the separate consciousnesses by being each one of them, one at a time. A metaphor to help the reader visualize this concept is if we imagine every life form that has existed and will ever exist in the physical Universe, as a pearl. This will of course add up to a lot of separate pearls. If we then imagine that this multitude of pearls as being strung out on a single continuous cosmic thread then we get a variety of the 'Great chain of being'. So along this thread will be expressed all the life forms in the Universe. This thread then demonstrates the relationship between all the seemingly separate consciousnesses. That is, they are all different points along the conscious stream of the one consciousness.

It is the notion of separate categories at the casual level of reality that also lends itself to the separation of ‘mind and matter’ within classical philosophy. However, the separation of mind and matter are only a model of reality and not reality in truth. In a similar fashion the ground of reality is not made from billiard balls or bricks. The source of this confusion in our model making is even older than Newton's or even Galileo's day; for this confusion springs from the duality of our own language and historical roots of philosophy and theology. It is the construction of an epistemology that combines Mesopotamian theological symbols with Greek philosophical models, that creates dualism within Western Christian thought.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made by things which do appear. Hebrews 11:1-3

Newton looked upon space and time as two independent entities. Modern theory recognizes that they are not independent, and regards them as components of a four-dimensional structure in which there are three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But if we examine the bases of these two hypotheses it is apparent that they are both purely arbitrary assumptions, and in view of the points brought out in the preceding paragraphs neither of them should ever have been given any consideration until after the consequences of extrapolating the relation applicable in the known region had been thoroughly explored. In this known region the relation between space and time is recognized as motion. Motion is measured as velocity, and in velocity time and space have a reciprocal relationship; that is, more space is the equivalent of less time and vice versa. The most conservative assumption that we can possibly make concerning the general relation of space and time, the hypothesis that is by far the most probable representation of the underlying truth, is that this relationship which holds good in the known phenomenon also holds good in general.

In Feynman graphs photons and electrons are pictorially given as lines in a space-time diagram. Interactions with exchange of energy-momentum and other properties occur in such space-time points, where lines meet. Feynman graphs are nowadays the standard method used to calculate theoretical predictions.
Feynman graphs reveal that the universe in which we live is not a universe of matter, but a universe of motion, one in which the basic reality is motion, and all physical entities and phenomena, including matter, are merely manifestations of motion. The atom, on this basis, is simply a combination of motions. Radiation is motion, gravitation is motion, an electric charge is motion, and so on. The mathematical quantities which are used to describe the motion of objects can be divided into two categories. The quantity is either a vector or a scalar.

Obviously, the equation of motion, which defines motion in terms of space and time, likewise defines space and time in terms of motion. It tells us that in motion space and time are the two reciprocal aspects of that motion, and nothing else. In a universe of matter, the fact that space and time have this significance in motion would not preclude them from having some other significance in a different connection, but when it is specified that motion is the sole constituent of the physical universe, space and time cannot have any significance anywhere in that universe other than that which they have as aspects of motion. Under these circumstances, the equation of motion is a complete definition of the role of space and time in the physical universe. We thus arrive at the conclusion that space and time are simply the two reciprocal aspects of motion and have no other significance apart from motion, or any given volume of space has an inherent quantity of motion or "force". that defines it in relation to time. Since mass is usually associated in thought with spatial measurements and likewise energy is usually associated with time measurements we can see the spacetime relationship in energy mass equivalence defined by the famous equation (e=mc2).  Spacetime is dynamic, not static, - Space, Time,  Motion, are an inseparable trinity. further, the limiting spacetime ratio is 10 to 40 magnitudes @ E (2 π 2),, which is the light speed equivalent and defines Planck's constant and the Compton wavelength of the proton. The Compton Wavelength is the wavelength associated with the mass of any particle, given by λ = h / mc, where h is Plancks constant, m is the mass of the particle and c is the speed of light. The Planck constant is expressed in joule seconds (J·s). However, the dimensions may also be written as momentum times distance ...     

On this basis, space is not the Euclidean container for physical phenomena that is most commonly visualized by the layman; neither is it the modified version of this concept which makes it subject to distortion by various forces and highly dependent on the location and movement of the observer, as seen by the modern physicist. In fact, it is not even a physical entity in its own right at all; it is simply and solely an aspect of motion. Time is not an order of succession, or a dimension of quasi-space, neither is it a physical entity in its own right. It, too, is simply and solely an aspect of motion, similar in all respects to space, except that it is the reciprocal aspect.

The simplest way of defining the status of space and time in a universe of motion is to say that space is the numerator in the expression s/t, which is the speed or velocity, the measure of motion, and time is the denominator. If there is no fraction, there is no numerator or denominator; if there is no motion, there is no space or time. Space does not exist alone, nor does time exist alone; neither exists at all except in association with the other as motion. We can, of course, focus our attention on the space aspect and deal with it as if the time aspect, the denominator of the fraction, remains constant (or we can deal with time as if space remains constant). This is the familiar process known as abstraction, one of the useful tools of scientific inquiry. But any results obtained in this manner are valid only where the time (or space) aspect does, in fact, remain constant, or where the proper adjustment is made for whatever changes in this factor do take place.

The existence of motion in time is one of the most significant consequences of the status of the physical universe as a universe of motion. Conventional physical science, which recognizes only motion in space, has been able to deal reasonably well with those phenomena that involve spatial motion only. But it has not been able to clarify the physical fundamentals, a task for which an understanding of the role of time is essential, and it is encountering a growing number of problems as observation and experiment are extended into the areas where motion in time is an important factor.

The controlling factor in this situation is the three-dimensional nature of time. In the particular example under consideration each photon moves one unit of space in one unit of time (the normal unit velocity of the space-time progression). Both Newton and Einstein accepted the unit of time applicable to photon B as the same unit of time which is applicable to photon A. But the Postulates of this work specify that each unit of space is equivalent to a unit of time and since the motion involves two different units of space the equivalent units of time are also two separate and distinct units. Therefore when the photons increase their separation by two units of space they also increase their separation by two units of time; that is it takes two units of time to move the photons apart two units in space. The relative velocity is then 2/2 = 1, which is completely in agreement with the observed facts.

This unit velocity relative to a photon moving in the opposite direction is identical with the velocity relative to a stationary object, and the same result is obtained for any intermediate velocity of the reference system. We therefore arrive at the general principle that the velocity of radiation in free space is independent of the reference system. Basically this is a necessary consequence of the status of unity

This introduces a new concept, that of mass, and in order to fit the force system into its proper position in the theoretical universe which we are developing from  Fundamental Postulates we must identify mass with the corresponding quantity in the velocity system; that is, we must reduce it to space-time terms. For this purpose we identify mass as the reciprocal of three-dimensional velocity. The correlation in this case is not as obvious as it has been in most of the identifications previously made, but this relation is inherent in the concept of force as it has been derived in the preceding paragraph and its validity will be demonstrated in the course of the subsequent discussion. In terms of space and time, mass may now be expressed as t³/s³. Force, which was defined as the product of mass and acceleration, becomes t³/s³ * s/t² = t/s². Acceleration and force are therefore analogous quantities, their space-time expressions having the same form with the space and time terms interchanged.

Acceleration decreases rapidly at very high velocities and approaches a limit of zero as the velocity of the mass approaches unity. Relativity theory explains the experimental results by the assumption that mass increases with velocity and becomes infinite at unit velocity (the velocity of light), but the same results are produced by the fact that force is a function of the difference in velocities and drops to zero when the velocity of the mass reaches unity. In mathematical terms, the limiting zero value of a in the expression a = F/m (which is the fact determined by experiment) is not due to an infinite value of m but to a zero value of F.

It makes no difference mathematically whether the mass is increased by a given amount, or the effective force is decreased by the same amount. The effect on the observed quantity, the acceleration, is identical

The units of space, time, and motion (speed) that form the background for physical activity are simply scalar magnitudes. As matters now stand, we have no geometric means of representation that will express all three magnitudes coincidentally. But if we assume that the time progression continues at a uniform rate, and we measure this progression by some independent device (a clock), then we can represent the corresponding spatial magnitude by a one-dimensional geometric figure: a line. The length of this line represents the amount of space corresponding to a given time magnitude. Where this time magnitude is unity, the length of the line also represents the speed, the space per unit time.

Motion is measured as speed (or velocity). Inasmuch as the quantity of space involved in one unit of motion is the minimum quantity that takes part in any physical activity, because less than one unit of motion does not exist, this is the unit of space. Similarly, the quantity of time involved in the one unit of motion is the unit of time. Each unit of motion, then, consists of one unit of space in association with one unit of time; that is, the basic motion of the universe is motion at unit speed. The true speeds that are effective in the basic physical interactions can be correctly measured only in terms of deviation upward or downward from unity. From the natural standpoint a motion at unit speed is no effective motion at all and is relative.

And since time is measured in cycles and circles and space is measured in lines and angles their difference is the 'Transcendental Curves' geometry of motion that describes the 'forces and fields" the mean of which is sometimes known as the golden spiral. when seen in unity. The Golden Section or Golden Mean is derived with simple geometric constructions, its ratio expressed in numbers is, however, irrational The thing that sets the Golden Spiral apart from other spirals is the fact that its curve is exactly the same, no matter how smaller or how large a section we choose to view. In other words, if we were to zoom in to the infinitely small center of the Spiral, we would find an exact duplicate of what we would see if we were to zoom out to view an infinitely large Spiral. No other spiral can be mathematically produced (or produced any other way, for that matter) that adhears so closely to this similarity within similarity.  The Golden Ratio, or phi is the only number that if squared, is equal to itself plus one. In other words, Phi^2 = Phi+1. And if you took it's reciprical, it's equal to Phi-1.Phi^-1 = Phi-1.


Those who are familiar with the comparably recent mathematical constructions known as "fractals" may be noticing a congruence between them and the discussion of Phi up until this point. The connection is not to be missed, because it speaks to one of the very fundamental ideas within the number Phi. That idea has been known in some circles as "microcosm / macrocosm theory," or the basic idea that we find exact replicas of the processes which affect the most minute of all things affecting the largest of all things in an exactly similar proportionate manner - from the atom, and smaller, to the universe, and larger. Phi is simply the mathematical term that most directly expresses the possibility of a single unifying principle that ties together a continually unfolding and expanding reality, ranging from the infinitely minute to the incomprehensably vast. There is no other number that can claim to express this idea with such concise directness. To bring us back to the various topics discussed in the introduction to this frankly astounding proportion, let us not forget that the number not only connects the tiny to the vast, but does so in such a manner that expresses nothing short of transcendence. If we were to multiply the value of 1 over Phi to the second power (0.3819659…) times the total number of degrees in a circle (360), we obtain for a product nothing other than 137.50… degrees. As an alternate way to look at the same idea, if we were to take the value of 1 over Phi (0.6180339) and multiply it by 360, we obtain approximately 222.5 degrees. If we then subtract 222.5 from 360 we again find 137.5 degrees - in other words, the complimentary angle to 1 over Phi is 137.5 degrees, which also happens to be the value of 1 over Phi to the second power times 360. In the simplest case of a hydrogen atom with a single electron spinning around a single proton, the electron moves at about 1/137 of the speed of light and the speed of light is always relative to the electron cycle .

A golden spiral is a logarithmic spiral whose growth factor b is related to φ, the golden ratio. Specifically, a golden spiral gets wider (or further from its origin) by a factor of φ for every quarter turn it makes.

The Cycloid is the same class of curve only within different reference coordinates in spacetime. A cycloid is the curve defined by the path of a point on the edge of circular wheel as the wheel rolls along a straight line. The mechanical properties of the cycloid were investigated by Christian Huygens, who proved the curve to be tautochronous. A tautochrone or isochrone curve is the curve for which the time taken by an object sliding without friction in uniform gravity to its lowest point is independent of its starting point. The curve is a cycloid, and the time is equal to π times the square root of the radius over the acceleration of gravity.

Christian Huygens enquiries into evolutes enabled him to prove that the evolute of a cycloid was an equal cycloid, and by utilizing this property he constructed the isochronal pendulum generally known as the cycloidal pendulum.

Again the curve c  is  logarithmic and, its involutec  and its evolutec are homothetic. The distance of c from the center is ‌c‌=k exp(ω σ), for some constant k.
Due log(ω2) = π ω the involute and evolute of c belong to the same spiral (shift of the parameter only by π): evolutec(σ) = involutec(σ+π)

This 'Sacred Geometry' is the blueprint of Creation and the genesis of all form. All forces have a form and at the most fundamental level form and motion are relational and relative properties . What determines the motions form and reference is its differing areas of 'energy density'

1. There is a direct correspondence between the known motions of the Universe (otherwise known as "forces") and the geometric-topological elements including the general space (Möbius)  transformation, "handedness,  in and out, and the Pi, Phi, Sq2 relationship (isochronous golden mean & logarithmic cycloid).
2. Our own perceptual and conceptual apparatus (our means of interacting with our surroundings) is directly interrelated to the three dimensions of space and the three dimensions of time and subject to the principles of relativity.

Radial-axial movement by the above can be expressed as a movement in the inverse direction along a similar trajectory as axial-radial. Matter on a perpendicular plane to a cycloid spiral axis begins upon an inward condensing path that continually focuses and concentrates upon its centre forming a centripetal rotational form of movement. This form of movement is in reference to radial-axial movement. As we have seen, the direction of the space-time progression with reference to a fixed system of coordinates is indeterminate. Each time the atom enters a new unit of space-time its direction of motion with reference to a stationary coordinate system alters to oppose the direction of the space-time progression applicable to this particular unit. The probability principles require this motion to be distributed equally in all directions in the long run; hence the acceleration toward any specific area at a distance s from the rotating atom depends on the relationship of that area to the total area of the spherical surface of radius s. Since we have found that unit mass exerts unit force at unit distance, the force at distance s is inversely proportional to the ratio of areas; that is, inversely proportional to s². Again we must take note of the fact that we are dealing with a pure ratio, s² units of area divided by 12 units of area, and the introduction of this distance factor does not alter the dimensions of the original force equation F = ma.

Force is merely a concept by which we visualize the resultant of oppositely directed motions as a conflict of tendencies to cause motion rather than as a conflict of the motions themselves. This method of approach facilitates mathematical treatment of the subject, and is unquestionably a convenience, but whenever a physical situation is represented by some derived concept of this kind there is always a hazard that the correspondence may not be complete, and that the conclusions reached through the medium of the derived concept may therefore be in error. This is what has happened in the case we are now considering.