Honestly (perhaps an abused word today):It is difficult to know at this point exactly from which angle to come in at because there are millions of people in your position who all have a different view on life and how your mind operates based upon your environmental background. Perhaps later I will need a further set of filters to assist, but at the moment please bear with me.Evolutionists have absolutely no idea how life first came about on this planet and to be fair they do not claim to!
However evolutionists’ claim to have ‘the answer’ to how the first forms of life finally produced “The human”, being yourself – ‘the you’ reading this document.
So ‘the answer’ becomes ‘their ideology’ but their concept is only based upon small facets of discovered fact.
‘Their faith’ comes from trying to join the small facets of fact together with rather larger ‘jumps of the mind’!
And clearly many of the more vocal proponents make very much money from ‘Their Faith’, and this wealth is given to them by their devoted acolytes.
Does this not conjure up within the mind of the reader a similar institution of the world?
Being ‘The Religious’ community?
All the same ‘starting, middle and end points’ are there!
The starting point being “The formation/changing/interaction of Life, culminating in us – to satisfy the curiosity unique to our species”.
The middle being “The facets” accepted as fact with large ‘jumps of the mind’ between the facets.
The end points being that the various proponents make a good living from their devoted acolytes!
So the proponents have no real inclination to get off ‘the vehicle’ that substantiates/supports their lifestyle, particularly when they have no other means to provide for themselves an income/position/prestige to ‘The Standard’ they have come to enjoy – a very important rule to remember. They have a vestige interest to perpetuate ‘their ideology’, even if later in their life they know that it is wrong – because they cannot get off, else they loose what this world can give to them!
They cannot learn or take up anything else, late in their life – they have a present ‘comfort zone’ to exist within.
Thus from that point alone the reader should ask: “Can you trust what both sides preach!”
(Note: A proponent will keep on ‘the vehicle’ while ‘the returns’ are greater when ‘staying on the vehicle’, if not, then they will ‘jump ship’ for further worldly gain).I wish to side step this because I can see the significant errors in both ‘sets’ of understandings and thus propose something similar to a newly proposed idea which I do not really wish to use, because it will immediately colour this whole website within your mind by your preconceived ideas. And what I propose is more logical and accurate to the data that I wish to present and discuss within the website.
Secondly, my worldly income comes from the company that I started many years ago based upon its patents, Electronic Designs and products that are sold to industry all around the world and thus what I offer freely is an adjunct to my worldly secular income.
Thus the reader may correctly ask:-
Why is he doing this?
He is getting nothing out of it – unlike those proponents of the other two groups mentioned above!
The answer is (as a purist would agree):-
“If knowledge is available, then in this instance, I desire to freely give it – for zero return.”
But safely knowing that because it is an adjunct to my secular work, then it does not effect any part of my worldly income. Worldly income should come from something different to your belief else there is an immediate conflict of interests, being one of impartiality (and possible fidelity)!Thus the reader can clearly see:-
My views are not beholden to any higher worldly authority.
From (1) my views are utterly independent and I can speak freely – unfettered.
This makes me dangerous to those in the two groups above!
Perhaps at this point I should direct you straight back into the tail-end of this questionnaire and then into the website proper!

Please click here to continue