Friday, March 30, 2018

The Big Bang Fails Science

Evidence for a Supernatural First Cause
The Cosmological Argument
Problems for a Naturalistic Big Bang
The Horizon Problem
Occilating Universe Theory
Refuting an Eternal Universe
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
Why physicists Can't avoid a creation event



Evidence for a Supernatural First Cause
Physics and the Philosophy of Science show that the universe was created by a SUPERnatural cause since there is no "something" to create energy prior to the existance of the universe, and because material causes cannot have created the univers' energy. Therefore, material causes do not explain the existance of the universe.

If there ever had been a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, because it always is true that nothing produces nothing. If something exists now, then something always has existed.

The law of cause and effect is a well-established law that does not have any known exceptions.

The observable universe contains between 10^22 and 10^24 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars). Why is it plausible to believe millions of stars formed per second during the history of the universe when it is believed by astronomers that it takes many millions of yrs for a star to form?


The Cosmological Argument

This argument is a form of the cosmological argument which originated in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, and was refined by Thomas Aquinas and the Kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything that has a beginning needs a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. The universe needs a cause
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes
5. There must therefore be a cause for all else which has no beginning and needs no cause for its own existence


In physics, the law of Conservation of Energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time. In other words, this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy


Problems for a Naturalistic Big Bang

1. Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies
2. Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist
3. Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them in the age of the cosmos
4. Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
5. Spiral galaxies missing millions of years of collisions
6. Surface brightness of furthest galaxies identical to nearest galaxies
7. Nine billion years of missing metal in a trillion stars
8. Missing Population III stars
9. Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity
10. Solar system formation theory wrong too
11. It is "philosophy" that claims the universe has no center
12. Amassing evidence suggests the universe has a center
13. Sun is missing nearly 100% of its big-bang predicted spin
14. An entire universe worth of missing antimatter
15. Supernova chemical evolution theory in crisis
16. Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes
17. Missing shadow of the big bang
18.The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe


The Great Wall


The Great Wall is the largest known structure in the universe at present, having superceded sundry superclusters and clusters of superclusters. The Wall is a "thin" (15 million-light-year) sheet of galaxies 500 million light years long by 200 wide; and it may extend even farther. It is emplaced some 200-300 million light years from earth. It helps outline contiguaous parts of vast "bubbles" of nearly empty space. Both the Wall and the adjacent voids are just too large for current theories to deal with. M.J. Geller, codiscoverer of the Great Wall with J.P. Huchra, remarked: "My view is that there is something fundamentally wrong in our approach to understanding such large-scale structure -- some key piece of the puzzle that we're missing." -- Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall, Waldrop, M. Mitchell, Science, 246:885, 1989. Geller, Margaret J., and Huchra, John P.; "Mapping the Universe," Science, 246:897, 1989. And: McKenzie, A.; "Cosmic Cartographers Find 'Great Wall,'" Science News, 136:340, 1989.


The Horizon Problem

"If you considered the ultimate lookback time as 14 billion years (14 thousand million ) as obtained from a Hubble constant of 71 km/s per megaparsec as suggested by WMAP , then these remote parts of the universe are 28 billion light years apart, so why do they have exactly the same temperature? Being twice the age of the universe apart is enough to make the point about the horizon problem, but as Schramm points out, if you look at this problem from earlier perspectives it is even more severe. At the time the photons were actually emitted, they would have been 100 times the age of the universe apart, or 100 times causally disconnected." -- The Horizon Problem, Georgia State University


Occilating Universe Theory

In 1934, the work by Richard C. Tolman showed that the oscillating model is hardly possible because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase. This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it.

"The probability of a Big Bounce, or even a Big Crunch for that matter, is however becoming negligible. The most recent measurements of the CMBR or cosmic microwave background radiation shows that the Universe will continue on expanding and will most likely end in what is known as a Big Freeze or Heat Death." -- Universe Today, John Carl Villanueva, Oscillating Universe Theory, 24 Aug , 2009


Refuting an Eternal Universe

When light is converted to matter, these metric and distributional symmetries (among others) are broken. The broken symmetries of light are conserved (in accordance with Noether's theorem) as time and the gravitational forces of spacetime, and as the various charges (and spin) of matter. The principle of symmetry conservation is therefore most familiar to us (after symmetry breaking) through the principles of charge conservation, gravitation, and time; before symmetry breaking, we see them manifesting in light's intrinsic motion, metric symmetry, the inertial forces of spacetime, and the suppression of mass, charge, time, and gravity. It is the broken "non-local" metric and distributional symmetries of light that give rise to the "location" charge of gravitation, a charge whose active principle is time. The function of all conserved charges is to produce forces which will eventually return the material system to its original symmetric state." -- John A. Gowan, Gravity, Entropy, and Thermodynamics, Cornell University

How many seconds are there in half of an infinite number of seconds (in an infinitely existing universe)? Half of an infinite number is still an infinite number! This is a logical fallacy. The premise that there is an infinite number of seconds to the universe into the past is therefore false.

If the universe were infinite, the amount of light falling on the earth would also be infinite. The reason for this is that the volume of the universe increases 8-fold with doubling of distance, while the decrease of light is only 4-fold with the doubling of the distance. The result is that the amount of light falling in the earth would double every time the size of the universe is doubled. Therefore, if the universe were infinite, we would not expect the sky to be dark at night. Since the night sky is dark, we know that the universe could not be infinite.

1 The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else).

2 The universe is expanding. This was confirmed through the Hubble telescope many years ago, and it is interesting to note that the universe is expanding from a single point, meaning the entire universe could be contracted back into a single point. Also, note that the universe is not expanding into space, but space itself is expanding.

3 The radiation echo was discovered by Bell Labs scientists in 1965. What is it? It is the heat afterglow from the Big Bang. Its discovery dealt a death blow to any theory of the universe being in a steady state because it shows instead that the universe exploded.

4 Galaxy Seeds. Scientists believe that, if the Big Bang is true (first, there was nothing, then, BANG, something came into being), then temperature “ripples” should exist in space, and it would be these ripples that enabled matter to collect into galaxies. To discover whether these ripples exist, the Cosmic Background Explorer – COBE – was launched in 1989 to find them, with the findings being released in 1992. What COBE found was perfect/precise ripples that, sure enough, enable galaxies to form. So critical and spectacular was this finding that the NASA lead for COBE, said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”

5 Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity means that the universe had a beginning and was not eternal as he had previously believed (Einstein was originally a pantheist). His theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead one big effect—something brought it into existence. Einstein disliked his end result so much that he introduced a “fudge factor” into his theory that allowed for an eternal universe. But there was only one problem. His fudge factor required a division by zero in his calculations—a mathematical error any good math student knows not to make. When discovered by other mathematicians, Einstein admitted his error calling it “the greatest blunder of my life.” After his acknowledgment, and upon confirming further research that showed the universe expanding just as his theory of relativity predicted, Einstein bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal and said that he wanted “to know how God created the world.”


An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
www.cosmologystatement.org /


"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

In addition to causality-information and the first and second thermodynamic laws, we require a 4th principle, the conservation of energetic symmetry, which is not a thermodynamic law, but is nevertheless related to causality and both the first and second laws in significant ways." -- John A. Gowan, Gravity, Entropy, and Thermodynamics, Cornell University


Why physicists Can't avoid a creation event

"In his presentation, Professor Vilenkin discussed three theories which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. One popular theory is eternal inflation. Most readers will be familiar with the theory of inflation, which says that the universe increased in volume by a factor of at least 10^78 in its very early stages (from 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds), before settling into the slower rate of expansion that we see today. The theory of eternal inflation goes further, and holds that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller “bubble” universes within an ever-expanding multiverse. Each bubble universe undergoes its own initial period of inflation. In some versions of the theory, the bubbles go both backwards and forwards in time, allowing the possibility of an infinite past. Trouble is, the value of one particular cosmic parameter rules out that possibility: But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn’t work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). “You can’t construct a space-time with this property,” says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.” -- Why physicists Can't avoid a creation event", New Scientist, 11 January 2012, Lisa Grossman






Tuesday, March 13, 2018

 Evolution Becomes a Bigger Joke With Every New Discovery in Biology



Evolution became a laughable myth in the 20th century, during which it was disproved by millions of discoveries. One such discovery is that polymerase is a product of it's own translation, which proves Special Creation. Another is the discovery that the cell's structural design is not generated by genetic information, but is instead passed on by reproduction form the reproductive cells of the parents (Cortical Inheritance). Evolutionism is a philosophy which is contradicted by science. It arose from a rejection of Christian values in the 18th century, leading to a rise in secular humanism which required a materialistic explanation for man's existance free of God. This rise in humanism was fueled by a lack of adequate effort of Christians to defend the truth against new false ideas that were nothing more than replacements for one truth or another, as well as the outsourcing academic and scientific control to those who are non-believers. Rejection of truths for imaginary ideas has caused many to fall into believing that philosophical ideas from the secular world scientific because secular men of science said it was so. Today the tables are turning, and there increasing support in both the scientific community and the general public for creationism and the Intelligent Design that has so greatly threatened the control over academia that secular men of science who are resorting more than ever to harsh treatment of evolution doubters or disbelievers. The threat is so great that the preachers of evolutionism are now typically afraid to debate the subject of evolution and creation on college campuses for fear of being refuted in front of their own students and the media.

Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for naturalists because of their rejection of God. Biological science was rudimentary and archaic, and provided no information about the operations of the cell. Modern biology has very greatly changed what is known of genetics and biology. It has been discovered that life is based upon information which is digitally encoded and stored in a more compressed form than man's best computer compression schemes.

DNA is a material medium encoded with information which is organized to conform to linguistics laws, posesses algorithmic operations, and posesses the human language properties of phonetics, semantics, punctuation, syntax, grammar, and aprobatics. Information, algorithms, and linguistics are non-physical fundamental entities that are produced by intelligence. The material processes of chemistry and physics cannot create them. This fact is proof that all life was designed by a mind of supreme intelligence. Evolution is impossible and creation has been proved for this reason alone. The information input and output processing of DNA includes the analytical operations of proofreading, information comparison, cut, insert, copy-and-past, backup, and restore, all of which operate by algorithmic operations.

DNA is a 4-dimentional (3 dimentions + time) operating system which is far more complex than man's computer software technology, posessing many thousands of information hierarchies and pathways in the cell. When the DNA molecule is supercoiled as chromatin, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when the molecule is uncoiled, and when it is not supercoiled, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when it is supercoiled. DNA is a dual-directional information package, providing different information depending upon which direction the machinery of the cell is traveling down the molecule as it transcribes it. Man does not know how to to write computer software that can do this, wherein lines of code provide different information depending upon whether it is read top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top. DNA's individual information sequences are overlapping and nested sharing nucleotides between sequences, and information in different locations of the molecule are interdependant with each other -- a feature which exemplifies why chemical processes cannot design DNA. DNA posesses codes built upon codes which regulate the use of each other, even when they are distant from each other in the molecule.

During an organism's development, the genetic information instructs the cell on how to turn on and off, like chemical switches, many sequences of information of the DNA in a supremely complex and yet to be understood orchestral arrangement of various groupings and orders so as to build the structures of the organism. These patterns of genes being switched on and off is so complex that man will likely never be able to decipher it.

If you want to believe in evolution because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of our creator, nobody can stop you. But doing so is to be a denialists of the discoveries of modern science - things which the outdated concept of Charles Darwin over 150 yrs ago could not have predicted. Believing in evolution today is as antiquated as it was to believe that flies arose from meat or frogs arose from mud a century prior to Darwin. Eugenie Scott, the popular militant defender of evolutionism has stated, "If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten."

Atheists in fact hate the Scientific Method and refuse to employ it. Example: 100 years of random genetic mutation experimentation provides consistent results demonstrating that random mutations are destructive and negative to organisms, both biochemically and anatomically, and does not add anything incrementally to the anatomy of organisms. Conclusion? Mutation cannot be a mechanism for accruing change that results in macroevolution. But what does the atheist conclude despite the evidence? They continue believing that random mutation IS a mechanism for accruing change that results in mind-bending complexity, microscopic interdependent machinery, and macroevolution, not because of science, but because their worldview requires it to be, since if evolution were true, random mutation would have to be the base mechanism for evolution, since genetic information defines organisms. In this way, they refuse to come to the correct conclusion because of their paradigm, tossing out the Scientific Method and the conclusion it would require them to accept.

Examples of how atheists refuse to comply with the Scientific Method are nearly countless, and found in all fields of science. I would say that based upon this fact, atheists are incapable of being objective, responsible scientists in any field of science which relates to the universe, organic life, or history.

Anthony Flew, once the word's foremost atheist academic who's former arguments are the posters upheld by atheists today, converted to a theist and creationist because of the biological evidence. See him discuss his conversion:




Tuesday, December 19, 2017

The Non-physical Properties of Genetic Information Have Verified Creation

It seems to have become fairly common these days for atheists to argue that some of the properties of genetic information are not real, and to pretend that scientists only label them as they do because it provides a convenient way to describe them. When you point out to an evolutionist that DNA is encoded information, they will argue it's not actually code, and not actually information. When you point out that there are algorithmic processes in genetic information, they argue that they are not real algorithms, but that it is simply convenient for us to describe them as algorithms for the purpose of describing them. When we point out that DNA is language, the evolutionist will argue that there is no actual language to genetic information, but that it is simply described as language because it makes it easy to discuss genetic processes. This is as rational as two people talking about an automobile standing in front of them and one of them saying, "It's not actually a car, we just describe it that way because it is convenient to do so."

It has been my experience that when debating, evolutionist will consistently make similar denials because they are aware of the implications. If DNA is in fact encoded information which possesses linguistics properties and algorithmic processes, the obvious inference is that it was designed by a mind, and that this mind is of unfathomable intelligence having abilities vastly superior to man's -- a designer of man and all organic life. This fact demonstrates that while atheists claim to appreciate science, and claim that science has verified evolution theory, they actually despise the inference provided by scientific discovery because it points us to a designer. This is why when I debate atheists about evolution and provide scientific sources for the fact that DNA is code, information, linguistics, and algorithms, the  atheist will claim DNA does not actually posses these properties, and that I am misrepresenting what is said in scientific sources. It is their way of denying what modern science has discovered for the purpose of denying creation.

The fact is, even secular, mainstream scientists describe DNA as encoded information that possesses linguistics properties and algorithmic processes. The conundrum for the evolutionist is that it is not possible to explain a naturalistic cause for information, linguistics, code, or algorithms. These are all products of intelligence. These is no potential in material processes to produce any of them.

Consider the fact that genetic information defines the structural form of proteins. Proteins are defined by the by the information in the DNA which specifies a chain of amino acids, which when produced by the machinery of the cell, results in a machine component of highly specific structure. A typical protein is 300 or more amino acids long, and some are tens of thousands.

The function of a protein is determined by its shape. The shape of a protein is determined by its primary structure (sequence of amino acids). The sequence of amino acids in a protein is determined by the sequence of nucleotides in the gene (DNA) encoding it. http://biology-pages.info/D/DenaturingProtein.html

There is nothing random about proteins. They are so highly specific that if a mutation replaces an amino acid with the wrong one, the result is almost always a protein which will not fold into it's intended form and will be of reduced functionality or completely nonfunctional.

Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability Nobuhiko Tokuriki, and Dan S Tawfik, September 2009

Abstract
The past several years have seen novel insights at the interface of protein biophysics and evolution. The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability--the ability of proteins to acquire changes in sequence and function. Mutations, and mutations that alter protein function (new-function mutations), in particular, are generally destabilizing, and can reduce protein and organismal fitness. The destabilizing effects of mutations comprise a major constraint for protein evolution, be it the accumulation of neutral, or adaptive variation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26823449_Stability_effects_of_mutations_and_protein_evolvability

Consider also that language is a property of genetic information. Language depends upon symbolism. If we have a plastic text character shaped like the letter "A", there is nothing we can do materially to cause the sound of the letter to come from this character. The shape of the character represents a sound. The sound is not a property of the text character - it is not a property of matter. This symbolism is part of genetic information as well, wherein codons represent amino acids for the production of proteins, entire genetic sequences represent proteins, and RNA sequences represent switches to regulate protein production. This symbolism is not a property of the DNA molecule, but rather the information with which it is encoded. Symbolism does not exist in material processes, and chemistry cannot produce it -- it is non-material. An intelligence is necessary to apply a meaning or purpose to an object. Since matter is not sentient, it cannot tell us, "I represent a sound!". Symbolic representation requires intelligence.

In this short chapter you will learn how modern molecular biologists manipulate DNA, the blueprint for all of life. The four letter alphabet (A, G, C, and T) that makes up DNA represents a language that when transcribed and translated leads to the myriad of proteins that make us who we are as a species and as individuals. - C. The Language of DNA:https://bio.libretexts.org/TextMaps/Map%3A_Biochemistry_Online_(Jakubowski)/04%3A_DNA_AND_THE_CENTRAL_DOGMA_OF_BIOLOGY/C._The_Language_of_DNA


The Linguistics of DNA: Words, Sentances, Grammar, Phonetics, and Symantics

There are reasons to believe that biological systems and processes cannot be fully accounted for in terms of the principles and laws of physics and chemistry alone, but they require in addition the principles of semiotics--the science of symbols and signs, including linguistics. For convenience, we may refer to the belief, common among contemporary molecular biologists, that the laws of physics and chemistry are necessary and sufficient to account for life as the PC (physics and chemistry) paradigm, while the alternative view that principles of semiotics are additionally absolutely required for a complete understanding of living systems and processes as the PCS (physics, chemistry, and semiotics) paradigm.

http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Linguistics-of-DNA.pdf


Algorithms are known to exist in DNA as well, even in immune system functions. Scientists discern them by writing algorithms and applying them to the genetic sequence of DNA to discover how the cell finds information in one location of the DNA that is interdependent with information in a different location. When the algorithms they have written works in finding the information, they have discovered how the cell is doing this trick. The process is algorithmic.
 
We present evidence supporting the idea that the DNA sequence in genes containing noncoding regions is correlated, and that the correlation is remarkably long range-indeed, base pairs thousands of base pairs distant are correlated. We do not find such a long-range correlation in the coding regions of the gene; we utilize this fact to build a Coding Sequence Finder algorithm, which uses statistical ideas to locate the coding regions of an unknown DNA sequence. We resolve the problem of the «non-stationarity» feature of the sequence of base pairs (that the relative concentration of purines and pyrimidines changes in different regions of the mosaic-like chain) by describing a new algorithm called Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA). - Statistical and linguistic features of noncoding DNA: A heterogeneous  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02462019

Modern biology has revealed things that evolutionists simply could not imagine in the days of Charles Darwin, or even the early 20th century. It has revealed that life is a product of creation because it's properties - complexity, irreducible complexity, interdependences, features of design in the form of nanotechnological machinery, information, linguistics, and algorithms. The properties of information alone have verified for us that not only is evolution false and creation is true, but that evolution is in fact scientifically impossible. The following information, provided by Dr. Werner Gitt, has made this most clear.

10 Laws of nature Regarding Information, which prove evolution false and prove creation is true:

1. Anything material, such as physical/chemical processes, cannot create something non-material
2. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter
3. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission
4. Information cannot arise from statistical processes
5. There can be no information without a code -- no thought or idea can be shared without a code
6. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient
7. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires intelligence
8. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender
9. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source
10. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all:
    a. technological systems
    b. works of art
    c. biological systems

Conclusions:
1. Since the DNA code of all life is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender
2. Since the density and complexity of the DNA encoded information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we conclude that the sender must be supremely intelligent
3. Since the sender must have
    a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules,
    b. constructed the molecular biomachines required for the encoding, decoding, and synthesizing process and,
    c. designed all the features for the original life forms,
We conclude the sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful.
4. Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, we conclude that the sender must have a non-material component
5. Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude man's nature must have a non-material component (spirit)
6. Since information is a non-material entity, we conclude that the assumption "the universe is comprised solely of mass and energy" is false.
7. Since:
    1) biological information originates only from an intelligent sender and,
    2) all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (without a sender), we conclude that all theories or concepts of biological evolution are false.

Anyone who disagrees with these laws and conclusions must falsify them by demonstrating the initial origin of information from purely material sources.

Therefore, the laws of nature about information have:  1. refuted the assumption of scientific materialism and the theories of chemical and biological evolution  2. all philosophies or theories based on the assumption of scientific materialism including chemical and biological evolution are falsified by the laws of nature about information

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Atheists should be kept away from science and academia in the same way a small child should be kept away from a box of matches.

Once upon a time, we all believed in creation. Then came the rise in secular humanism energized by the underactive and inadequate effort of Christians to defend the truth against false new ideas that were nothing more than replacements for one truth or another, as well as the outsourcing of academic and scientific control to those who are non-believers. Then no longer did we all believe in creation, but many fell into believing that philosophical ideas from the secular world scientifically verified because secular men of science said it was so. Today the tables are now turning, and there is a rise in the force of creationism and the Intelligent Design movement that has so greatly threatened the control over academia that secular men of science are resorting more than ever to harsh treatment of Darwinism doubters or disbelievers, that the preachers of evolutionism are now typically afraid to debate the subject of evolution and creation on college campuses for fear of being refuted in front of their own students and the media. Eugenie Scott has stated,

"If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten."

Evolution is disproved by millions of facts, such as the fact that polymerase is a product of it's own translation, which proves Special Creation. Atheists are obligated to explain how all things can exist if God does not exist. Their claim that God does not exist is in effect a statement that all that exists can come into being without God. The laws of nature about information have refuted the assumption of scientific materialism and the theories of chemical and biological evolution.

Over 100 yrs ago, Evolution Theory was plausible for naturalists because of their rejection of God. Biological science was rudimentary and archaic, and provided no information about the operations of the cell. Modern biology has very greatly changed what is known of genetics and biology. It has been discovered that life is based upon information which is digitally encoded and stored in a more compressed form than man's best computer compression schemes.

DNA possesses thousands of 3-dimensional information hierarchies directed to the cell. When the DNA molecule is supercoiled as chromatin, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when the molecule is uncoiled, and when it is not supercoiled, some of it's information is available to the cell which is not available when it is supercoiled. Genetic information when read by the cell's machinery in one direction produces different information than when it is read by the cell's machinery in the other direction. This feature of design alone is so far superior to man's computer software that it is not currently possible for us to conceive how this could have been done while making all of it's information relevant and critical to the organism. It's individual information sequences are overlapping and nested sharing nucleotides between sequences across the entire molecule. It's sequences across the entire 7 ft. long molecule are organized to conform to linguistics laws which go beyond Zipf's law of Linguistics. It contains codes built upon codes which regulate the use of each other, even when they are distant from each other in the molecule.

A recent discovery is that there is a code which lies upon codes for proteins, sharing it's base pairs, and regulates how to express those sequences for proteins. If we liken the mechanical functions of the protein machines of the cell as it interacts with DNA, then the operations mirror the human language properties of phonetics, semantics, syntax, and grammar, and punctuation. The information input and output processing of DNA includes the analytical operations of proofreading, information comparison, cut, insert, copy-and-past, backup and restore, all of which operate by algorithmic operations which possess "if" and "when" statements, just like computer programs. Information, algorithms, and linguistics are all immaterial nature has no potential to produce them. They are products only producible by a mind.

During an organism's development, the genetic information instructs the cell on how to turn on and off, like chemical light switches, many sequences of information of the DNA in a supremely complex and yet to be understood orchestral arrangement of various groupings and orders so as to build the structures of the organism. These patterns of genes being switched on and off is so complex that man will likely never be able to decipher it.

If you want to believe in evolution because you refuse to acknowledge the existence of our creator, nobody can stop you. But doing so is to be a denialists of the discoveries of modern science - things which the outdated concept of Charles Darwin over 150 yrs ago could not have predicted. Believing in evolution today is as antiquated as it was to believe that flies arose from meat or frogs arose from mud a century prior to Darwin.

Atheists in fact hate the Scientific Method and refuse to employ it. Example: 100 years of random genetic mutation experimentation provides consistent results demonstrating that random mutations are destructive and negative to organisms, both biochemically and anatomically, and does not add anything incrementally to the anatomy of organisms. Conclusion? Mutation cannot be a mechanism for accruing change that results in macroevolution. But what does the atheist conclude despite the evidence? They continue believing that random mutation IS a mechanism for accruing change that results in mind-bending complexity, microscopic interdependent machinery, and macroevolution, not because of science, but because their worldview requires it to be, since if evolution were true, random mutation would have to be the base mechanism for evolution, since genetic information defines organisms. In this way, they refuse to come to the correct conclusion because of their paradigm, tossing out the Scientific Method and the conclusion it would require them to accept.

Examples of how atheists refuse to comply with the Scientific Method are nearly countless, and found in all fields of science. I would say that based upon this fact, atheists are incapable of being objective, responsible scientists in any field of science which relates to the universe, organic life, or history.

The word's foremost atheist academic, who's former arguments are the poster upheld by atheists today, converted to theist and creationist because of the biological evidence:





Friday, August 11, 2017

The Bible: Inspired or Fabricated.

Only one of the two can be true!


It can be demonstrated that the Bible is inspired by discussing two of it's astonishing features which conclusively verify it's inspiration. The first is prophecies which have been fulfilled and the second is scientific foreknowledge. First, let's consider the most common objections to these evidences. The number of evidences at my disposal are tremendous -- about 2,000 prophecies in the Old Testament, of which Jesus Christ fulfilled 365 by himself. 465 characteristics of the messiah are given in the Old Testament, and Jesus had them all. In his talk, "Are these the Right Words", Dr. Dan Olinger has stated,

"Fulfilled prophecy is an objective demonstration that scripture has a supernatural source. ... These prophecies are so accurate that even unbelievers, even what we would call today liberal scholars, don't dispute that the prophecies are accurate. They have to hold to the fact that the prophecies were written after the fact, because that's how accurate they are, and they have no other evidence than simply that the accuracy of the prophecy exists, and that it couldn't have been done because supernatural things don't happen. By the way there are a number of terms you could apply to that way of thinking, but science is not one of them."

There are also quite a few examples of scientific foreknowledge in the Old Testament which man in ancient times could not have understood because the technology to discover them was not available for many centuries. We'll discuss that subject in more depth in another article.

When debating the inspiration of the Bible, atheist laypersons often resort to  a couple of hand-waving tactics in an attempt to dismiss the evidence forthright. The first of these is to appeal upon secular historical timelines, which are based upon the assumptions of a uniformitarian view of the evolution of human society shortly after the end of the Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago. The most common timelines atheists appeal to are the Sumerian Kings List, which states that Sumeri8an kings have ruled Mesopotamia for tens of thousands of years and therefore do not align with the atheist's uniformitarianism, and the Egyptian King's List, which has been demonstrated erroneous by Christian scholars. It is interesting to note that atheists seem to have no problem adjusting the Sumerian King's List by removing tens of thousands of years from it so that it conforms to their views, while they are unwilling to accept the evidence that the Egyptian King's List has a over 1,000 years of false time within it. With atheists, all things must be adjusted to fit the assumptions built into their paradigm of the uniformitarian history of man's cultural development.

Obviously, both of these secular timelines contradict the scriptures. The atheist's attempt is to show that the Bible is not historically correct so as to supposedly show that biblical events could not have happened, and therefore the Bible cannot be inspired, since if God existed, he would certainly know true history. Regarding prophecies, all that I must do to demonstrate that the Bible is in fact inspired is to show that passages from the Old Testament refer to events described in the New.

The second hand-waving tactic atheists employ when debating prophecies is one commuted almost exclusively by atheists laypersons, but not atheist academics. They often resort to falsely claiming that the prophecy does not say what it clearly does. They will even go so far as to say that certain words in the passages do not mean what they clearly do, all in an effort to dismiss the prophecy. This tactic is easily demonstrated to be false by simply providing the passages themselves, since their words stand on their own for any rational reader.

The before mentioned statement by Dr. Olinger's explains why atheist academics and scholars don't resort to the hand-waving tactic employed by atheist laypersons. This is because the passages stand on their own. It is only atheist laypersons which resort to saying that prophetic passages do not say what they do say, and their words do not mean what they do mean. The majority of atheist academics do not resorting to this tactic because it would reveal that they are not being intellectually honest.

Some atheists have actually resorted to claiming that the prophecies are fabricated, but this is easily shown to be completely illogical and astonishingly implausible for a number of reasons. Firstly, there would be no motivation for anyone in Israel, either layperson or one who is among the religious elite, to fabricate so many fulfilled prophecies. There would simply be nothing to gain from it, and it would only ostracize them from Israeli society and set themselves at odds with the occupying Roman leadership because it would create a rise in dissent. Any theory that the Romans would do this fails because the dissent it would create would not be beneficial. Dissent would disrupt the peaceful relationship which the Romans had with the Jews, which profited Rome financially. The Romans would not cut off the profits they reaped from taxing the Jews by creating havoc. A peaceful relationship with the Jews was what they sought and desperately needed in Israel. Likewise, the Jews needed a peaceful relationship with Rome in order to conduct their daily lives, which ruins any motivation on the behalf of an Israelite to fabricate so many prophecies.

In order to accomplish a fabrication of so many fulfilled prophecies, it would be necessary for the the New Testament writers to possess a copy of at all of the books of the Old Testament, with the exception of the Book of Ruth. This is implausible because it took about eight months for a scribe to carefully copy the texts. Anyone seeking to fabricate fulfilled prophecies would have to either pay a scribes salary for eight months to have them make the copy or they would have to devote eight months of their life to making it themselves. Only scribes would be allowed to handle the texts to make a copy. Therefore it is implausible that a tax collector, physician, or fishermen would be able to obtain a copy of the scriptures for their personal possession. One must ask also how many copies of the Old Testament scriptures they possessed. Did each one of them have their opwn copies to work from, or did they have one copy between them all and secretly meet eachnight after work to study it together and make their copious notes? One can only wonder at the miracle required for such as thing to be true.

In order to fabricate the New Testament, the forgers would have to be a leader of an early church or scribe of the temple. The fabricators would have to devote a tremendous portion of their life to studying the texts. They would have to become experts on the texts and make a great volume of personal notes so as to be able to fabricate stories that fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. It is completely unrealistic to believe that an Israeli layperson would have the time and resources to devote to such a daunting task. Perhaps a wealthy Israelite would have such resources, but to fabricate such lies would only create dissent among their peers, the religious leadership of Israel, the general public, and most importantly, the Roman occupiers, who were intolerant of those social troublemakers. The Romans lined the Appian Way with crucifictions to make clear their brutal intolerance of law-breakers and troublemakers. The message was clear: "You are entering Rome. Obey the law and be peaceful, else you will be like one of these." Fabricating the New Testament for the purpose of fulfilling prophecies would threaten the forger's wealth and well-being, which would be dependent upon peaceful relations with Jewish authorities and the Roman occupiers. One cannot even imagine a benefit of such an arduous, time-consuming, costly, and dangerous venture. How would they benefit from fabricating such tall tales? There simply isn't a plausible motive.

Because of these facts, we can see that the wealthy of Israel would have no motivation for fabricating so many prophecies, and the layperson would not have the resources to do so in their work-a-day lives. Therefore, it is simply utterly implausible that anyone could have fabricated the many fulfilled prophecies in scriptures. The best explanation is simply that the many fulfilled prophecies are inherent to the texts as they were provided by God's inspiration.

Moreover, the New Testament era Jews did not have a belief in a dying and rising messiah. To fabricate such a messiah would be impossible, since they would have to have also added to the Old Testament texts all of the allusions to Christ's death and resurrection, such as Isaiah 53, in order to make their New Testament fabrications work. But this cannot be true since scholarship verifies that the Old Testament was written before Christ over a period of many centuries dating back to approximately 1,450 B.C.

When it comes to the scientific foreknowledge in the scriptures, the only tactic an atheist is able to employ is to say that the words of the passages do not say what they are said to say, or that their words do not mean what they are said to mean - a tactic I have already explained is employed by atheist laypersons relating to prophecy. Once more, all that must be done to discredit this tactic is to provide the passage and a simple explanation of what they say so as to show that the argument against them is without merit.

From these facts we can see that no fabrication theory is plausible. The texts simply are what they are, and no work has been done to fabricate fulfilled prophecies or scientific foreknowledge. The passages are part of the inspired texts and nobody has fabricated them either before the fact or after it in order to create the impression of inspiration, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. These facts verify that the scriptures are in fact the inspired Word of God because they require unfathomable supernatural power over human actions and history from someone who exists outside of time.

Here I will provide evidence of inspiration for the scriptures from the Heptadic Structure of the genealogy of Jesus in the Book of Matthew. It is comprised of numerous layers of complexity, all relating to the number 7, which God uses throughout the Old and New Testaments in relation to Himself. These numerous layers make it clear that man could never have formulated the genealogy of Christ, even by employing the world's best code writers and a computer to assist them.  To fabricate this genealogy would require the writers of the entire Old Testament to work together in collusion for the purpose of fabricating this genealogy before the fact, each producing a portion of it towards the goal of creating the whole. This is completely irrational since the authors of the Old Testament books lived in different centuries and most of them could not have known one another, and because some of the persons in this genealogy are historically verified persons, and others are paramount to the events in the books of the Old Testament. Any collusion theory for the fabrication of this genealogy before the fact is therefore irrational and utterly implausible, and any theory that it was produced after the fact by New Testament authors would be disproved by their inability of them to have produced the Old Testament.

In the genealogy of Jesus Christ in the Book of Matthew,

The number of words which are nouns is 56, or 7 x 8.
The Greek word "the" occurs 56 times, or 7 x 8.
The number of different forms in which the article "the" occurs is 7.
There are two main sections in the passages: verse 1-11 and 12-17. In the first main section, the number of Greek vocabulary words used is 49, or 7 x 7.
Of these 49 words, the number of them beginning with a vowel is 28, or 7 x 4.
The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7 x 3.
The total number of letters in these 49 words is exactly 266, or 7 x 38-exactly.
The numbers of vowels among these 266 letters is 140, or 7 x 20.
The number of consonants is 126, or 7 x 18-exactly.
Of these 49 words, the number of words which occur more than once is 35, or 7 x 5.
The number of words occurring only once is 14, or 7 x 2.
The number of words which occur in only one form is exactly 42, or 7 x 6.
The number of words appearing in more than one form is also 7.
The number of 49 Greek vocabulary words which are nouns is 42, or 7 x 6.
The number of words which are not nouns is 7.
Of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or 7 x 5.
These 35 nouns are used 63 times, or 7 x 9.
The number of male names is 28, or 7 x 4.
These male names occur 56 times or 7 x 8.
The number which are not male names is 7.
Three women are mentioned -- Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. The number of Greek letters in these three names is 14, or 7 x 2.
The number of compound nouns is 7.
The number of Greek letters in these 7 nouns is 49, or 7 x 7.
Only one city is named in this passage, Babylon, which in Greek contains exactly 7 letters.
The 72 vocabulary words add up to a grammatical value of 42,364, or 7 x 6,052.
The 72 words appear in 90 forms-some appear in more than one form. The numeric value of the 90 forms is 54,075, or 7 x 7,725. Exactly.

The genealogy of Jesus in the Book of Matthew is astonishing verification that God inspired the texts because he has power over the actions of human beings and historical events. Human engineering cannot account for it. It requires someone of supernatural authority over people, events, and time.

Friday, July 21, 2017

The Heavy Hammer of Information


The discovery that all biological systems are information driven has refuted evolution theory. The features and biochemical functions of organisms are defined by prescriptive genetic information. Information is produced by intelligence. Without intelligence being involved in the formation of genetic information, the theory of evolution cannot be correct. In like manner, the fact that humans employ their non-physical intelligence to create information refutes atheism because it provides evidence that we are not merely a complex collection of matter which results in an automaton.

Information is a non-physical entity which is meaningful and purposeful, yet physical processes produce physical products. If we strike a billiard ball in the direction of another, the first ball will strike the second producing a physical product - the movement of the second ball. It is illogical however, to belived that physical processes produce non-physical products or to attribute mental properties to matter. The fact that human intelligence produces information demonstrates that a human is more than just a material automaton, but are also non-physical causal agents. The fact that information is non-physical provides astonishing evidence of what a Christian would call "spirit" so that we are able to create non-physical entities such as information, algorithms, linguistics, aboutness, intentionality, etc. When humans beings produce information, it cannot be that the material processes do so because information is non-physical. These facts clearly discredit the physical materialism, naturalism, and evolutionism of atheism.

When atheists do their apologetics, they consistently borrow concepts from the theist in order to attempt to make atheism seem to be supported by our reality. Atheists often try to remodel reality by re-defining words and concepts so as to remove the inference of the supernatural. I have debated many atheists on subjects relating to information, and it has been my experience that atheists consistently operate the same way when dealing with the evidence that information provides inference of the existence of the human spirit. For the atheist, humans cannot have a spirit since they hold to physical materialism and claim we are merely soulless bags of matter. Atheists understand that if humans have a spirit, then we have reason to believe God exists since our spirits did not create themselves, but were created by a higher spirit - God. This is unacceptable to the atheist, and so they must attempt to remove the evidence of the non-physical cause for the creation of information since atheists are stuck with believing is produced by physical processes. An example of how atheists do this is that when discussing the cause of information, atheists will typically attempt to merge information with it's medium in order to claim information is not no-physical. They understand that if information is non-physical, that it is not comprised of matter, that these must be a non-physical component to a human being which is producing it since it is illogical to believe that physical processes produce non-physical products. The refutation for the atheist is that it is demonstrable that information is not bound to it's medium and therefore not comprised of matter.

The root of the word 'information' is inform for a reason. If there is no informing, no information can be created. Although we colloquially use the word 'information' to describe knowledge that has been recorded upon a medium, such as the genes of our DNA, this technically is not information until and unless it is transcribed by the cell to become useful. The designer of our genetic information must speak and understand the same language as the cell in order for the information to be useful, purposeful, and to be conveyed. Technically, the knowledge recorded in a book with text symbols is not information until the book is read. The designer of the information in the book encodes the book in a language intended for readers who also understand their language, in order for the knowledge of the book to be conveyed. While humans deign information encoded in books, we are not the designers of the information in our genome. Nonetheless, we are justified in saying that the words recorded in a book are information because the purpose of the book, just like the purpose of genetic information, is to be read and used for a purpose, and it was recorded in it's medium for that purpose.

The root word of "information" is the word "inform". The suffix "-ation" indicates an action, process, state, condition, or result. To cause information to come into existence, there must be an action, process, state, condition, or result which causes one party to inform another. There must be the action of informing, or the state of the conveying of information taking place, or the condition of having been been informed, or the result must be that one party has been informed by another.

Knowledge does not adequately define information because knowledge can be squired by observation without any means of informing. The sun is not a causal agent with intelligence and cannot inform anyone of knowledge, since matter does not posesses knowledge. In order for information to exist, knowledge must be conveyed.

In order to attempt to make a case that information is physical, atheists attempt to merge components of information so as to remove the non-physical nature of information. Before explaining this, we need to have a good understanding of what information is. The best definition of information has been provided by Dr. Gitt Werner,  President and Professor of the German Federal Institute of Information Technology. He defines it as follows:

"Information is knowledge conveyed from a sender to a receiver using a language agreed upon by both parties."

We can test this, as well as the atheist claim that information is physical, by examining how information is created. An example might be that one star-gazer observes a star and learns that it is distinctly blue in color. As yet, no information has been produced. This gazer has simply gained knowledge that the star is blue. But now the gazer turns to his friend, and pointing to the star, he informs his friend that the star is blue. Information has now been created. The gazer has conveyed knowledge from himself (the sender of the knowledge) to his friend (the receiver of the knowledge) and he did so using a language spoken by both. If one of them spoke and understood only Portuguese and the other only French, the language barrier would prevent the transmission of knowledge, and no information would be created. The sender might as well be babbling incoherently. Using a language both agree upon, the knowledge can be conveyed and the receiver can become informed.

Explaining this further, let's imagine that someone enters an empty room and says, "Dogs.". In this case, there has been no information created, since nobody has been informed of anything. If there were two people present and one said to the other, "Dogs." there is still no information. Information is meaningful and purposeful. Simply saying the word "dogs" conveys no knowledge because of the absence of context, such as a prior question or assertion to which the word "dogs" can provide meaning or purpose. If one person is in an empty room says, "Dogs are animals." there has still been no information produced, because while the statement is meaningful, nobody has been informed of anything. If two people are present and one of them speaks and understands only Yiddish and the other only Italian, and one says to the other, "Dogs are animals.", no information has been produced because a language barrier has prevented the transmission of knowledge, and nobody has become informed of anything. However, if both speak and understand the same language, the knowledge that dogs are animals can be conveyed from the sender to the reciever, and information can be created.

In their attempt to reduce information to matter, atheists try to merge information with it's medium by pointing out that information does not exist unless it is conveyed through a physical medium. We live in a physical world, and nothing happens here, outside of our concious mental processes, without something physical taking place - matter will be moved and energy will be expended. It is understandable therefore that in order to convey information in a physical world we must use a physical medium, unless we were able to communicate strictly by mental processes with another person. If knowledge is to leave our body to go to another person, it is necessary that information be conveyed through a physical medium. However, while information does require a physical medium to be conveyed, the information is not it's medium because information is not bound to it's medium. We can demonstrate this with another example

Let's imagine that a university professor is giving a talk. If the atheist's ideas were correct, then since atheists claim the brain is the seat of human sentience and producer of information, and since they claim information is comprised of matter, the professor would have to share his brain matter with every member of the audience in order to convey information. But does brain matter leave the professor by some mystical superhighway and enter into and become part of the brain of everyone in the audience? Certainly not. It this were true, and if we could physically measure information, we should see a continuous reduction in brain size and intelligence of persons who do a lot of talking on their jobs or lecture regularly, ultimately resulting in that person becoming an imbicil.

Another example is that the knowledge recorded in a book is demonstrably not any part of the book itself since the book can be read aloud, printed from an electronic file onto paper by a computer, or copied by hand. In all cases the information is conveyed to the receiver, but not one atom of matter need be moved from the book to the receiver because the information is not the matter which comprises the book.

Inevitably, secular scientists cannot avoid the implications of the fact that biology is information technology. By itself, this fact has driven much controversy in that the secular scientists have a hard time dealing with the implications this makes for their naturalistic theory of evolution. Many science papers have been published which explore the information properties of genetics. For example, in 2009, the paper "The digital code of DNA." was published in the journal of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, which states in it's abstract,

"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalyzing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information--the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behavior of the genes."

The ever-increasing understanding that biology is information-driven technology is in my opinion the single greatest factor in the downfall of evolution theory. It is inevitable that in order to fully face the this reality, it will become continuously more difficult for proponents of evolution theory to argue that evolution explains the existence and diversity of biological systems. The complete demise of evolutionism is inevitable because of this alone, though because of the stalwart determinism and disdain for Intelligent Design Theory, proponents of evolutionism will only give it up by the process of their death. As one generation of evolutionists yields another, fewer and fewer will be able to promote or even believe in evolution. In the end, evolutionism will dissapear from academia as generations of students who have been able to see and hear the evidence of design in biology find themselves unable to believe that matter in motion is the explanation for their existence.

"Since the 1950s, the concept of information has acquired a strikingly prominent role in many parts of biology." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

When will the end come for evolutionism? It is difficult to say, but i suspect, as some scientists do, that evolutionism will not survive another century because of the continuous discoveries in microbiology. Perhaps it will come to an end in 50 years, perhaps 100. Nonetheless, it will end. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the world's academics will come to believe that God has created us. I fear that though they will be proponents of Intelligent Design, they will, because of the rebellious nature of the human heart, not be willing to accept that God has made us because of His moral law and authority, but will instead continue to replace God with some other intelligence. Instead of God as our creator, they will be willing to accept another creator, but only so long as that creator's morality is not that of God, which is a frightening, but all-to-likely scenario of how it will play out.

“It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction, but also the embodiment of life’s mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins. So it is disappointing, but not surprising, that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself.” John Maddox, “The Genetic Code by Numbers,” Nature, Vol. 367, 13 January 1994, p. 111.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

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