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.

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.