Block Duplication & 2R Hypothesis

Recently, I debated Dr. Dan Larhammar of Uppsala University on the subject of evolution relating to biology and genetics. Dr. Larhammar is a proponent of the 2R Hypothesis which is the belief that the genomes of many organisms experienced duplication events in the distant past. What this means is that a genetic error took place which copied the entire DNA then bound both DNA molecules together to form a single, much larger genome. 2R Hypothesis has been a controversial idea since it was first put forth in the 1970's, even amongst some geneticists who are believers of evolution theory. Some published scientific whitepapers have questioned the validity of 2R Hypothesis since the early 1980's.¹

Like most evolutionist scientists and university professors today, he also believes that the genetic redundancy which exists in the genomes of most plants and animals is a result repeated block duplications over vast ages of time during the process of evolution and provides raw material for evolution by producing new copies of genes that are free to mutate and take on other functions. This assumption is held because there are many redundant genes in the genomes of various creatures, and the evolutionist assumes that genetic similarities between gene families in different species (i.e. human and fly) is evidence that the species are related over time. Block duplication is a known but uncommon genetic error in which sections of DNA are duplicated and joined by mutation during cell duplication, resulting in what is called polyploidy.

However, polyploidy cannot be the reason for the genetic redundancy in the genomes of creatures. There are many problems associated with these ideas, which evolutionists typically gloss over and ignore, as they do the degenerative effects of mutation in general in order to believe that mutation is the designer of the marvelous genetic material of creatures. While block duplication may occur occasionally in extant organisms, it has negative consequences, and like genetic mutation in general, it is not plausible to believe that a genetic error process which causes many degenerative effects is the result of all of the genetic redundancy known to exist in the genomes of various creatures for the following reasons, and others not listed:

A. It has been known for many decades that random gene duplication mutation in general is degenerative, contrary to the absurd belief of evolutionists that it is a designer of new information which codes for new viable anatomical features and biological functions.^{2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}

B. Since block duplication mutation is degenerative to an organism, entire genomic duplication is deadly or highly degenerative.

C. If block duplication were the explanation for the genetic redundancy and similarity between species, it could only be because numerous block duplication had taken place over vast ages. However, the effect of block duplication is highly degenerative, so it is not plausible that many repeated block duplications could take place to produce viable, healthy genomes which Natural Selection would select as the phenotype of the organism.^11,12,13

D. Block duplication is known to cause a loss of genetic information at the loci where the block is spliced into the genome because genes at the loci are broken. This loss of genetic information caused by block duplication is known to be the cause of disease.^11,12,13 Over the vast ages of the evolution theory, this would result in a very high number of genes being lost during block duplication or chromatid recombination.^2,11,12,13

E. Since regulatory sequences may be dozens, hundreds, or thousands of base pairs away from the sequences which they regulate, one would have to believe that contrary to the odds, an almost magical perfection occurred each time a block duplication took place so that all related regulatory sequences were not broken and were duplicated with the sequences which they regulate. Unless one believes this, repeated block duplication would rapidly degenerate the genome.^2,14

F. Believing that block duplication explains the redundant genetic similarities between species requires one to believe that a process which causes genetic disorder is instead a designer of new viable features and functions.^2,11,12,13

G. While duplicated sequences may in the imagination of the evolutionist provide raw material for mutation to transform into new information that codes for new features and function for evolution to occur, the simple truth is that gene duplication causes diseases and malformations, and duplicate genes would only become more potential for increased degenerative random mutation. Repeated instances of block duplication could only continuously increase disease in any given species over time.^12,15

H. It has been shown with many studies that random mutation is degenerating the genomes of all life, moving all species towards extinction.

Evolutionists refuse to accept scientific knowledge which refutes their theory. Most specifically, they refuse to accept the astonishing volume of consistent and correlating evidence accumulated over many decades that random genetic mutation is degenerative to genomes. Despite the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, evolutionists continue to hold to the long-disproven idea that random mutation and chromosome errors are the producers of raw material which subsequent mutations then transform into new information which codes for all manner of anatomical biological designs and interdependent biological functions. It is a sad sort of state which one can liken to a dying person refusing to let go of the pitcher of poison they have been drinking while medical personnel tussle with them over it, repeating to them, "But it's poison! You must give it up!".

When will it ever end? Eventually, it must. There will come a time when scientists who are willing to believe that there cannot be a divine cause for man's existence will give up the absurd idea that random genetic mistakes are the most ingenious designers known to exist, and capable of designing technology at the molecular scale which vastly exceeds mankind's abilities. It will be shame and embarrassment that does it. Unfortunately, when this time comes, they will not acknowledge our Creator, Jesus Christ, but will instead point to the heavens, as some are already doing, and tell us that aliens are responsible for the existence of mankind. This will only push the problem away from the earth however, as one must then ask, "Who created the aliens?"

1. 2R or not 2R: testing hypotheses of genome duplication in early vertebrates, Hughes AL1, Friedman R. 1983 "Comparison of gene family size in the human genome and in invertebrate genomes shows no evidence of a 4:1 ratio between vertebrates and invertebrates. Furthermore, explicit phylogenetic tests for the topology expected from two rounds of polyploidization have revealed alternative topologies in a substantial majority of human gene families. Likewise, phylogenetic analyses have shown that putatively duplicated genomic regions often include genes duplicated at widely different times over the evolution of life. The 2R hypothesis thus can be decisively rejected."

2. "It is also important to remember that, in terms of natural selection, “beneficial” means any mutation that leads to greater reproduction, without regard to long-term goals. Under many conditions, that can mean that any mutation that increases efficiency, including mutations that inactivate or delete genes, will be favored [39-41]. Even though genetic information is being lost, such mutations would still be considered “beneficial.” That loss of information is a common evolutionary outcome has been shown repeatedly [41]. Wilf and Ewens’s model, however, assumes that all beneficial mutations lead to more and more “advanced” forms." -- Time and Information in Evolution, William A. Dembski, Winston Ewert, Ann K. Gauger, and Robert J. Marks II, Bio-Complexity 4(2012)

4. "Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli Excerpt: "At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect."

5. "It is good to keep in mind ... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted." - Prof. R Goldschmidt PhD, DSc Prof. Zoology, University of Calif. in Material Basis of Evolution Yale Univ. Press

6. "Not even one mutation has ever been observed that adds a little information to the genome." - Dr. Lee Spetner, a scientist and teacher at Johns Hopkins University, Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

7. "The actual rate of beneficial mutations is so extremely low as to thwart any actual measurement." - Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998

8. "But in all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it." - Lee Spetner - Ph.D. Physics, MIT, Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

9. "In medical circles, mutations are universally regarded as deleterious. They are a fundamental cause of ageing,^1,2 cancer ^3,4 and infectious diseases ⁵." - Alexander Williams, Botanist, Research Associate at the Western Australian Herbarium specializing in the taxonomy of grasses, Journal of Creation 22(2):60–66 August 2008

10. Haldane’s dilemma:  "The severe contradictions that these findings pose for neo-Darwinian theory corroborate what has become known as Haldane’s dilemma. J.B.S. Haldane was one of the architects of neo-Darwinism who pioneered its application to population biology. He realized that it would take a long time for natural selection to fix an advantageous mutation in a population—fixation is when every member has two copies of an allele, having inherited it from both mother and father. He estimated that for vertebrates, about 300 generations would be required, on average, where the selective advantage is 10%. In humans, with a 20-year generation time and about 6 million years since our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee, only about 1,000 such advantageous mutations could have been fixed. Haldane believed that substitution of about 1,000 alleles would be enough to create a new species, but it is not nearly enough to explain the observed differences between us and our closest supposed relatives.

The measured difference between the human and chimpanzee genomes amounts to about 125 million nucleotides, which are thought to have arisen from about 40 million mutation events. If only 1000 of these mutations could have been naturally selected to produce the new (human) species, it means the other 39,999,000 mutations were deleterious, which is completely consistent with the reviews showing that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. Consequently, we must have degenerated from the apes, which is an absurd conclusion." - Alexander Williams, Botanist, Research Associate at the Western Australian Herbarium specializing in the taxonomy of grasses, Journal of Creation 22(2):60–66 August 2008

11. Thalassemia is a genetic blood disorder which causes people to be unable to make enough hemoglobin, causing severe anemia. When hemoglobin is lacking in the red blood cells, oxygen can't get to all parts of the body and organs become starved for oxygen and unable to function properly. Gamma thalassemia resulting from the deletion of a gamma-globin gene, P K Sukumaran, T Nakatsuji, M B Gardiner, A L Reese, J G Gilman, and T H Huisman

12. DNA Deletion and Duplication and the Associated Genetic Disorders, Suzanne Clancy, Ph.D. & Kenna M. Shaw, Ph.D. 2008 Nature Education "Duplications may affect phenotype by altering gene dosage. For example, the amount of protein synthesized is often proportional to the number of gene copies present, so extra genes can lead to excess proteins. Because most embryonic developmental processes are heavily dependent on carefully balanced levels of proteins, duplications resulting in extra gene copies (Figure 1) can therefore lead to developmental defects such as those seen in the Drosophila Bar eye mutation."

13. Repeated duplications have been associated with cancer: Lucito, R., Healy, J., Alexander, J., Reiner, A., Esposito, D., Chi, M., Rodgers, L., Brady, A., Sebat, J., Trope, J., West, J.A., Rostan, S., Nguyen, K.C., Powers, S., Ye, K.Q., Olshen, A., Venkatraman, E., Norton, L. and Wigler, M., Representational oligonucleotide microarray analysis: a high-resolution method to detect genome copy number variation, Genome Res. 13(10):2291–2305, 2003.

14. DNA Study Forces Rethink of What It Means to Be a Gene, Eliizabeth Pennisi, Science 15 June 2007, Vol. 316  no. 5831  pp. 1556-1557: "According to a painstaking new analysis of 1% of the human genome, genes can be sprawling, with far-flung protein-coding and regulatory regions that overlap with other genes."

15. Yingguang Liu and Dan Moran: "(1) gene duplications are aberrations of cell division processes and are more likely to cause malformation or diseases rather than selective advantage; (2) duplicated genes are usually silenced and subjected to degenerative mutations; (3) regulation of supposedly duplicated gene clusters and gene families is irreducibly complex, and demands simultaneous development of fully functional multiple genes and switching networks, contrary to Darwinian gradualism."

"In most dioecious (possessing either male or female organs) animals and humans, however, polyploid embryos typically suffer generalized malformation and die during development.8 It is not only sex determination per se (as was proposed by Muller), but more importantly, the delicate balancing between homologous genes, that is disrupted in polyploid individuals of higher animals. For instance, parental imprinting (differences in the expression of maternal and paternal genes) by DNA methylation may be disrupted as the cell endeavors to silence extra chromosomes by extensive methylation."

"Disharmonious interactions between homologous genes are thought to be the reason for most cases of hybrid sterility in allodiploid animals. In plants, neoallopolyploid genomes are often unstable, displaying ‘sterility, lethality, and phenotypic instability’."

"Polyploidy is seen in ferns, flowering plants and some lower animals.7,8 It is usually associated with hermaphroditism, parthenogenesis (mother producing young asexually), or species without disparate sex chromosomes."

16. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Alexey S. Kondrashovf, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 175, Issue 4, 21 August 1995, Pages 583–594

17. Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans, Peter D. Keightley, 2012, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh

18. All multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage: Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619–631, 2007.

19. "The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago." -- Sanford, J., Cornell University Geneticist, inventor of the Gene Gun, Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005

20. "Thus, all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the most individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial mutations, and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage." - Alexander Williams, Botanist, Research Associate at the Western Australian Herbarium specializing in the taxonomy of grasses, Journal of Creation 22(2):60–66 August 2008

21. Human Molecular Genetics,  4th Edition, April 02, 2010, Chapter 9: instability of the human genome: mutation and repair, Tom Strachan and Andrew Read, Garland Science

22. Human mutation rate revealed, Next-generation sequencing provides the most accurate estimate to date, Elie Dolgin, August 2009, Nature: Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

23. Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans, Michael W. Nachman and Susan L. Crowell, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, Corresponding author: Michael W. Nachman, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biosciences West Bldg., University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

24. "Thus the estimate from the Biochemical Method is 130 mutations per generation." - Larry Moran, Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto

25. 70 new mutations per generation: Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole-Genome Sequencing, Published Online March 10 2010, Science 30 April 2010: Vol. 328  no. 5978  pp. 636-639 

26. Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation, Michael Lynch:  Although the human per-generation mutation rate is exceptionally high, on a per-cell division basis, the human germline mutation rate is lower than that recorded for any other species."

27. 89 new mutations per person per generation : Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation, Michael Lynch

Where is Eternal Torment Taught in the Scriptures?

The idea that the unsaved will be tormented perpetually is dependent upon the idea that the human spirit is still immortal after the fall. However, God declared that because of sin Adam would die the day that he ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In order to keep this belief that the soul is immortal, proponents argue that because Adam did not physically die the day he ate of it, that the death suffered by Adam was a permanent separation from God, and that therefore those who are not saved will not die but live perpetually separated from God. It is true however that if the spirit died there would indeed be perpetually separated from God. The apostle Paul told us clearly, as do many passages in the Old and New Testaments that we are mortal because of the fall, and that God has taken away both the immortality of the body and that of the soul. First he explains that all those who have physically died will all be sleeping in the earth but those who have not physically died will be walking the earth when Christ returns and we are resurrected:

1Corinthians 15
[51] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

He then explains that when resurrected, the saved will be "changed".

[52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

We see also the change of the saved from corruptible flesh to incorruptible at the resurrection in Job:

Job14[14] If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.

Paul then explains that the earthly body we once had, which had decayed and disappeared, will be replaced with a new, incorruptible body, and that we then become physically immortal and our sprit will become immortal as well:

[53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

We know from a great many passages in the Old and New Testaments that this immortality is not only bodily, but also the immortality of the spirit because of Christ, that we live because He lives, for without Him we would die:

Romans6[23] For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul explains that this means the saved will be immortal and never die, but the wicked, because they have earned the wages of sin, will die:

[54] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Without the belief that the spirit is eternally living though it has not received the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ even though it is a sinner and has earned the wages of sin, the idea that the unsaved will live perpetually in a place of torment cannot be supported. The perpetual torment idea completely depends upon the idea that the spirit is immortal even without the gift of eternal life, and that the sinner who dies without Christ as the payment for their sin will also have the gift of eternal life!

The Greek word aion and the term "eis aion aion", which literally reads "into age age" have been mistranslated by those who translated the scriptures into English. The translators did not know that this Greek word's meaning depended upon context. Because they did not know this, they indiscriminately translated aion as perpetuity (ever). The ancient Greeks used this word to mean either "age" or "perpetuity" (ever, forever, eternal). Had the translators known this, they would have used the word correctly. If you will patiently read what I am writing, you will see that this is the truth because the texts will bear it out. The incorrect translation of the word aion has produced a slander against the character of God, making it seem as though God will torment the wicked perpetually and never stop doing so. This is a contradiction to the merciful, compassionate character of God. It makes God into a monster who's vengeance cannot be satisfied, and who is incapable of bringing a conclusion to his justice. Proponents of the eternal torment idea argue that the unsaved must be tormented perpetually because God Himself is eternal, though this is a non-sequitor. It does not logically follow, and argues that God is somehow bound to the necessity of eternally tormenting the unsaved and has no power to determine the exact punishment anyone receives! This idea is absurdity, and has no explanatory power whatsoever.

You know as well as I that there is no contradiction in scripture, which atheists falsely claim. However, if you study the passages that have translated the word aion into "ever" or "forever" or "forever and ever", you will discover that there is a contradiction in your English Bible. Some of these passages contradict other passages. This is because the word aion has been incorrectly translated. When we understand what some of these passages mean, we see the contradiction. If we change the translation of aion from "ever" to "age" in certain passages, their contradiction of other passages disappears!

This is because there is no contradiction in scripture, and the word has been translated to it's secondary meaning when it should have been translated as it's primary definition, which is "age".

The ancient Greeks wrote that the meaning of word aion was determined by the nature of the thing about which it is used. If that thing is finite, the meaning of aion is of a finite period of time. If that thing is eternal, such as the kingdom of God or God Himself, then the word means "perpetuity" or "eternal". Those who translated the scriptures into English were not aware of what the ancient Greeks themselves said of the meaning of the word aion or how they used it in their works. Had they been aware of the fact that context determines the meaning of the word aion, they would not have incorrectly translated it.

Before going to the scriptures themselves to see for ourselves the problems that the incorrect translation of aion has created, let's consider a few things. If Christ is the sacrificial payment for the sins of the saved, and if as the old testament teaches, the wicked are their own sacrifice for their sin because they do not have the sacrificial Lamb of God (Christ) as the payment for their sin, then in order for God to pay for the sins of the saved, Jesus Christ would have to be on the cross enduring torment for eternity! It would be absolutely necessary for Christ to perpetually suffer on the cross if sin cannot be completely paid for by sacrifice. If it were necessary for the unsaved to pay eternally for their sin, in order to be consistent with this doctrine of eternal torment, it would likewise be necessary for Christ to suffer eternally on the cross for the sins of the saved! This is of course a preposterous idea, which scripture clearly teaches is not the case. Christ's finished work on the cross paid in full our debt for our sins. So to God will make the unsaved pay in full the debt they owe to Him for their sins.

The Old Testament makes it clear that destruction resulting in death is the judgment upon the wicked:

Job21[30] That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath.

Isa13[6] Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

Joel1[15] Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Leviticus 9[24] And there came a fire out from before the LORD, and consumed ('a^kal) upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: which when all the people saw, they shouted, and fell on their faces.

'a^kal (aw-kal'): to eat (literally or figuratively): burn up, consume, devour, dine, eat, feed

. . . they will be consumed because they become their own sacrifice to God since they do not have the lamb of God to take away their sins . . .

Psalms37[20] But the wicked shall perish (ka^la^h), and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

ka^la^h
kaw-law'
A primitive root; to end, whether intransitively (to cease, be finished, perish) or transitively (to complete, prepare, consume): - accomplish, cease, consume (away), determine, destroy (utterly), be (when . . . were) done, (be an) end (of), expire, (cause to) fail, faint, finish, fulfil, X fully, X have, leave (off), long, bring to pass, wholly reap, make clean riddance, spend, quite take away, waste.

. . . and consumed, nothing will be left of them. They will exist no more . . .

Malachi[1] For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

. . . because the wages of sin is death, not eternal life in torment . . .

Ezekiel 18 [20] The soul that sinneth, it shall die [mu^th].

mu^th; to die (literally or figuratively); causatively to kill: -  X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy (-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro [-mancer], X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in [no] wise.

Romans6[23] For the wages of sin is death [thanatos]; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

thanatos; (properly an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively): - X deadly, (be . . .) death.

. . . because God is a consuming fire says the OT and the NT . . .

Deut4[24] For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Heb2 [29] For our God is a consuming fire.

...and that fire wherein their spirit will die, after their bodies have long since died is a lake of fire . .

Job4[8] Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.[9] By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed.

They will die the death of the soul (Ezekiel 18 [20] The soul that sinneth, it shall die.) because the 1st death is common to all, the death of the flesh:
 
Rev20[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Revelation 21[8] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 20[10] And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever (eis aion aion).[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

eis aion aion means: "into age age" which translates literally as "into an age long age" or "a long age". This is a finite measure of time because they will be CONSUMED, DESTROYED, AND (Malaki 1) "it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

Consider the following passage. Where is says "And the smoke of their torment ascended up for ever and ever" literally reads,  "And the smoke of their torment ascended up EIS AION AION. The term "eis aion aion" literally reads "into age age". This means "into an age long age". In other words, into a long, long period of time - a long age. It does not mean eternal (never having a beginning or end) or perpetuity (having a finite beginning but never having an end).

Revelation 14
[11] And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for (eis) ever (aion) and ever (aion): and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Rev 20:10  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for (eis) ever (aion) and ever (aion).

eis: into

aion:  properly an age; by extension perpetuity

It reads, "into age age" which means "and age that lasts an age" or "a very long time".

It does not mean eternal as the context here is a created thing: the angels and Satan, which are creations of God. If the passage referred to God, it would mean "eternity" because God is eternal. The meaning of "aion" is determined by CONTEXT.

Now here is where the contradiction is produced by the incorrect translation of aion, which disappears if we translate the word correctly. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. They burned up and their fires went out and ceased producing smoke. They are not on fire today, nor are they producing smoke:

Genesis 19
[28] And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.[29] And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

What happened to those cities is an example of what will happen to the unsaved:

Jude1[7] Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal (aion) fire.

aion:  properly an age; by extension perpetuity

So does "aion" mean "eternal" or "eternity" here too? It cannot. It means "an age" or "long duration". Why? Because of context. Aion here means a finite period of time because Sodom and Gomorrah are creations of God, not God himself or his kingdom, which are eternal.

So - if the idea of perpetual torment were true, that aion always meant "eternity" then Sodom and Gomorrah must still be burning and smoking to this day. But are they?

2Tim2[15] Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Jonah 2:6, the prophet prays for deliverance out of the belly of the great fish. He says:

6 I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever [olam], But Thou hast brought up my life from the pit, O LORD my God.

The oldest lexicographer, Hesychius, (A. D. 400-600,) defines aion thus: "The life of man, the time of life."

Sophocles: "Endeavor to remain the same in mind as long as you live." Askei toiaute noun di aiónos menein.

Hippocrates. "A human aión is a seven days matter."

Empedocles, An earthly body deprived of happy life, (aiónos.)

Euripides: "Marriage to those mortals who are well situated is a happy aión." "Every aión of mortals is unstable." "A long aión has many things to say," etc.

Theodoret (A. D. 300-4--) "Aion is not any existing thing, but an interval denoting time, sometimes infinite when spoken of God, sometimes proportioned to the duration of the creation, and sometimes to the life of man."

John of Damascus (A. D. 750,) says, "1, The life of every man is called aion. 3, The whole duration or life of this world is called aion. 4, The life after the resurrection is called 'the aion to come."

Thucydides: "othen aidion misthophoran uparchein" referring to his expectaion of perpetual salary. But this could be only a salary during his life time, therefore the word in Thucydides means a period unknown, though it will certainly end.

Life Depends Upon the Immaterial

Biological information is prescriptive, as illustrated by the understanding that genetic information defines biological processes and the systems of which they are part. Likewise, minds are prescriptive and impart meaning to matter and not the other way around. Furthermore, mental processes and their abstract products cannot be physically measured and are therefore are not comprised of or a property of matter. Because prescriptive information is always traceable to an intelligent source, it follows that it is a non-physical product of a non-physical mind. This is illustrated by the understanding that information is not bound to whatever medium onto which it is encoded, since information can be shared without translocation it's material medium. If information were comprised of or a property of matter, it would not be possible to convey information without translocation of the material medium upon which it is encoded. For example, it is possible to share the information that is encoded in a book without moving any of the matter that comprises the book - a book can be read aloud and it's information shared with a listener, yet none of the matter of the book is transferred to the listener. This analogy provides a clear understanding that the information which defines living systems is a product of intelligence, and not a product of material processes.

Evolution theory is based upon the material processes of chemistry (as with Abiogenesis) and biochemistry (as with Evolution Theory), evolution therefore cannot account for the information which defines living systems, and we have profound evidence that a mind of astonishing intelligence is the origin of the prescriptive information that defines living systems and the nano-technology the cell.


Atheisms requires materialism and determinism to be true. Why? Because spirit can be said to be an immaterial mind or life force, and if humans have no spirit, then they have no mind (which is immaterial), and if living things have no mind, they are comprised from matter only and there was no mind which begat them. Under these conditions, there is no sentience, no intelligence, no purpose, no purposefulness, no intentionality, no intentions, and no functionality, and no function to anything. If that were so, then all processes are due to material causes.

Unfortunately for atheists, none of that is the case. In fact, modern science has revealed certain facts about living things that could not have been imagined in 1857 when Charles Darwin published his infamous book. So much has been learned about biological systems, especially since the 1970’s, that we have been confidently able for decades to say without reservation that evolution theory is not scientific but is in fact a philosophy, and it that has been thoroughly disproven. One of the proofs that evolution theory is false is the fact that we know today that biological systems, their features and functions, are defined by information, algorithms, and linguistics. What makes this fact an irrefutable proof that life is a product of both Intelligent Design and Special Creation, and in fact cannot have been produced by matter in motion is that information, algorithms, and linguistics are non-physical (immaterial) products of minds.
Information theorist Henry Quastier has stated, “The creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity."

That’s an understatement. In fact, information can only be produced by minds. There is no potential for material causes to produce information, algorithms, or linguistics. Dr. Gitt Werner is the former President and Professor od the German Federal Institute of Information Technology. He is the world's foremost authority on Information Theory and has advanced Information Theory more than any other information theorist. In his book, In the Beginning Was Information, Dr. Werner states,

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”
In regard to the potential for evolution theory to be true in light of the advancements of Information Theory, he has stated,

“The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.”

When an atheist hears such statements, they often argue for their unimaginable faith that material causes are nonetheless capable for producing the information in biological systems. Moreover, they have even been known to argue that the information in biological systems is not actually information, but that we simply call it information because the term seems to fit what we are describing. While the atheist thinks he has slipped out of the grip of the argument that information in biological systems is a product of an immaterial mind, but in reality, they are simply making an admission that they are discussing information. Do we call an automobile a car simply because the word “car” seems to describe it accurately, or because it actually is a car? Such is the absurdity of the atheist’s excuse for denying the reality that organic systems actually are based upon real information, which could not exist if atheism were true anyway. However, the faith of the atheist that material causes can produce information is without merit.

One of the facts about information which proves that it is a product of mind and not material causes is the fact that information is non-physical. This has been understood and elucidated for many decades. In his work, “Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1948), p. 132.”, Norbert Wiener wrote the following:

“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.”

If the Big Bang theory were true, then the matter of the early universe was once hot gas, which is one of the most random systems known to science. Random systems cannot produce information, and therefore a materialistic big bang cannot have resulted in the information which exists in biological systems, and cannot be causally related to the information that people continuously create. Many scientists have applied statistical analysis and analytics to the ability of material causes to produce information (as well as proteins), and in all cases the ability has been demonstrated to be none. Dr. Jonathan Sanford, geneticist of Cornell University has stated,

“If there are more than several dozen nucleotides in a functional sequence, we know that realistically they will never just ‘fall into place.’ This has been mathematically demonstrated repeatedly. But as we will soon see, neither can such a sequence arise randomly one nucleotide at a time. A pre-existing ‘concept’ is required as a framework upon which a sentence or a functional sequence must be built. Such a concept can only pre-exist within the mind of the author.”

Scientists Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel have stated,

“No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.” (“Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.)

While I could provide many more statements from scientists that make my point, I won’t bog you down in them. Instead, I will provide an easily understood explanation of how we know that information proves the evolution theory false, and proves also that life is a product of a mind of unfathomable genius and power.

The root of the word “information” is “inform” for a good reason. It is because information is knowledge conveyed from a sender to a receiver using a language agreed upon by both parties. Without a sender, either as a direct provider of the knowledge or as a original cause, there is no informing and thus no information. When a person conveys knowledge to another, they are a direct informer. When a computer programmer writes a software application designed to provide knowledge to another application on the computer or to another computer, the programmer is an original cause of the information. While in this case the program itself may directly provide the knowledge, the program could do nothing unless the programmer instructed the software on what knowledge to provide. If the informer speaks Portuguese but the receiver speaks only English, there will be no informing and thus no information is formed. Both must speak the same language, whether it is human language, computer language, sign language, or any other in order for knowledge to be conveyed. Here we see that information requires language – another immaterial thing which further demonstrates that an immaterial mind is necessary for information to be formed. Language is based upon symbolic meaning, which cannot exist if materialism were true and immaterial minds did not exist.

Imagine that we have two people watching a concert. One of them notices the drummer is sweating. He has by observation gained knowledge about the drummer. However, at this point no information has been formed since there has been no informing performed. Once this person turns to the other and states, “The drummer is sweating.” there has been information formed because the informer has conveyed his knowledge to the receiver. If the informer spoke Portuguese and the receiver spoke only English, though there was an attempt to convey knowledge, the knowledge would not be conveyed and no information has been formed.

One of the characteristics of information that demonstrates that it is immaterial is that it is not bound to it’s medium. When information is stored on a medium, such as in a book, the material of the book does not disappear as the information is conveyed to the receiver. This is because the medium is not the immaterial information. The Bible can be printed as a book with paper and ink, it can be copied to a memory card, and can be verbally spoken! In all cases the information is exactly the same regardless of the medium, and the medium itself is not transported from the sender to the receiver in order to receive the information. The book, memory card, and the air in these examples are not the information itself. They are only the medium which is used to convey the information. Information does indeed require a physical medium to be either stored or conveyed because we live, move, and think in a physical existence. However, the information is not physical.

The root of the word “information” is “inform” for a good reason. It is because information is knowledge conveyed from a sender to a receiver using a language agreed upon by both parties. Without a sender, either as a direct provider of the knowledge or as a original cause, there is no informing and thus no information. When a person conveys knowledge to another, they are a direct informer. When a computer programmer writes a software application designed to provide knowledge to another application on the computer or another computer, the programmer is an original cause of the information. While in this case the program itself may directly provide the knowledge, the program could do nothing unless the programmer instructed the software on what knowledge to provide. If the informer speaks Portuguese but the receiver speaks only English, there will be no informing and thus no information is formed. Both must speak the same language, whether it is human language, computer language, sign language, or any other in order for knowledge to be conveyed. Here we see that information requires language – another immaterial thing which further demonstrates that an immaterial mind is necessary for information to be formed. Language is based upon symbolic meaning, which cannot exist if materialism were true and immaterial minds did not exist.
To help understand how we know the information is not the medium, consider the following example. A point that is often overlooked when discussing information, is the importance of “how” and “what”. If we arrange the furniture in our living room in a particular way and we were to weight the furniture, it may weigh 500 lbs. Now if we rearrange the furniture in a different way and weigh the furniture again, it still weighs 500 lbs. The only difference between the two arrangements is not “what” is arranged, but “how” it is arranged. While the furniture is the “what” that is arranged, and is physical, the “how” it is arranged is not physical. The same is true of information. We can arrange the text characters of the Bible in an unintelligible way and we will convey no knowledge. However, “how” the letters are arranged is not physical, and is necessary for information to be formed. Likewise, imagine that we have a robot that can walk and weighs exactly 100 lbs. If we delete the computer program in the robot it still weighs exactly 100 lbs. even though we have removed the information which enables it to walk. The information, which is the program, has no mass and is intangible. It is stored in the manner in which the microscopic switches in it’s memory chip are arranged. The memory chip is only the medium which stores the information, but it is not the information itself. Furthermore, we can arrange the text characters of the Bible in an unintelligible way and we will convey no knowledge. But if we arrange the characters in a manner so that they represent knowledge, they can be information. The information is not the characters (what is arranged) but instead it is the manner of their arrangement (how it is arranged) that constitutes the knowledge that becomes information when it is conveyed.

Let’s consider now the absurdity of the materialist’s denial that information is an immaterial entity. Many atheists argue that information is physical simply because they refuse to acknowledge that since information is immaterial it is produced by an immaterial mind, which can be easily likened to the spirit. Since they deny humans have a spirit, they deny the mind is immaterial, and are therefore stuck in claiming that materialism is absolute. Effectively, they deny the very existence of the Non-physical Domain. One glaring problem with the materialist’s false argument is that mental properties cannot be physically measured like physical objects. They have no physical dimensions, no mass, and are not even tangible. All things can be divided into two distinct domains: The Physical Domain and the Non-physical Domain. The Physical Domain includes all things that have mass, are tangible, and of course, physical. The Non-physical Domain includes all that has no mass, is tangible, and of course, non-physical. Some things which are part of the Non-physical Domain are information, algorithms, linguistics, persistence of Self-Identity, personal intentions, philosophical reflection, consideration that results in a change of mind, unconfused lies, the comprehension of the process of time, the recollection of past events, the existence of qualia (private experiences), the truth that people are genuinely moral agents, the ability to understand and appreciate a state of affairs, the aptitude to evaluate and plan for future activities with inbuilt contingencies, the perception and appreciation of beauty, the aim of improving an activity one performs by concentrating, and the continuous volition of intending and attending. Because materialism follows from atheism, atheists must, if they are to be consistent in their beliefs, deny the existence of these and other members of the Non-physical Domain, which reveals the atheist’s belief system to be a delusion whereby so much of that which the world depends upon and operates by simply does not exist. The irony is that the materialist employs these non-physical things all the time, and their life depends upon their existence.

An example of the absurdity of denying that information is a member of the Non-physical Domain would be a university professor giving a lecture to a room of 50 students. If information were material, and if that material were the brain material of the professor because information is material, then in order for that professor to speak to and share information with the students, a stream of brain matter must travel from the professor to the brain of each of the 50 students in the room in order for him to share information with them. This illustrates the sheer absurdity of denying the immateriality of information. Moreover, we cannot even imagine what kind of mechanism would be systematically and efficiently directing the brain matter from the professor’s brain to those of the students. To press the matter, consider how preposterous it would be to believe that someone who has spent countless hours of speaking to groups over an entire career has been sending matter from their brain to their listeners, and their brain has therefore been either grossly reduced in size or completely disseminated simply by speaking to others. I suppose the ultimate example of such absurdity would be one who speaks to millions of listeners at once via television broadcast. If materialism were true, Harry Reasoner or Tom Broakaw must have gone through numerous brains over their careers!
The absurdity of the materialist’s position on the immaterial mind and information has been commented upon many times by experts in related fields. Consider the statements below:

"Materialists have taken note of the growing efforts by non-materialist neuroscientists to point out the deep problems with the inference that the brain is entirely the cause of the mind. Materialist neuroscience, like materialist evolutionary biology, is a vacuous orthodoxy, and its proponents resent threats to their dogma. Darwinian explanations for functional biological complexity are nonsense, but some familiarity with the relevant science is necessary to understand that it is nonsense. Materialist explanations for the mind are transparent nonsense." - Dr. Michael Egnor, award-winning neurosurgeon, scientist of the human brain

"The plain fact is that the materialist picture of the body and brain as the producers, rather than the vehicles, of human consciousness is doomed. In its place a new view of mind and body will emerge, and in fact is emerging already. This view is scientific and spiritual in equal measure and will value what the greatest scientists of history themselves always valued above all: truth." - Dr. Alexander, teaches at the University of Virginia Medical School and has been on the faculty at Harvard Medical School.

The fact that information is a non-physical entity by itself discredits all of the worldview of the atheist. However, one might wonder how it provides substanciation for the Christian’s worldview. If we have an immaterial mind, we can say this mind is likened to the spirit. Jesus Christ Himself explained that the spirit is not a physical entity when speaking to Nicodemus:

John 3
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
[8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Scripture mentions that we have both spirit and flesh many times. The atheist finds it difficult to see themselves as having a spirit as well as flesh. Stuck in their materialistic, earthly oriented view of the entire world and themselves, they have difficulty and may be completely incapable of either recognizing, or at the very least, acknowledging that the non-physical domain is verification of the non-physical life force within them – the spirit. For this reason, no atheist can be a truly trustworthy source of knowledge or truth in science, philosophy, or matters of the heart, since they are unwilling to acknowledge the very basis for all things. Scripture directly addresses this prison in which the atheist lives, and why the atheist is locked in their delusion. What has imprisoned them however, is their heart, which is unwilling to humble itself to our majestic Creator:
Romans 8 [5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.