Ron & Lulu's Eagle. The Word, Creation, Evolution or both? Ron Lebar Home

Starburst The Word Starburst

The Word
Ron Lebar, Author. Edited: 18-2-2019. Loaded:

In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. John 1:1

Astrophysicists think the universe was created around thirteen thousand million years ago. Man has been around for arguably one million of those years.

At the point when it all started, the laws of physics were already in place. There are probably many more than we know. All that has happened, all that will happen, is governed by them.

The hydrogen atom is the key. Its elegant simplicity is the basis of all matter & energy. A single positive electro-magnetic wave, with a matching negative wave in orbit.

I suggest that the entirety of existence is governed by an elegant, unchanging, formula. The course of evolution, every action of every creature, every thought, is inevitable.
Pre-ordained, presumably at the instant of the 'big bang', possibly much earlier.

If anyone can establish that formula, they will be able to explain everything, past, present and future. Who knows, it may be 42?

This is a challenge, who will take it up? John presumably had at least a pretty good idea, nearly two thousand years ago.

We Wish ALL the Universe Peace, Justice, Equality, Prosperity & an End to Fanaticism


Three Questions: The Word, does this refer to that cosmic plan? The laws of physics created & control everything (In the beginning was the Word) who wrote them? Is God those laws (The Word was God) or are they his creation (The Word was with God)? This is a matter for everyone's individual beliefs, or lack of them.

One thing is certain, the more that is discovered about the universe, the more an inherent symmetry & predictability is found. According to Albert Einstein the sum of matter & energy is fixed. None is created or lost. Was this always so, back through infinity?

Energy & matter are interchangeable. One can become the other. Due to that symmetry this process is reversible, although we have not yet been able to do this conversion. The relationship with time, the 'fourth dimension', is still a matter of much debate. We have not got far with this.

The prospect of time travel still seems inconceivable, but so once was much that we take for granted. Obviously it will never be possible to go to the future, since it does not yet exist, this leaves some questions.

Equally it is not possible to travel to the past, since this no longer exists. Again, with our current state of knowledge this is purely a matter of belief. It can not be proven, one way or the other.

Albert Einstein had a theory regarding this, it has stood the test of time. Experiments with an atomic clock apparently suggest that rapid travel may slow down time measurably, just as he postulated. What is less certain is what would happen to a traveller.

If the resources were somehow available to reach a high enough speed to almost stop time, would the traveller cease to age? Is this a way to the future? We simply do not know, many put forward theories. These are mere supposition, regardless of how authoritative they may sound.



At one time it was thought that all creatures, including man, were created exactly as we see them today. When archaeology started to develop from a hobby into a science, puzzles began to emerge. Fossils & skeletons of strange creatures were increasingly found.

Many of these were unlike any that had been discovered living. It became obvious that many animals, once roaming the planet, had become extinct. The rock strata where remains were found gave a clue as to their age. Archaeologists tried to explain the apparent change in the type of animal found at different time periods.

Charles Darwin was the foremost proponent of the theory of evolution. His masterpiece 'The Origin of Species' set out a mechanism for the development of a wide range of natural life, as seen on this planet. He called this 'natural selection', which allowed all forms of life to evolve from one original species.

According to current evolutionary theory, life started spontaneously when the right mix of chemicals got together in a primordial swamp. From then on gradual haphazard changes occurred, eventually culminating in us.

Ancient man knew a little about evolution within a species. By selective breeding he was able to redesign domesticated wild dogs to suit a number of different tasks. As a result the range of dogs familiar to us all came about. Domestic cats & farm cattle are results of similar breeding programmes.

Dogs remain dogs however & domestic cats are still cats. Returned to the wild, original forms eventually emerge, white cats & black cats become tabby. Presumably a similar thing will happen to dogs, cattle or horses etc. Artificially controlled breeding simply emphasises particular characteristics, no new species are created.

Attempts at 'crossing' species seldom work, even between those closely related. If a cross-breed is attained it is usually sterile, unable to produce progeny, despite often seeming biologically complete.

Species seem locked in their existing general forms, although able to adapt to circumstance or to be adapted. Finches on the Galapagos Islands remain finches, never becoming crows, eagles or humming birds. Most definitely not evolving into different creatures, for example cats, dogs or insects. The was once a suggestion that if a dog was mated with a cat, the offspring would chase itself up a tree.

To be continued...

A thought to be going on with. Look at the beauty of a Gothic Cathedral, then at a large rock. The major chemical constituents of both are the same.

Next, look at an antelope, then at an amoeba. The major chemical constituents of both are the same.

The forces of nature are powerful, if slow. The rock can be worn away by wind, rain, dust abrasion, heat and cold. Is it believable that these forces could fashion the cathedral from the rock?

The answer is probably no. An antelope is imperial billions of times more complex than a cathedral. Yet evolutionists believe she developed from the amoeba, driven only by the blind, arbitrary forces of nature.

Just think about it.

How the amoeba came to exist is another question. A tiny life form, yet more complex than anything we can make.

More soon...

Definition of Evolution.

In biology: A process by which a species or taxonomic group of organisms develops over time. Usually to a higher or more advanced level.

Generally: An alternative word to development. A gradual change of something into another form, in particular a more advanced or suitable form.

As in: The evolution of motor cars in the 20th century; The evolution of language.

In Darwinian terms: The development of all species from a common ancestor, by small haphazard changes over time. The mechanism controlling this is 'natural selection' A.K.A. 'the survival of the fittest'. Each tiny change is beneficial, harmful or makes no difference.

A beneficial change gives the new version a competitive or survival advantage. Eventually it takes over & the earlier version dies out.

As with finches on the Galapagos Islands, many of these islands have different food sources. The birds evolved different beak shapes , to best take advantage of what is available on each.

Environmental evolution: This is my definition of changes within a species, to suit varying environments, such changes are usually small & reversible. There are many examples all around us, later I will list some more of these. I consider the Galapagos finches to be one such example.

In other words, if some strangely modified finches went back to their original island, they would probably change back gradually to their earlier form. Such adaptation, as seen by Darwin, is unlikely to result in the range of life on our planet.

Domestic cats have, over years of selective breeding, changed to suit human preferences. Such as pure white or pure black. Left to their own devices, in the wild, such cats eventually mostly become the native tabby, within a few generations. This reversion is commonly seen in feral animals.

In the past, before we had developed basic technology such as clothes, humans adapted to different climates, as populations migrated to different parts of Africa &am[; further afield. This is clearly seen in the indigenous peoples of widely separated regions, uniquely suited to local conditions.

In more modern times technology has almost eliminated the need for such environmental adaptations. However, cultural prejudice, a uniquely human characteristic, serves to maintain distinctive genetic 'pools'.