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.

Evolution Theory isn’t Scientific

When I quote a scientist who is an evolutionist making a statement relating to evolution which illustrates a problem with the evolution theory, the evolutionist will claim I am "quote mining" to imply the statement I provide is not correct because it is taken out of context, and since the scientist who made the statement is likely one who believes evolution is true and states so elsewhere, the evolutionist will almost invariably appeal to the authority of the consensus opinion and avoid the inference from the statement I quoted or information it refers to.

When I provide scientific evidence from a scientist who is a creationist making a statement relating to evolution which illustrates a problem with the evolution theory, the evolutionist will almost invariably claim that the scientist is not a real scientist since they believe in creation, regardless of their credentials. They will then almost invariably appeal to the authority of the consensus opinion and avoid the inference from the statement I quoted or information it refers to. It seems that to the evolutionist, no discovery actually provides a problem for evolution theory, and no scientist who argues against evolution theory is a real scientist. This is not a scientific approach to the issue, it is an emotional response.

When I cite a case of discrimination against an academic or scientist who is an evolution proponent whose work has either directly or indirectly provided a discovery which illuminates a problem for evolution theory, the evolutionist will say the academic or scientist I mention was not discriminated against because of the discovery, but instead because they have been caught doing faulty science and are a bad scientist.

When I cite a case of discrimination against an academic or scientist who is an ID or creation proponent whose work has either directly or indirectly provided a discovery which illustrates a problem for evolution theory, the evolutionist will say the academic or scientist whom I mention was not discriminated against because of what they have stated or because they have been caught doing faulty science and are a bad scientist. It seems that to the evolutionist, there are no cases of discrimination in academia or science which are unjustified. Neither is this a scientific approach to the issue, but instead it is an emotional response.

When I ask for evidence of the anatomical change necessary for evolution, the evolutionist will cite a replication of an existing feature observed to take place in an organism. When I then ask how the replication of an existing feature supports the claim that evolution produces new features not present in the anatomy, the evolutionist will say that new features arise incrementally in the same way the replicated one does and attempt to support their original claim with an endless series of arguments about other supposed evidences for evolution only marginally related to their original claim that new features are produced by evolution.

An example of such common scenarios by which evolutionists endlessly use miniature subordinate theories to support a claim without providing direct evidence of their claim might be as follows:

Creationist: What evidence is there that new anatomical features arise incrementally in organisms?
Evolutionist: Mutation causes polydactyl.
Creationist: But a polydactyl feature is a replication of an existing feature. Evolution claims new ones arise.
Evolutionist: New features arise in the same manner.
Creationist: What evidence is there that new anatomical features arise incrementally in organisms?
Evolutionist: Genetic change, such as genetic variation produced by reproduction and mutation causes it.
Creationist: But variously expressing existing information has not been demonstrated to produce new features.
Evolutionist: Genetic mutation modifies existing information into new information to code for new features.
Creationist: If that were true we should see new features arising incrementally in countless existing life forms.
Evolutionist: Existing organisms are well suited to their environments and in stasis, so we can't expect to see this in them.
Creationist: What evidence is there that new anatomical features arise incrementally in organisms?
Evolutionist: Genetic variation causes it.

In this way, the query and the argument both run in a circle without the evolutionist providing evidence to support their claim. Evolutionists employ this tactic regarding almost every claim of evolution when queried. They do this because they are unable to provide the actual evidence that supports their claim and rely on absolute and invariable faith that it all happens as they believe it does and often ask the creationist why they simply can't see the evidence. They are expecting us to accept the scenarios in their imagination as evidence and ridicule those who are unable to, all the while proclaiming evolution to be documented and scientific while the creationist is anti-scientific and blinded by their own faith. The irony is simply too obvious for the evolutionist to see and except. The worst case scenarios result in the evolutionists decanting into a seemingly endless abyss of miniature theories, one supposedly supporting the other, all in an attempt to keep from acknowledging that there in actuality is no scientific evidence that clearly supports their initial argument.

Firstly, we need to understand what evolution theory claims in order to know if it is scientific or not. The kinds of changes that we observe in organisms, referred to as microevolution, cannot be extrapolated to infer that organisms begat new kinds of life, referred to as macroevolution, over time. Changes to DNA, the development of an immunity, changes to the frequency of a gene variant in a population over time, referred to as changes to allelic frequency, or changes in the color, size, patterns, or even shape of an organism cannot be inferred to bring about the kinds of changes that evolution theory claims occur over time. None of these can in any way be considered evidence of anatomical transition because they do not cause change to the anatomy of organisms, either incrementally or in a sudden "Hopeful Monster" sense. It is the claim of evolutionists that a cell brought forth multicellular organisms, that fish brought forth land-dwelling organisms, that reptiles brought forth birds, that an ape-like creature brought forth mankind. These and millions of other such imagined scenarios require innumerable changes to anatomy to produce the plethora or various life forms that exist today and those which are now extinct. In fact, many millions of such anatomical changes would be necessary even before the end of the Cambrian Explosion just to produce those creatures which exist in the Cambrian strata. Yet there are no transitional fossils found in the Cambrian any more than in any other strata of the earth.

"The fossils from the Cambrian period can cause a real headache for evolutionary biologists. Instinct tells us to expect simple organisms evolving over time to become increasingly more complex. However during the Cambrian period there was an apparent explosion of different major groups of animals, all appearing simultaneously in the fossil record. We looked at priapulid worms, which were among the first ever predators. What's remarkable is that they had already evolved into a diverse array of forms -- comparable to the morphological variety of their living cousins -- when we first encounter them in the Cambrian fossil record. It's precisely this apparent explosion of anatomical diversity that vexed Darwin and famously attracted the attention of Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould." -  evolutionary biologist Matthew Wills, University of Bath

We cannot concern ourselves with any mechanism which has no potential to fulfill the requirements of evolution that one kind of life begets new kinds over time. Only change to anatomy would be capable of substantiating evolution as scientific. Without evidence of anatomical change by a mechanism known to produce it there can be no substantiation to the claim that evolution is the explanation for the various forms of life. There is only one mechanism that would have the potential to cause change to the anatomy of an organism and substantiate the claim of evolution theory that all of the kinds of life are related. That mechanism would have to be mutation to genetic information in such a way as to produce anatomical changes that are built incrementally to ultimately produce new anatomical features. There is no evidence in the vast body of mutation experimentation that mutation is capable of doing this. On this basis alone, evolution theory is not scientific, since the scientific evidence which is observable, testable, and repeatable has produced no support for evolution theory. Evolution is therefore not scientific in that it's proponents have demonstrated with millions of experiments that the one mechanism that would make evolution possible does not exist.

Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University, has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years. He has said, "The very name "micro evolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macro evolution though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence for this. Thus an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution."

Here are a couple of the great many statements of academics which reveal the true nature and atheistic necessity of evolution theory:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." - Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.

“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.” - James D. Watson, Molecular Biology of the Gene “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.” - Malcolm Muggeridge, philosopher, journalist, atheist who converted to Christian

There are a great many things which would be different if evolution theory were actually scientific. Here are just a few:
1. the theory would not exist
2. there would not be so much controversy over whether or not it is scientific amongst academics
3. evolutionists would not need to endlessly invent theories with which to explain away the failures of their theory, such as Punctuated Equilibrium, Hopeful Monster, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy.
4. The idea that random mutation caused evolutionary change was first postulated by evolutionists shortly after it was realized in the late 19th century that DNA is an information package that defines an organism. If evolution were scientific, evolutionists would accept the evidence from the millions of mutation experiments which have consistently verified for 100 years that the effect of random mutation is the degradation of the genome of an organism, causing a loss of complexity by a loss of information, disease, weakness, and deformity or death. Instead of accepting a century of consistent, observable evidence about the effects of random mutation, evolutionists continue to claim that random mutation causes upward development in complexity, the development of new anatomical features or transformation of extant features into those with a new biomechanical function.
5. there would be a tremendous number of species living today which show in their anatomies that evolution is incrementally developing new anatomical features or transforming extant features to have new biomechanical functions. There are no such incrementally developing or transforming features known in any species.
6. evolutionists would not point to variations within a kind, such as varieties of moth, butterfly, or fish and claim that they are transitional forms, when their anatomies do not show a developing new anatomical feature or transforming extant features to have new biomechanical functions.
7. evolutionists would not point to extinct species in the rock record (fossils) of one kind and claim it is transitional to another kind when the example itself does not show anatomical change.
8. evolutionists would accept the clear fact that the features of the genome of any organism is empirical evidence of creation, since it is a multi-dimensional information package which is organized to conform to linguistics laws more advanced than Zipf's Law of Linguistics, possesses algorithmic information processing, countless interdependencies with itself and the cell, and possesses in chemical form the language properties of grammar, syntax, semantics, and punctuation. Information, algorithms, and linguistics are non-material and there is no potential for natural material processes to produce them. This is empirical evidence that an immaterial mind has designed all life.
9. evolutionists would not cite as evidence of their theory things which have no potential to cause the anatomical transition of one kind of organism into that of another, such as the gaining of immunities, the ability of a bacteria to synthesize an enzyme capable of digesting nylon. By the way, both of these are in fact evidence of Intelligent Design.
10. evolutionists would not, and often spuriously, turn their arguments away from evolution and toward the existence or nonexistence of God when they have realized they are not doing well in a debate about evolution and creation, revealing that evolution theory for them is not about science but about having what they believe to be an excuse for denying their creator.
11. evolutionists would not speak of evolution theory as if it as if it were a fact since it is not observable.
12. the theory of evolution would not be endlessly evolving to adopt new knowledge that refutes evolution theory and twist it to include countless "just so" stories to explain away the new discovery and incorporate it into evolution theory
13. evolutionists would not militaristically defend evolution theory by discriminating against, even creating personal smear campaigns to ostracize anyone who doubts evolution theory or wishes to discuss it's weaknesses in academia. Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it may lead and questioning the currently believed ideas so as to advance knowledge. Evolutionists dogmatically refuse to allow evolution theory to be discussed in that way within the scientific community or academia.
14. the majority of scientists in the ruling bodies of the scientific community would not be atheists, demonstrating that the above statement (13) is true because the scientific community is largely governed by atheists who seek to prevent anyone who is not an atheist from becoming part of their governing bodies.
15. evolutionists would let go of their failed uniformitarian theory because of the well documented fact that the "geologic column" (the average of 1,800 meters of strata covering the continents) is comprised of strata from bottom to top which are not of any significant difference in age because of what scientific experimentation in hydrology and sedimentology has verified.
Education Standards (NSES) states the following:

‘Science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge through the use of empirical standards, logical arguments, and skepticism.’
And yet, evolution theory has no empirical evidence whatsoever. The imagination is requires to see the evidence of it.

‘Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. First and foremost, they must be consistent with experimental and observational evidence about nature, and must make accurate predictions, when appropriate, about systems being studied.’

And yet, no experimental or observational evidence exists for evolution theory: "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening" - Richard Dawkins
‘They should also be logical, respect the rules of evidence, be open to criticism, report methods and procedures, and make knowledge public.’

And yet, evolutionism is illogical, since Natural Selection actually argues against evolution instead of for it. For example, if fish were evolving anatomically so as to be able to crawl around upon the land, Natural Selection would remove them because at some point their fins would have become inefficient for swimming while not yet suitable for walking on land, and they would be inept at survival in both land and water environments. Evolution is said to proceed by that which is beneficial, not that which is nonbeneficial.

‘Explanations on how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific.’

And yet since evolution theory is evolution theory is based solely on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, and authority.

Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World (and grandson of T.H. Huxley, ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’) admitted meaninglessness (Godlessness) was central to his world view:

‘I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly view their role as the proselytizers of a new faith … The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism … ’
As for the failure of evolution theory to make accurate predictions, the most glaring failure comes from the historical evidence of life on the earth:

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

"The more one studies paleontology [the fossil record] the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." - Professor Louis T More, evolutionist
“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” - Stanley, p. 95.

As for evolution theory being solidly logical:


"Occam’s razor is often paraphrased "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Is it more logical and rational when observing things like motors and robot-like mechanisms to believe they created themselves or they were created by an intelligent designer? No logical person would conclude their car’s motor designed and assembled itself, or that computer software writes itself! The NSES states scientific explanations must be logical, so once again evolution fails." - Calvin Smith

As for evolution theory being open to criticism, as all scientific theories must be, a recent example of the closed-door dogma of evolutionists is evolutionary Prof. Michael Reiss, the Royal Society’s former director of education, who was forced to resign within a couple of days after suggesting that creation and ID should be discussed in classrooms, which he proposed this so that creation and ID could be countered in the presence of students.

As for the accuracy of the information produced by evolution theory, Evolution has always been rife with hoaxes, including  Haeckel’s drawings, Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor (the Piltdown Bird!), Nebraska man and the Staged photos of peppered moths, all fraudulent ‘evidences’ used to promote the theory of evolution. More recently we have examples such as Per Ahlber's reconstruction of Ichthyostega, the now falsified claim that the Laitoli prints, supposedly footprints of a hominid creature, are in every way human as testified to by evolutionist scientists themselves.

As for evolution theory including no presuppositions, evolutionist Richard Lewontin revealed his bias in the following quote, "‘It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Evolution theory did not begin as a scientific idea. It began as a religious one, which humanists have attempted to transform into a scientific idea in order to try to remove the creator from the human consciousness. Charles Darwin got his idea from the authority of the opinion of men of his time and the writings of Aristotle, who believed that organisms became most fully what they are because they adapted to their environments. It was Aristotle who put forth the idea of natural Selection influencing the features of organisms. Darwin took Aristotle's ideas far beyond it's initial meaning to extrapolate that all life for5ms were related over time and produced his "Tree of Life" concept. Darwin was in fact indoctrinated by Charles Lyell and Thomas Huxley to believe in evolution after his voyage on the beagle. Lyell convinced him that if he were to write a book using the many examples of life he collected on that voyage as evidence for evolution, he would become famous. Darwin became enamored with this idea, and the patting on the back of Lyell and Huxley, and succumbed to the idea of fame, which appealed to him so much largely because he was a mediocre student who was for the most given to a laxidazical lifestyle filled with hours of billiards, drinking alcohol for which he was worrisome to his father. He was offered the opportunity to take the voyage on the Beagle as a way of boosting his interest in academic matters, and he saw it as a way of restoring his father’s faith in him, and it seems also, taking a stab at authority and God Himself by claiming God had not created the living things of this world, He later admitted that he feared that he had told the world a great lie - a truth which rotted his soul for the rest of his life, causing him to be nearly continuously physically ill and I believe ultimately brought about his demise.

The National Research Council 1995 report entitled the National Science Evolution is an ancient idea that began as part of the earliest religions of the Hindus. It did not begin as and is not today a scientific theory, nor is the practice of study of life forms through evolutionist glasses a scientific one. It is merely a presupposition to which the evolutionist attempts to but is unable to apply science.

Here is a condensed history of evolutionism:

1. The theory of evolution came from the Hindu Brahmins
2. pantheistic evolution was passed down by Pythagoras to the Greeks
3. Thales and his Ionic School branched out from Pantheistic Evolution to Naturalistic Evolution
4. Anaximander (610 BCE-546 BCE), who was the first to suggest that physical forces, rather than supernatural forces, create order in the universe
5. Plato and Aristotle's evolutionary ideas were dispersed through the Alexandrian School in Egypt
6. The ideas were followed through the Middle Ages (Aquinas), Renaissance and into Freemasonry, where they were preserved
7. Freemasonry and the Enlightenment had a re-birth of the philosophy of evolution
8. Lord Monboddo and Erasmus Darwin carried the philosophy forward
9. Charles Darwin, coaxed by Charles Lyell to write about the idea after the voyage on the Beagle, developed the idea into a pseudoscientific theory.

Should anyone tell you that evolution theory is well documented scientific fact supported by a tremendous number of evidences in various fields of biological science, have yourself a healthy sigh, and refer them to this article... please.

Why Presuppositional Apologetics Alone is Insufficient

We Christians are expected to give evidence of our faith with good reason. Scripture tells us that we should be prepared to explain to others why we have faith in Jesus Christ:

1Peter3[15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Christian faith is not blind, nor is it based upon presupposition. None have been converted by God without the witness of the Holy Spirit. Without having actually experienced the Holy Spirit, none has come to Christ. Christian faith is substanciary and evidentiary:

Hebrews 11[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


What are we to say then to those who inquire of us? Are we to say that we believe because the Bible says that we must have faith in Him? While that may be true enough, and satisfactory for a relationship with God, by itself it will not provide reason for those who have no experience with God directly to come to Christ. Notice the passage says, “a reason of the hope”.  If we plug this passage into the definition of Christian faith provided by God’s Word, we see that scripture is commanding us to be prepared to give solid (substantive) evidence for the unseen God.

1Peter3[15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Hebrews11[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If anyone asks you, “What is the reason that you believe in chocolate?” would it be better to simply say that chocolate exists, or to explain to them how you know that chocolate exists?

Jesus himself pointed out that if someone will not believe testimony and witness of earthly things with earthly evidence, nor will they believe testimony of heavenly things as evidence:

John3[11] Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify (martureō) that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness (marturia).[12] If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

martureō; to be a witness, that is, testify (literally or figuratively): - charge, give [evidence], bear record, have (obtain, of) good (honest) report, be well reported of, testify, give (have) testimony, (be, bear, give, obtain) witness.

marturia; evidence given (judicially or generally): - record, report, testimony, witness.

Acts4[20] For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

The fact that Christ himself referred to providing substanive evidence in the form of testimony demonstrates that while presuppositional apologetics is  useful and based upon the truth of God, it is not how we are called to testify for our faith in Him because it provides only an empty claim unless it refers to things which can be substanciated with evidence. In the Christian, such evidence may exist in various forms. Evidence from a Christian’s life could be how God has worked within them to bring about a change in their thinking or behavior. It may also be good works for which the motivation is the gracious good which God has shown unto them, which has caused them wish to do good for others. In relation to God’s creation, one may also provide evidence of God as Creator and Designer by showing scientific evidence that His creation possesses the evidence of His divine genius and power, such as the evidence for the balance of the forces of nature which testify to His design of the universe, or the astonishing complexity and information properties of genetics as evidence of His design of living things. Regardless of what form it takes, testimony is not convincing unless it can be backed up with some type of evidence. Nobody is motivated to change their views on whether or not God exists, or whether or not Jesus Christ is the one true God manifest in the flesh simply because you say he is.

If God were to convict us of sin, would it be only because he has told us that sin makes us guilty, or would it be because he has told us so and the evidence of our infractions is seen in what we have done? Presuppositional apologetics can be used to provide the framework for apologetics and even help someone to see that their nonbelief is based upon their own presuppositions. Beyond that point evidence of some nature is necessary to substantiate the testimony they are given. However, presuppositional apologetics by itself will never convince anyone to find Jesus Christ or change their thinking. It is evidentialism that we are called to employ by scripture to give an account for our faith, not presuppositionalism. It is evidence which convicts us of our sins in this world and in God's courtroom, not an argument that reveals the ignorance of the accused. Presuppositional apologetics fails to meet the requirements set forth in scripture as the appointed method of apologetics. Evidentialism is necessary to make a case. That is why scripture and Jesus Christ both employ evidentialism.

I could of course provide far more passages to make my case, I and I an certain that I am not providing the majority of the best passages which make my case.

Jesus:
John5[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify (martureō) of me.

Jesus:
John7[7] The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify (martureō) of it, that the works thereof are evil.

Acts10[42] And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify (diamarturomai) that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

diamarturomai; to attest or protest earnestly, or (by implication) hortatively: - charge, testify (unto), witness.

Acts26[4] My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;[5] Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

Eye-witness testimony as evidence is found throughout scripture. Here John uses his witness testimony as evidence that God has sent his Son to save us:

John 4[14] And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

Works is evidence of salvation. Paul told us to be like Christ, and this will be a testimony of evidence to Him that has saved us, here:

Ephesians 4
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
[15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
[16] From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.[17] This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
[18] Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
[19] Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
[20] But ye have not so learned Christ;
[21] If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
[22] That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
[23] And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
[24] And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
[25] Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
[26] Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
[27] Neither give place to the devil.
[28] Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
[29] Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
[30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
[31] Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
[32] And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

The Fountains of the Deep

In the Book of Job, God inquires of Job, “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?”

I have not. Neither have you. Neither has anyone. The pressure of the waters in the ocean becomes quite considerable in only a few hundred feet of it’s depth. At many thousands of feet of depth, the pressure is approximately 64,000 psi - great enough that a military submarine would implode like an empty soda can in the hand of a man. Only since the advent of modern equipment have we been able to search the ocean floors and see what is actually down there.

Those opposed to the Word of God or his truth have angst against the Bible. Because of their emotional opposition to God, they ridicule the Bible, making the absurd claim that the Bible is merely the mythological writings of ancient sheep or goat herders. The childishness of this absurdity is seen in the fact that none of the penmen of the scriptures were herders. However, the Bible puts all nay-sayers in their place. Amongst the many other proofs it possesses that it is the inspired Word of God, it also possesses knowledge of things which man did not know at the time of the writing, but more important, these things could not have known because there was no means for their discovery until the 20th century.

One example of this foreknowledge is the existance of the mid-oceanic trenches and ridges on the ocean floors and the hydrothermal vents which run along side them. These features run around the earth like the seam of a baseball. Below is an illustration of the ridge between North America and Africa. These ridges are cracks in the ocean floors from which the waters which the waters of the Noachian Flood (Noah’s Flood) came forth.

These cracks were not discovered until the 20th century because the technology did not exist until then to paruse the ocean floors.  Yet the Bible mentions these, and it mentions also the hydrothermal vents which run along side them from which exceedingly hot water is coming forth.

Scripture tells us in the Book of Genesis (written ~1,400 B.C) that God broke up the ocean floors to allow this internal water to burst forth and flood the earth:

Genesis7[11] In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Scripture also tells us about them in the Book of Psalms, which is a collection of writings from between 1,410-450 B.C:

Proverbs3[20] By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew. The hydrothermal vents which line these ridges were not discovered until 1977. The Book of Job (~1,400 B.C.) mentions them in a lesson of humility that we could all learn from. God humiliates Job by asking him questions to which he knows Job does not have the answer. God knew that Job could not have traversed the ocean floors to see these springs (bursting forths) of water on the ocean floors.

Job 38
[16] Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
[17] Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?
[18] Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

Examining this passage in the original language is revealing. The passage is God asking Job if he had walked the ocean floors searching them for knowledge of what God has done.
Job 38[16] Hast thou entered into the springs (nay-bek) of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth (teh-home)?

nay-bek: to burst forth; a fountain: - spring.

teh-home: an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water supply): - deep (place), depth.

The passage makes it clear that these springs are not in shallow waters where man could have gone. It uses the word teh-home, which means abyss. This refers to the very depths of the sea, a place exceedingly deep, dark, ultimately deep places of the sea, the very bottom.

In fact, the Book of Job possesess a number of passages which discuss geological features of the earth, atmospheric processes, the expansion of the universe, particle physics, and other things. None of them could have been known or understood in 1,400 B.C. The means to know of the existance of most of these did not exist until the 20th century. It would take a number of pages of writing to provide all of them and their explaination.

So the next time someone tells you the Bible is just a collection of mythological writings of ancient Hebrew sheep or goat herders, you can have yourself a chuckle, a whimsical grin, and take pleasure in knowing that God cares enough about us to show us even with his imspired Word that he truly is the master and creator of all things.

       Atheists believe there is no such thing as God, of course. Because this, they by default believe that all things are a product of random, undirected natural processes. Let's put their belief into a nutshell:

       With this simple analogy, we do not need to invoke the atheist's magical powers of time. Naturally (pun intended), they believe that time is the hero and makes the implausible and even the impossible, not only possible, but inevitable. In a nutshell, atheists must believe (do they really?) that matter simply obeying the laws of nature ultimately results in Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Michaelangelo's statue of king David, cell phones, genetic information, and the space shuttle. When asked in debate why they believe it is rational to believe such a thing, and what observable example of anything known to be of ever-increasing and self-designing complexity, the atheist simply ignores the question and typically turns their sights on the Bible to criticize it. This is understandable, since it is not rational to believe such a thing and no physical evidence supports such an absurdity. Angered by the question, they turn on the Bible. I understand their frustration well.

 

 

       Last night I was debating some atheists in a PalTalk chat room. When I entered, one of them was on the microphone telling the room how evolution is a scientific fact and providing a few scanty details of why this is so. I got into the debate, and asked how their claim was evidence of evolution. When it was their turn to use the microphone in the chat room, they were unwilling to explain how it was evidence of evolution, but instead put forth a 2 minute diatribe of how ignorant and non-scientific creationists are because they deny the obvious fact of evolution. A few others in the chat room did exactly the same thing - make a claim, such as that changes to allele frequency over time is evolution, then when asked how it is evidence or a mechanism for evolution, they provide no explanation and instead provide a 2 minute long diatribe of how evolution is true and creationists are ignorant. After 30 minutes of this repeated failure of the evolutionists to support their claims, they got tired of being cornered for their inability to do so, and asked me for evidence of my "invisible magic man" having created life. So, I explained to them a single example of Irreducible Complexity of the many which could be provided - the fact that the machinery that decodes the genetic information in the DNA to produce proteins is itself encoded in the DNA.

       The fact that the machinery which translates the genetic information to produce proteins is itself comprised of proteins is a game-ender for evolution theory. Since the machinery is a product of it's own translation, the DNA, the codes for proteins, and the environment of the cell which includes all of the rest of the features of the cell, must exist in order for the translation of protein codes to take

place. The components must already exist, fully-formed and fully functional, for any of them to exist. This is interdependency which cannot be broken, and therefore Irreducible Complexity. The components could not have evolved piecemeal. Let's imagine that the DNA is like a book coded in a specific digital language (DNA code is digital by the way). Encoded in that book is the machinery which is able to decode the book. In order to decode the book, you must retrieve the information which allows you to produce the decoder machine. The problem is, that since this information is encoded in the book, you cannot translate the code to produce this machinery unless the decoding machinery already exists outside of the source of information which produces the decoder!

 

       What this means in short is that not only did the components exist together in the beginning, but the entire cell did as well because these components require the cell to exist. Since the cell exists all together and fully functioning, and since the cell contains the genome for the entire organism, it follows that the entire organism existed, fully-formed and fully functional in the beginning with no transition or intermediary steps involved whatsoever. One might as well say that the cow came into existence at once, eating grass, swishing it's tail, completely unaware of the fact that it did not exist a nanosecond ago. This is Special Creation, and science has provided empirical evidence of it.

Having provided this single example of Irreducible Complexity which also evidences Special Creation, the evolutionists in the chat room were unable to even address the issue, and simply got on the microphone, one after another, and claimed I had not provided evidence of creation, and insisted that I do so. They would not even discuss my example. I suppose their only defence was to outright dismiss my example, claim I had provided nothing, and demand that I did. I suspect this is because they were both unable to discuss the subject for lack of knowledge about it biologically, and also because they were dumbfounded that such evidence actually exists. The humorous aspect the the failure of every atheist in the room to actually debate evidences is that they actually go to chat rooms, bring up evolution, claim it is a science fact, and mock you for believing in creation.

       Apparently, Sky Daddy must have something going, if someone like myself, who has no formal education in biology, is capable of acquiring enough knowledge of it on my own that prevents atheists, even genuine biologists, from being able to debunk what He has created with their pseudo scientific fantasy.

       The proponents of evolution and it's necessary brother, uniformitarianism, must concoct some pretty bizarre ideas, even geological processes, to explain the folded mountains and strata of the earth. Take a look at these mountains in British Columbia. They are severely folded like an accordion. This can only be because the mountain was soft sedimentary material when it was rapidly uplifted. Being soft and moist, the horizontal pressure of the continent squeezed the material so that it rose as a fully uplifted mountain before gravity could drain the water out of it and the material concrete into stone! Gravity would have no problem removing the majority of the water from this mountain in a matter of months, much less hundreds or even millions of years. Moreover, these folded strata are littered with fossils of rapidly buried creatures which are not distorted by or like the stone, meaning their bones are not bent like the strata, which verifies that the material had not concreted into stone before the strata were folded and the mountain was uplifted.

       You may also notice that the top of the mountain in the center of the image has had it's top sheared off. This is because while the mountain was still soft material being uplifted, it was under water at the time, and it's top encountered a high speed current of water near or at the surface of the ocean which ate away the top of the mountain - another feature of these mountains that could only happen if the mountain were soft sediments while it was being uplifted. In fact, the majority of mountains still have some or much loose sedimentary material upon them, which could not exist if the mountains were millions of years old. In only thousands, there should be no loose material on the top of any mountain, since the continents are eroding into the seas at a rate of 280 billion tons annually.

 

       To explain such mountains, and there are many, uniformitarianists must argue for absurdities. They must claim that the mountains were squeezed up out of the earth "fully formed" with folded strata in place. This means they must (if they stick to their own claims) believe that the stone was bend by pressure and heat of 300C (about 500F) or more and uplifted, fossils in place and all. I've even had evolutionists make this very claim to me during debate. This requires them to believe a number of things have occurred not only for which there is no evidence, but also which the evidence refutes. Consider: If the folding took place deep in the earth with fossils in place, the fossil bones would be bent like the stone, but they are not. I have yet to see a single fossil which has bones bent by heat and pressure. If any exist, they must be so rare that nobody bothers to discuss them. More absurd than this, the uniformitarian must believe that there is some mystical geological process which causes massive volumes of sedimentary strata to be pulled down into the earth to a depth where the temperature could be great enough for the stone to be folded without crumbling, then pushed up to become a mountain rising thousands of feet into the atmosphere.
 

       It does not take a genius to see the absurdity of believing this has taken place in all of the earth's mountain ranges. We do have areas which have been pushed down, and we have places where the continents have been pushed up. This is to be expected during the movement of the continents during the Noachian Flood. However, the idea that this material was "pushed" down to such depth and then up again is stretching the imagination to say the least. The best, and only logical explanation for folded mountains is that they were uplifted during the Noachian Flood while their material was still soft and malleable. The Noachian Flood is a geological certainty, evidenced in a great many ways. To believe ready-made mountains were pushed up out of the earth with folded strata and non-bent fossils is a fantasy that even uniformitarianists should scoff. I somehow believe they do scoff at themselves at times, but shrug their shoulders and satisfy their disbelief in their own ideas by simply saying to themselves, "Oh well. It happened anyway."

Neph