History of Earth Part 6


Part of this discussion is the complete and utter rejection of the theory of evolution.  The problem with evolution is that it fails as badly as the origin of life theory.  Evolution of species was the result of bastardizing the work of Charles Darwin and his work on the Survival of the Fittest theory of evolution within a species, but the theory is limited to the species.  The original theory makes sense, based on what we know today, in that if a member of a species has a trait that aids in the survival and another member of the species does not have this trait, over time, who will likely survive?  This is the brutal truth but death of a member of the species puts an end to any traits that this member may have brought to the party, whereas the member that has a trait which encourages survival then the reproductive process will carry forward the DNA of the living member and the associated traits.  As indicated earlier, when viewed based on the knowledge of today, this limited theory appears have validity.  This theory was also proven in the monk studies with peas in that emphasizing desired traits in the cross breeding would result in those traits carried forward.

The easiest way to approach the concept of evolution is to consider what needs to be in place for any step to occur.  Every step is the result of what comes before and you can’t evolve to some traits that do not exist before.  This problem goes back to the concepts presented earlier about the addition of skin versus scales or warm blooded versus cold blooded when there is no reason to believe that the evolution would have provided these changes.  Consider the simplest comparison and go back to the development of bone structures in the fish that evolved from the single cell result of the amino acid party.  While the development of shells can be assumed to be an enhancement, what caused a fish with a shell to begin the development of a skeleton.  On top of that, what caused the shell to be converted to a skin with scales.  Perhaps we should go back even further and consider what caused the development of gills.  As indicated, everything in evolution is the result and enhancement of that which existed before instead of a complete restructuring, there is no way to enhance that which does not exist.

This is the problem with evolution in that the major changes can’t be explained like the simplest of going from a single cell life form to a multi-cell life form.  Now add the organs and a hard shell instead of a protein wrap and then muscles and bones.  Where did the heart and breathing come from when you start with a single cell life form?  As stated, there are too many seriously structural changes that can’t be explained in the same way that a zebra versus a horse can be explained.  Every major change in the structure of the being has no explanation or support as to the source.

Now consider the concept of evolution in terms of starting over after each catastrophe.  Surely, the simplest approach would have been to rebuild based on the lessons learned from the previous generation but that isn’t what happened, instead the new generation was evolved into smaller critters.  Then, without any incentive, the concept of skin versus scales was one accomplishment, now throw in the hair on the body and various pores for the excretion of bodily fluids, all while making the body warm blooded instead of cold blooded.   Another interesting concept is the development of warm blooded creatures in the oceans that require air instead of breathing underwater, the whale and the dolphin have given us a reason to question where is the mermaid and merman, isn’t this a normal development?

Lastly, the biggest problem with evolution is the sudden and complete stop of the natural process, which makes no sense at all.  Why would nature just up and stop the process that had repopulated the Earth just about the time of Noah’s ark?  Perhaps nature ran out of ideas but aren’t all of the changes based on random connectivity of amino acids and genes?  Where is the unicorn or the griffin or the dragon?  Nature can come up with the skunk and the zebra but can’t give us a unicorn?

What needs to be in place and what needs to come after should be considered in that the acts of nature don’t just stop - nature is nature and continues on.  However, in this case, the process seems to have stopped because we have not discovered a truly new species in over a thousand years and this does not mean discovering what has been hiding for a thousand years but a truly new species.  If the theory of evolution actually existed and worked, as claimed, then there would be constant stream of new species in both plants and animals, but alas, there has been nothing.  Is it possible that nature had already tested every variety and had nothing new up the sleeve?  Conclusion: the process of evolution never worked except within a species.

Science talks about evolution but there is no basis for the belief that a mutation in the offspring of one species resulted in viable life forms.  There is an excessive reliance on the use of 'miracles' in each step of the process.   Once you have a new species from the mutated offspring of an existing species, in order for the species chromosome line to remain clear, that offspring can only mate with another member of the same species so where did this other member of the species come from?  Beginning to see the problems in this nonsense?

The problem is that there is no reason to believe that the evolution of species is anything more than a scientific pipedream because of the number of problems in the creation and reproduction of each species.  That does not take into account the chromosome problems that would be encountered when you jump back and forth between chromosome counts as the species are mutated.  Part of the problem with evolution is the issue of the mutation required in each evolution and the inclusion of the offspring in the family of the parents.  Many species kill deformed offspring and this would definitely count as deformed when the toy poodle gives birth to a lioness.  The other problem with evolution is lack of consistency.  As discussed, nature was trucking along popping up a new species every few generations but the process just stopped.  If this was a valid act of nature then it would not simply disappear when the winds changes, but that is what appears to have happened.  It is almost as if some God like being decided that the time had come to stop and implemented a ‘miracle’.

In truth, the theory of evolution is nothing more than attempt by the scientific community to place themselves above religion.  Religion provides the basis for the creation of the species through the intervention of a divine entity.  Religion provides a fictional account of the creation of the universe in the various texts and these accounts provide an understanding of what happened to the satisfaction of the people of the time.  However, science has done what it always does, it observed and documents, nothing more but visions of grandeur.



Time passes and the solar system takes shape and the planets settle into the rotational positions around the Sun.  The Earth has reached the point in time where things have settled down, considering that this means that the shell of the mantle has cooled off and the outer shell has taken shape but what we know is that a significant number of volcanos and shifts in the plates have taken place.  Some took place millions of years ago and others were more recent.  A prime example of these shifts is the Petrified Forest in Arizona where whole trees, once on the surface of the Earth, ended up underwater and infused with mineral laden water to replace the cell structures with rock. Seems kinda funny but consider that trees were not around at the period when the mantle first took shape providing further justification of the introduction of plants and another catastrophe to shift the mantle in a way that land above water was shifted and the trees ended up underwater then shifted again and ended up in the Arizona desert.  It seems that this plot of land has moved around a lot.

If we start back when the mantle was first cooling and come forward, the question that needs to be answered is the time frame for the introduction of water.  This discussion proposes that the volume of water on the Earth was not the result of ice crystals, consider how much ocean there is.  As has been discussed, the oceans are the result of multiple collisions with gas giants where Earth stole the atmosphere it needed.   The hydrogen was burned, creating water and this would also have stabilized the planet with the ability to shift the water to balance the planet during the rotation and maintain the mantle by cooling the planet through evaporation and rain.  Is it possible that the water on the surface of the planet may have eliminated smaller catastrophes with the ability to absorb and distribute the shock of a collision?  Without population, the waves created would have crashed on the rocks and created erosion but little else.

There is an assumption that, about that time in the history of Earth, the Earth and the solar system are starting to settle down based on the expansion of the galaxy as it moves away from the core of the universe and more and more of matter has connected and become part of a planet or a moon.  Also, consider that the comets, meteors and asteroids in space have diminished as they left the solar system or collided with and were consumed by larger planets.  At this time the number of collisions with Earth have dropped to a manageable number, the crust has formed but is still subject to shifting and volcanos, but periods of quiet do exist.  The problem is that the environment will not support life because of the pollution that this period of collisions and volcanic eruptions have caused.

In order to support life, the debris suspended in the water must settle out, and the atmosphere must contain oxygen but there is a very high likelihood that the atmosphere is primarily nitrogen and carbon dioxide (due to the burning of the carbon when the heat escapes the core or as a result of collisions with space debris).  The nice thing is that the water will likely clean itself thanks to the environment, basically the evaporate, condense, rain, run off cycle.  Each process of evaporation will likely cause more of the pollution to settle out.  Bear in mind that, at this point in time, the ocean is just dirty water, the salt is added over centuries of the run-off from the ground.

The question becomes a matter of fixing the problems so that life can be supported.  Make a list: 1) remove the carbon dioxide and end up with an atmosphere that is 76% nitrogen and 23% oxygen, 2) eliminate the air pollution (which will likely happen over time thanks to rain, assuming that the fires and damage from space debris has settled down), 3) breakdown the rocks to dust so this can be the basis for soil (mostly rock dust or sand and decomposing organic matter), and 4) provide a food source.  It is funny, but all of this stuff can be accomplished with plants, primarily algae and lichen.  If only there was a source for plants that are capable of photosynthesis.

Consider for a minute the concept of plants and the parts they play in the environment of Earth.  Start with a very simple statement of fact: man understands the process of photosynthesis but is unable to duplicate the process.  Like so many other things in life, science fails completely to perform the actions of nature but then tries to tell everyone how simple it is.  Science knows that the process of photosynthesis combines photons captured in the chlorophyll with the water that is brought into the plant through the capillary action of the cells and splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen, then combines the hydrogen with carbon dioxide to form a carbon based starch molecule, while freeing the extra oxygen.  This process will convert carbon dioxide to carbon based plant starches while freeing oxygen, and, over time, will convert all of the carbon dioxide into starches and oxygen.

Plants provide a food source, these carbon based plant starches can be consumed by most critters and result in the ‘burning’ of these starches by oxidizing the carbon, resulting in carbon dioxide.  This carbon dioxide is used by the plants in the next round of starches, this is cycle of life.



So, where did these plants come from?  Let’s go back to the primary assumption from earlier that there is no life on Earth or in the universe.  Here’s the best part of the origin of life theory, the first life was not a hot tub party of amino acids because there was no food, limited oxygen and, best of all, no amino acids.  Yes, this has been said before but bears repeating, amino acids are the product of living beings and can’t be produced by nature so there is no source for amino acids before the first life form.  Now science is going to assume that those nonexistent amino acids got together and formed a cell that had nothing to live on and figured out photosynthesis by pulling parts and pieces out of the imaginary tool-box that the amino acids brought to fix the hot tub.

Is it possible to assume that perhaps the life on Earth was actually transplanted from another universe that has life?  Let’s use an ark that is part of a space alien’s space-ship.  Now consider, how many seeds would be needed to get a patch of algae and lichen growing, then consider how far and wide it would spread over the next thousand years, considering that there is no competition for space or water since there are no other life forms on Earth.  Moving ahead to the end of the thousand years and now you have a food source, kinda bland, and an atmosphere that is rich in oxygen as compared to carbon dioxide.   As of right now, all four of the previous problems have been solved, thanks to a few seeds and lots of time to run wild.

Where do you go from here if you are populating a world?  Once again, let’s assume that you have a goal of ending up with a world that can be populated.  With the Earth ready to populate then the time has come to start at the bottom and move up.  We need micro-organisms, you know, those single cell life forms that were created when the imaginary amino acid party took place.  These life forms pretty much clean up by breaking down all of the left overs and don’t forget that these very bacteria will end up in the digestive tract of everything.  We also need insects of all varieties.  One top of that we need larger and more diverse plant life forms, many of which will result from the natural evolution of each plant species and don’t forget trees with fruits and bushes and vines.  Throw out a bunch of species and stand back to see what grows and fails, but everything will take root somewhere.  Once again, give nature a free hand for a thousand years.

Spend a minute considering where the Earth is now, a nature lover’s paradise with all of the plant growth and none of the destruction caused by man, time for the animal kingdom.  Let’s introduce a variety of reptiles, amphibians and fish.  Most of the reptiles are plant eaters but there are a few that prefer a meat diet.  Now, stand back and see what changes need to be made to the designs.  It is apparent that some of the species are too big and need to be scaled back, like the T-Rex or the brontosaurus.  Let the system run for a while and then wait for, once again, nature to step in with an asteroid collision that generates debris in the air, thick enough to block the sun and kill all of the plants, which results in all of the bigger animals also dying because of the reliance on the plants.  Funny thing is that the hardier plants will come back after the atmosphere clears and the sunlight returns but animals don’t have the same hibernation capability of plants, so they are lost.

Time for another ark of animals with differences and improvements over the previous generation, like warm blooded and hair.  While there is a combination of smaller dinosaurs and warm blooded creatures, it is apparent that the warm blooded creatures have distinct advantages and adaptability.    But there is probably another catastrophe on the horizon and this one is probably home made with settlement of the core and the mantle where multiple and massive volcanos reform the structure of Earth.  Once again, the debris in the air will block out the sun, resulting in almost everything dying again.  Based on the various catastrophes, there have been multiple opportunities for the fish to walk out of the water and start the process over again.  As stated, the concept of evolution is not feasible because of the changes that were implemented time after time.  There was no reason for the single cell life form to transform into a creature with a skeleton and scales or to form a shell like the oyster or clam or lobster or crab.  What was the biological basis for the heart and digestive system from the single cell life form?  Then, on land, there is no basis for heart and lungs, skin and hair, or warm blooded metabolism when all of the previous versions were cold blooded.  The point made earlier is that there must be a point A to point C connection and there is none, can’t get there from here.  And that is where the Supreme Being comes into play, someone that knew what was possible and developed his skills to reach the needed perfection.  Stop for a second and consider the source of the eyes and ears starting with the single cell life form, yes, these are needed but these demand a completely new strain of genetic material.  Like everything else, man has studied and documented the eye but can’t replace a damaged eye with one that works, how can man know so much about the eye but is incapable of fixing the deterioration of aging on the eye. 

Now is the time for the final introduction of animals and plants that are more like the life forms that exist today where the primary animal life forms are warm blooded mammals mainly due to the adaptability of the various species.  Once this introduction is complete, man is introduced into the picture with those changes in structure and capability that make him different.  Consider, man can’t stand up to a bear or lion or elephant but still man was not killed off by creatures that have a physical and speed advantage.  What made man different is his ability to create weapons of death and use them to protect himself and expand his territory.  Man’s greatest weapon is the ability to pass on the knowledge from others and then expand that knowledge with new options, generations have turned each weapon more deadly.

This takes us back to the question of evolution, why did a natural function simply stop if it generated so many wonderful results in the past?  There never has been evolution outside of a species except in the dreams of those scientists that can’t create but can diminish the ability of a Supreme Being that can create.




Truly a question that is asked often but the simple truth is that time is an illusion imposed on man by the need for discipline and control.  Time is a perception, nothing real.  When time passes, it never actually passed because it never existed in the first place.  At the end of the day, do you go home and empty your pockets of all of the time that was wasted?  Time is a matter of perception not a reflection of any mass or volume.  Time cannot be collected and packaged for later and gravity has no effect on time because there is no mass, however, man’s perception of time provides the means to distinguish between two points in the passage of time.  Time is another one of the concepts that man has no grasp of and can’t control, it simply passes because man has assigned a function to time, still science makes up nonsense about time.

Consider the impact of time and the old saying that we should go back in time and solve the problems.  Is time travel possible?  Under the theory of the speed of light, you can travel backward through the images of time but once you get where you want to be, can you do anything other than document?  While there are millions of questions about what actually happened at any incident that can be answered because the light images can be recorded but you lose the context of the moment, the feeling and emotions. 

This is the problem, does time imprint itself on the light that records the moment or is the light of the moment time itself?  The question was developed because of the claim by scientists that time moves slower when in space as compared to Earth.  This was based on the thought experiment of a bouncing ball of light, one on Earth and one in space.  The theory was that as the light ball in space was viewed from Earth, it would appear that each bounce took slightly longer than the bounce on Earth.  This effect is due to the appearance of movement of the bouncing ball as the ball moves through space, however, the claim is false for the simple reason that the movement through space is not just in relation to the spaceship.  Movement results in distance covered so the appearance from a non-local view would appear that the ball is moving not only up and down but also laterally, and this movement must be considered when determining the effect of the apparent speed difference.  While the ball in space may appear to be moving from the stationary Earth, in fact the ball is moving laterally on top of the vertical movement and this lateral movement accounts for the apparent difference in speed and the duration of time for each bounce.

Many scientists are spouting nonsense about the effect of gravity on time but there is one small problem, time is not a particle, it has no mass, it ain’t nothing except our recollections.  Consider the concept, as you approach the edge of a black hole, they claim that the gravity provides the option to go back in time, but they can’t explain exactly what about time is shifted other than the concept of time in their theory.  There are theories that crossing through the ‘singularity’ of a black hole provides the opportunity to go back in time.  Here’s the simple problem, if someone approaches the edge of black hole and go back in time, do they go back in time by themselves or does the entire universe go back in time at the same time?  Either time works the same for everyone or it doesn’t.  If you go back in time by yourself, can you change the past for the people that are already in the future because they didn’t go back with you.  Of course, this presents the dream that each moment in time creates a new time stream that goes on by itself where differences in decisions have different destinations.

Let’s go back to the time particle.  Where does it come from and where does it go once time has passed?  Yes, this is a valid question because one basic assumption is that matter exists, it is not created or destroyed, simply changes condition.  If someone says that ‘It’ happened on 9/26/2019 at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time did that moment in time actually leave any physical indicator of it occurring, or is it simply our perception, our memory, of the point in the passage of time.  Time, like the three physical dimensions, is simply our perception of the moment, however, the three physical dimensions leave matter in place, where we measured it.  When hydrogen converts to helium, there is no loss of mass and the energy released ends up someplace but everything, at the lowest level remains the same.  Based on this claim, time particles do not generate as the moment comes and are destroyed as the moment goes because there would be a constant energy release from the destruction of the time particles.  But also consider the time particle itself, does it represent a millionth of a second, or a tenth of a second, or perhaps a full second and there are parts of seconds floating around.  If we assume the conjecture is true, then time does not exist and any tracking of time is a perception imposed by our consciousness, providing the ability to keep activities in a consistent pattern.

Based on this conjecture, there is no option for time travel, there is only the current moment that is constantly changing as the moments pass on to the next one and the only proof of a previous moment is the memory of the moment.  Bear in mind that there are means for the physical recording of a moment, as long as everyone agrees that the imposed ‘clock’ has significance.  Man has constantly attempted to devise means to understanding the potential schedules of the universe around man starting with the rotation of the Earth and the phases of the moon.  Each of these schedules imposed a ‘clock’ and man recorded the clock in relation to the actions taken by the subject, seeking variance or validation.  But the biggest problem with time is the lack of any physical being or presence unless time is a dimension all its own and each moment is simply a spot on the line and moving along the line then reentering the human dimension, now that would be interesting.  This starts with the ability to move in and out of a dimensional structure.



This brings up a similar misconception and the problem that most of the time, the word ‘dimension’ is used improperly.  Most people think of dimension as the perception of the space where anyone is located, there are three ‘dimensions’ – height, width and depth and these dimensions allow us to define the physical objections that we perceive in the space.  Part of the problem is that many consider time to be the fourth dimension but time does not define anything unless you assign a label to a moment in time and find a means to match the moment to the label as in a time-stamp on a picture.  If you apply the same stipulations on a time dimension as on the dimension of width then one could assume that time could be manipulated, however, man has applied the concept of a time dimension to perceive the moment, but there are not any physical manifestations.  The point that should be considered is the elimination of the use of the word ‘dimension’ to label the means of physical measurement and use the term ‘measurements’.

This would bring us back to the alternate concept of the term ‘dimension’.  Are there actual dimensions that exist as alternate space in conjunction with our own?  When Stephen Hawkins spoke of dimensions, did he mean there are ten different ways to measure something or are there alternate space dimensions that connect with our own?  Part of previous speculations in this theory group is the possibility that the soul exists in a different dimension than the physical presence which provides an understanding of the relationship between life and matter.

The concept of alternate space dimensions has been used in fiction such as Star Trek where multiple time line dimensions have come together, utter nonsense.  If there is a new dimension of space, that dimension will also move along through the perception of time but the passing of time will not be same for both dimensions so that they can never ‘synch up’.  Doctor Who used the concept of a dimension to provide an alternate life however, as with everything in life, it is subject to the same random impacts that every life must contend with without knowing the goal.

The concept of multiple dimensions makes sense when one considers the question of the soul.  Just for the discussion of theory, what if the soul is a collection of massless subatomic particles?  In this manner, the soul would never be found in the body but when the body dies, the soul would return the previous dimension.  There is an important point here – if the soul is as described, massless particles, then the soul would last forever because particles are matter, without end.  Perhaps the number of particles in the soul would determine the potential for moving out on its own. At the same time, the dimension of the soul would also be the dimension for the Supreme Being, or God if you prefer.  In this dimension, knowledge would be pure and all encompassing so when not in a body, the soul would have access to unlimited knowledge and perhaps the momentary insights of some people is nothing more than the soul glimpsing the other dimension.  This image has been used in Star Trek where McCoy used a helmet to download all of the knowledge needed to insert Spock’s brain back into his body, however, the episode made it clear that this glimpse can be short term.




The funny thing is that man is created a potential waste land, depending on who you listen to.  However, there is no doubt that man, in his overwhelming self-absorption has placed the future of other humans in jeopardy.  Man has always done what he wanted to do with out any concept of the long-term damage these actions may have, let’s consider two very simple issues.



The first issue is a political football and nightmare because people are so uninformed about the topic.  The concept of Climate Change is a favorite topic for anyone that wants to control the lives and decisions of others, but the truth is that there is no one that can be trusted to make decisions for others without allowing the power to distort their own self-worth.  This single problem is the major failing of socialism and communism because the leaders do not live in the same conditions as that forced on the citizens.  Dictators are even worse because they are under the impression that they have been endowed with the right to their power and prestige.  Consider the leaders other countries and the laws and punishments they force on their citizens because this is the only way to maintain control, people cannot be given freedoms and choices, or they will choose other’s paths.

The concept of Climate Change is based on the perceived impact of increased levels of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere and the belief that the climate will change based on this increase in carbon dioxide because the absorption of the sunlight changes, therefore changing the movement of the atmosphere.  Feasible, yes, but then the question becomes why not solve the problem instead of trying to change people’s lives.  The problem is that these fanatics have convinced themselves that only their single minded approach is the best solution.

The problem is the lack of understanding the problem and, therefore, the solution.  The long term problem is not burning fossil fuels because carbon dioxide is produced by many sources, the biggest of which has always been there, living creatures.  The more the population grows, the greater the problem of eliminating the carbon dioxide since plants cannot keep up and the brilliant minds that identified the problem have never considered how to use this solution to the best advantage.  The next problem is that there is not a long term solution using plants because plants using carbon dioxide to create starches is never ending cycle and more and more starches will need to be created, on and on.  In all truth there is only one long term solution – remove the carbon from the carbon dioxide, releasing the oxygen.  The crux of the problem is that man, with all of the brilliance of the science minds, have no clue on how to accomplish this.

The artificial scare with Climate Change is exactly that, an artificial claim because while there may be a problem, they offer nothing the way of solutions that do not drive the costs of energy up for the average consumer.  Whether we like it or not, everyone needs energy in the winter to keep warm or cool in the summer so producing energy the most cost effective is the best answer and, surprisingly, the liberals are not interested in the most cost effective solution, they are interested in solutions that allow the greatest control over the energy.  For decades, nuclear energy has proven to be the most effective solution but the liberals that worry about the Climate Change declare that nuclear energy is even worse because of the potential scare.  Don’t pay attention to anyone that refuses one solution where there are safety records to support this program.



The second major problem that has been created by man is the simple disposal of material that is no longer considered desirable and has been ‘thrown away’.  The world is filled with trash dumps where holes have been dug, filled with trash then covered over with the belief that nature would break down the trash but decades later, the newspapers are still readable, meaning that this is too bog a job for nature, the producers that created the disposable products need to also be responsible for breaking down the products and recycling. 

The problem is so bad that plastic bottles have broken down and filled the oceans with micro sized plastic particles that ends up in our food.  In the past, the plastic six pack rings were featured in wildlife bloopers where a wild animal got tangled up and couldn’t get out.  Man has a weird sense of humor to create and cause a problem and then laugh when some other animal suffers as a result.

There is lots to be said about trash but sooner or later man will run out of space to dig holes.  As it is, New York, for decades, took bundles of trash out to the ocean and dumped it proving that man is truly incapable of recognizing the long term effect of stupid decisions in order to save a little money today.  If it had become mandatory decades ago to recycle trash, there would not be problem today.